Buddhism is the best religion... if you had to pick one.

were you there?

was moses (who per se wrote torah; genesis)?

ie... you are quoting what has no meaning/foundation

i like experiments too

that dont mean there was ever a 'nothing' and god was sitting around creating stuff to be, from a nothing

if there was a nothing, then where did god come from?

exactly.

You can create from NO thing.

Mankind can does but nothing else can.

accretion is a scientific term used to describe how the earth 'evolved' from the ............. dust of space, but still within existence (the universe)

causality and the basic common sense of 'conservation' should assist you and anyone wanting to at least build some 'common sense'

finally, something with depth.

nature formed man

mankind created words

mankind could not understand so of mind, god (in the sense of a dude on the thrown) was/is mankinds creation!

attaboy.............. you finally contributed!

but men, created the story you are quoting.

and it BE

if nature is god, then the spirit is light (electromagnetic)

the dude on a thrown didnt create anything, mankind created that image

and you apparently bought it.

light was here before man and that means, mass was here and time had to exist; the three are of nature (existence itself) which in reality is your creator (god itself; mother nature)

just because people think god made mother nature does not mean it is true, because the fact is, mother nature is what 'enabled' mankind .... to be!

 

Why do buddhists have to leave America, a secular nation with protections for all religions?

 

Yes to both of those questions (in a manner of speaking). We are all part of that 'creation'. On the other side of that coin, comprehending that you are speaking of the 'formation' and not the 'creation', then the answer would be no. My physical body was not there at that time, but I was there and so were you and everybody else.... (in that spiritual creation in the mind of God).

Are you emphatically and knowingly stating that God was not sitting around creating stuff to be, from nothing?

You just answered your own question. God is "no thing" : God is spirit. God is not of this 'natural' world and is not obligated by the physical laws of this 'natural' world. God was, is and always be self-sustaining.

Well, I see you finally got the point. God, being "No thing" but rather 'spirit', every thing that man forms from his creative thought, comes from 'NO thing'.

You are now moving away from the question that you posted and are attempting to divert this portion of the discussion onto yet another subject. Please stay focused and centered on one subject matter at a time. At any rate, giving some honor to your comment: "dust from space" would have to have form, and would have to be in motion in order for this so-called evolution process to be initiated.... now do you see where your comment is a distraction from your question pertaining to a time when there was no 'motion'?

Once again: "Common" in conjunction with but separated from "sense" does not equal "commonsense". Check it out in the dictionary. Surprise yourself.

Where is your documented proof, such as a manufacturers certificate of authenticity?

man 'formed' words, but as to the creation..... are you absolutely certain? Where is the proof that man created the words that are used and have been used throughout history? Keep in mind the definition of 'create' ...

Could you please clarify that statement above. It seems to be grammatically incorrect. "mankind could not understand so of mind,....."

You keep making the same error of confusing 'create' and 'form'. Please look in the dictionary at those terms.

Unfortunately for you, that use of the biggest little word "if", throws all of your argument out the window, because it shows self doubt in what you have stated... In other words, you are uncertain when you have to lean on an "if".

Can you prove that God is merely "mother nature"? Please provide that proof. In other words, point to something and show where that something is recognized world wide by all available people(s) as "God".

It also does not obligate those thoughts to be false. Prove your claim. Show me 'mother nature'. Where does she reside, where did she come from, what are all of her attributes, etc.?

BTW: most everything I post regarding the Bible has 'depth', but if you use a shallow mind, then that depth is not comprehensible and you perceive shallowness. Perception is within your own mind.

 

Depends on which atheist you ask.

And? The OP wasn't talking about perfection.

So again: is there ANY RELIGION that atheists have actually studied?[/quote] And again, it depends on which atheist you ask. There are some atheists who are as ignorant as some theists, and there are some atheists who are as well studied as some theists.

I haven't read every post, who in here has said that Buddhism is the only "true" religion?

Wisdom or knowledge? You've used both, and I think the definition would need to be specified.

 

I think all religious people should get their crap out of here, but I also believe in freedom of expression and freedom of religion, so I suppose I don't desire a dictatorship the way you do.

 

That's kind of like saying the menu doesn't have any words on it; anything that tells people things to do, ways to live, etc, is giving "answers," or at least its version of answers.

Buddhism promotes self improvement lol, that's what the Eightfold Path is, and in it's own way, even the 4 Noble Truths.

What big questions does christianity answer?

 

Many other books that are considered "holy" claim their deity set all things in motion.

Many other books that are considered "holy" claim to have answers about where we came from.

Many other books that are considered "holy" claim to give us reasons why we're here.

What does any of that have to do with self improvement or being a good religion? Those are just things it says.

 

...or her, or them, or it, or us, or ...

 

Indeed, anyone can put pen to paper and claim "answers."

Many have.

 

So how does that work in terms of spirituality?

In regard to a religion that defines that purpose and insight through .... suffering.

Personally, as a graduate of Ranger Schools, two months of torture and endurance will give a very good look at your character. However, there is also a point where suffering simply ..... breaks people.

