Why do atheist try to convert Christians

its not that aethists try to convert christians

What moral justification do atheists have to do the right thing ? If it feels good do it ? If it is hard then keep looking for the easy option ?

My intention was to show that embarrassment was not required if they were either Buddhist or not and if one was Buddhist or not in any combination. I may or may not have succeeded in this.

To answer your point: I do feel that when someone e.g. a Buddhist acts in a way that is not Buddhist then for that period of time they are not Buddhist e.g. if a pacifist becomes temporarily violent then for as long as that lasts he is not a pacifist. If he renounces violence he can return to legitimately calling himself a pacifist once more.

Not all Scotsmen enjoy haggis but all Buddhists meditate. It is a defining characteristic of being a Buddhist.

Taking the Triple Gem is generally considered to make one officially a Buddhist . Thus, in many Buddhist communities, a Pali chant, the Vandana Ti-sarana is often recited by both monks and lay people. It means the following:

Buddham saranam gacchāmi
I go for refuge in the Buddha
Dhammam saranam gacchāmi
I go for refuge in the Dharma
Sangham saranam gacchāmi
I go for refuge in the Sangha
The Japanese / Chinese version means something only slightly different:

I take refuge in the Buddha, wishing for all sentient beings to understand the great way and make the greatest vow.
I take refuge in the Dharma, wishing for all sentient beings to deeply delve into the Sutra Pitaka, gaining an ocean of knowledge.
I take refuge in the Sangha, wishing all sentient beings to lead the congregation in harmony, entirely without obstruction.
In both cases the central concepts are Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. The meaning given to those terms does differ though, depending on the precise lineage. The Pali version stands for Theravada Buddhism, where the Japanese/Chinese version exemplifies Mahayana Buddhism.

So you need a fear of some imagine god to make you do the moral thing

Sounds a lot like the "No True Scotsman" fallacy:

Quote:

Alice: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
Bob: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
Alice: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

When the statement "all A are B" is qualified like this to exclude those A which are not B, this is a form of begging the question; the conclusion is assumed by the definition of "true A".

So I replied saying I was talking about the emotion of ‘embarrassment’ and not the point you’d brought up (above):

igm wrote:

My intention was to show that embarrassment was not required if they were either Buddhist or not and if one was Buddhist or not in any combination. I may or may not have succeeded in this.

You replied:

FBM wrote:

Hard to say. I'm still trying to untangle your explanation.

This is why I said:

igm wrote:

I may or may not have succeeded in this.

I then said:

igm wrote:

To answer your point: I do feel that when someone e.g. a Buddhist acts in a way that is not Buddhist then for that period of time they are not Buddhist e.g. if a pacifist becomes temporarily violent then for as long as that lasts he is not a pacifist. If he renounces violence he can return to legitimately calling himself a pacifist once more.

You replied:

FBM wrote:

You're free to play with the labels in any way you choose. No worries there. But don't be surprised when the people you're labelling have a different system.

My point is you can’t have a violent pacifist but you can have a Scotsman that doesn’t like haggis. Also (taking onboard what you have said in your reply, I’ll reword it but it makes the same point), to reword my reply: Buddhists take Refuge and promise not to deliberately harm other sentient beings. At the time when they are deliberately harming sentient beings they are not technically Buddhist. Once they stop then they need to truly regret their non-Buddhist actions and take Refuge again. They are then once more Buddhists. It is not a defining characteristic of a Scotsman to like haggis but it is a defining characteristic for a Buddhist to take Refuge. If they go against their precepts then they are not Buddhist but can take Refuge again if they truly regret their previous non-Buddhist actions.

I found the information on Buddhism you posted interesting and informative but not really about the point I was trying to make. The reason is, meditation is a characteristic of Buddhism but may not be a defining characteristic and as you point out Refuge is a defining characteristic that can’t be argued with. I hope this makes my position somewhat clearer.

What is the right thing under evolution ? Every dog for himself and every bitch ******* on the street corner to breed the widest variety of puppies .

So I replied saying I was talking about the emotion of ‘embarrassment’ and not the point you’d brought up (above):

My point is you can’t have a violent pacifist but you can have a Scotsman that doesn’t like haggis.

Also (taking onboard what you have said in your reply, I’ll reword it but it makes the same point), to reword my reply: Buddhists take Refuge and promise not to deliberately harm other sentient beings. At the time when they are deliberately harming sentient beings they are not technically Buddhist.

Once they stop then they need to truly regret their non-Buddhist actions and take Refuge again. They are then once more Buddhists. It is not a defining characteristic of a Scotsman to like haggis but it is a defining characteristic for a Buddhist to take Refuge. If they go against their precepts then they are not Buddhist but can take Refuge again if they truly regret their previous non-Buddhist actions.

I found the information on Buddhism you posted interesting and informative but not really about the point I was trying to make. The reason is, meditation is a characteristic of Buddhism but may not be a defining characteristic and as you point out Refuge is a defining characteristic that can’t be argued with. I hope this makes my position somewhat clearer.

1...Parajika 1 of 4 --Rules entailing expulsion from the Sangha (Defeat)



1. Should any bhikkhu -- participating in the training and livelihood of the bhikkhus, without having renounced the training, without having declared his weakness -- engage in the sexual act, even with a female animal, he is defeated and no longer in communion.



2...Parajika 2 of 4 --Rules entailing expulsion from the Sangha (Defeat)



2. Should any bhikkhu, in the manner of stealing, take what is not given from an inhabited area or from the wilderness -- just as when, in the taking of what is not given, kings arresting the criminal would flog, imprison, or banish him, saying, "You are a robber, you are a fool, you are benighted, you are a thief" -- a bhikkhu in the same way taking what is not given is defeated and no longer in communion.



3...Parajika 3 of 4 --Rules entailing expulsion from the Sangha (Defeat)



3. Should any bhikkhu intentionally deprive a human being of life, or search for an assassin for him, or praise the advantages of death, or incite him to die (thus): "My good man, what use is this wretched, miserable life to you? Death would be better for you than life," or with such an idea in mind, such a purpose in mind, should in various ways praise the advantages of death or incite him to die, he also is defeated and no longer in communion.



4...Parajika 4 of 4 --Rules entailing expulsion from the Sangha (Defeat)



4. Should any bhikkhu, without direct knowledge, boast of a superior human state, a truly noble knowledge and vision as present in himself, saying, "Thus do I know; thus do I see," such that regardless of whether or not he is cross-examined on a later occasion, he -- being remorseful and desirous of purification -- might say, "Friends, not knowing, I said I know; not seeing, I said I see -- vainly, falsely, idly," unless it was from over-estimation, he also is defeated and no longer in communion.

igm wrote:

So I replied saying I was talking about the emotion of ‘embarrassment’ and not the point you’d brought up (above):

My point was that your point was based on the fallacy. You have yet to rectify that.

igm wrote:

My point is you can’t have a violent pacifist but you can have a Scotsman that doesn’t like haggis.

You can have a pacifist who commits a violent act in the heat of the moment, or some such, and the person is no less committed to pacifism.

You can have a Scotsman loyal to his nationality, yet who doesn't like haggis. If you insist that a pacifist never commit a violent act, that is, if you demand that s/he act always 100% in accordance to the ideal, then you'll never find a "true" anything. This is just adolescent black-or-white thinking. It's sloppy and lazy. There are innumerable shades between, but you want quick-and-easy categories so that you don't have to exert the effort to develop discernment. Reasoning, however, requires discernment, which requires discipline, which requires effort. If you're not interested in putting forth the effort, don't expect satisfactory results.

we are both pack animals and our evolution is to place the pack welfare about ours

we are both pack animals