I am sur ethe precious few who can suffer enough to acheive Nirvana are appreciateive of the journey, but the broken wrecks of humanity that cannot ....

 

So, the creation of the universe, rather than the teachings of Jesus, is what is central to Christianity?

Most Christians, knowing this, accept bot evolution and the Big Bang .... you know the prevaililng scientific theories.

Why is it that atheists absolutely refuse to acnowledge this? Or pretend that the message of Jesus was, "Heh, morons, lets screw with evolution today!!!!"

Dogma like that statement?

Faith, hope, love, compassion, tolerance, equality, grace, widsom.

Phbt! Dogma.

All of which involves a great deal of suffering. And it doesn't end suffering, suffering is one those four truths, just accept it, the suffering is the journey to insight and wisdom.

I am wondering why your cursory examination of TWO religions is inaccurate?

 

Correct. In many ways it's not a religion at all as it focuses inwards meaning there is no God worship going on, but people call it a religion as they know no better.

It is certainly the one faith that tends to practice what it preaches.

 

Why must it answer questions others ask? And how do you know it doesn't provide all the answers needed if you are no a practicing Buddhist. These statements from you would be called assumptions, guesses really as you don't actually know.

On the other hand the other religions raise more questions and doubts than almost anything else. Sad. Sad that they call it religion and claim peace and love for each of them, which is a blatant lie. Buddhism does provide that.

 

I find it to be the most selfish religion. Give up all cares in the world, not just wants for possessions, but give up love for wife, children, give up caring about other people and vegetate on not living. Concentrate on nothing give up everything and then you'll reach Nirvana. Do it good enough and you'll open the door to para-Nirvana. You have to give up on life, ignore all wants and desire, not give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about anyone but yourself in order to reach their version of heaven.

Meanwhile the normal folks feed, house, and clothe you so you don't have to do it for yourself as their means to get closer to the perfection they believe you, as a monk, have acquired.

 

I think I just shot milk out of my nose .....

Oh, so, lets get this straight. Atheism is in a perfect position to criticize religion, though they are not practicing Christians and are routinely confronted for deliberately misrepresenting the faith. However, the Christians CORRECTLY criticizing Buddhism focus on suffering to achieve Nirvana are incapable of properly understanding the concept .... which ONLY the practitioners of the faith would answer.

Atheists CAN SAY - Christianity doesn't have the answers.

Christians CANNOT SAY - Buddhism does not have the answers.



So, basically atheism is two things here:

1. complete sophistry - judging ONE religion by one standard and another by a different standard.

2. it likes Buddhism merely because it can us it as a weapon against Christianity.

 

So what?

I can't speak for others but I think it's fair to say, the reasons most atheists have a dislike for religion don't apply to buddhism. For example, buddhism doesn't talk about the goodness of killing babies and children, it doesn't depict a deity who allows rape to go unpunished, it doesn't make ignorance a virtue, the way bible-based religions do.

 

but it does promote selfishness and self-centeredness.

 

How so?

...

 

Not harming others is not the same thing as helping others. As the zen koan proposes; "If you meet the Buddha, kill him." Buddhism is kind of a selfish religion; though in a passive way, not a malicious way.

 

Mkay.

 

I already did.
Life is suffering.
To reach Para-Nirvana you need to remove all wants and desires that make you want to live. That mean you must not care about anyone else but yourself. You must concentrate on yourself and your own being and ignore all else. You meditate slowly striping yourself from all the cares of the world and if you accomplish it you reach Nirvana. If you accomplish it and cease to exist at the same time you've reached Para-Nirvana.

A dedicated monk barely even takes time out of meditation to eat. All he needs is given to him by supporters too chicken to go all the way yet and instead achieve good karma by doing what is necessary to allow the monk to remain a leach without wants and needs thus helping him achieve his Para-Nirvana.

The more you care about others the more suffering you feel so you get rid of caring for others as a means of removing suffering.

A very selfish and self-centered religion.

 

The desire to promote yourself is also a desire to be removed; note that a desire for enlightenment is also a problematic desire.

Keep in mind that different varieties of buddhism have varying outlooks on social activism. Western variants tend to view reaching out to others and helping them directly as a positive thing, and encourage social activism. There's justifications for that sort of activity in buddhism as well.

 

We agree on this

Encountering Buddhism has without a doubt been one of the most positive things to happen in my life.

I've been into Buddhism for about six years. For about three years I studied and meditated on a regular basis and would occasionaly attend the Sangha.

I'm not able to call myself a Buddhist though, I'd be a hypocrite. I can't really live by the 'five precepts'. There are other things as well, like not giving a flying (*)(*)(*)(*) about Nirvana.

This is what I truely love about Budhism:

The Four Noble Truths
The Eight Fold Path
The teachings of Impermanence, Emptiness, Interdependence, and Karma.
Mindfulness
The Dhammapada (I leave the dryer text for teachers)

 

I didn't know one needed religion to do good things. Example: I do good things for others because I feel it's a good thing to do, not because buddhism says so.

Instruction for understanding the nature of ones self isn't the same as telling people what charity to do.

 

huh, you must've hit reply to the wrong post, try again.