Atheist vs believer research

@izzythepush,

igm wrote:

You’re getting Buddhism and ‘angry people’ mixed up. Buddhism is not at fault in your example but ‘anger’ is.

izzythepush wrote:

You could just as easily say Christianity/Islam/Hinduism is not at fault but 'anger' is.

I would say that... if their teachings were only teaching... loving kindness, compassion and how to put an end to anger and unhappiness. Are they?

izzythepush wrote:

Personally I wouldn't blame anger, but intolerance, and a conviction that your way of thinking/lifestyle is the correct one.

Anger leads to intolerance and pride to a conviction that your way is the correct one. Buddhism teaches that we should put an end to anger and pride and all the other negative emotions. Not because we are forced to but because we will be happier and more content if we do. That is what the Buddha taught.

0 Replies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aung_San_Suu_Kyi

Political beginnings

Coincident with Aung San Suu Kyi's return to Burma in 1988, the long-time military leader of Burma and head of the ruling party, General Ne Win, stepped down. Mass demonstrations for democracy followed that event on 8 August 1988 (8–8–88, a day seen as auspicious), which were violently suppressed in what came to be known as the 8888 Uprising. On 26 August 1988, she addressed half a million people at a mass rally in front of the Shwedagon Pagoda in the capital, calling for a democratic government.[25] However in September, a new military junta took power.

Influenced[39] by both Mahatma Gandhi's philosophy of non-violence[40][41] and more specifically by Buddhist concepts,[42] Aung San Suu Kyi entered politics to work for democratisation, helped found the National League for Democracy on 27 September 1988,[43] but was put under house arrest on 20 July 1989. Offered freedom if she left the country, she refused.

One of her most famous speeches was Freedom From Fear, which began: "It is not power that corrupts, but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it."
She also believes fear spurs many world leaders to lose sight of their purpose. "Government leaders are amazing", she once said. "So often it seems they are the last to know what the people want."[44]

1 Reply

@igm,

So what, you've decided to take one person as the epitome of Buddhism, that doesn't make those who committed atrocities any less Buddhist. You could do the same thing with any religion.

If you continue to claim 'special case status' for Buddhism you're in danger of sounding every bit as fanatical as those extremists in other religions you despise so much.

Some Buddhists commit atrocities, fact. You can spin that fact however much you want, but it's still a fact.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

So what, you've decided to take one person as the epitome of Buddhism, that doesn't make those who committed atrocities any less Buddhist. You could do the same thing with any religion.

If you continue to claim 'special case status' for Buddhism you're in danger of sounding every bit as fanatical as those extremists in other religions you despise so much.

Some Buddhists commit atrocities, fact. You can spin that fact however much you want, but it's still a fact.

You brought Burma up not me. Those angry people are not Buddhist but angry people and the junta probably had a hand in it. But you are deaf to what I am saying. I hope you can reread what I've said and rebalance your view of Buddhism. The Burmese person I have highlighted is a world renowned ‘peace-maker’ and Buddhist... fact.

If saying that the Buddha said we should try to give up being angry and develop loving kindness and compassion for all sounds ‘fanatical’ to you then I’d say you have another ‘hidden agenda’ in your posts.

1 Reply

@igm,

I brought it up because you falsely claimed Buddhism produced no fantatics. I gave you an example of Buddhist fantaticism, every bit as distateful as Christian or Islamic fanaticism. Just because Burma/Myanmar is a dictatorship doesn't give those Buddhists a free pass, or you could claim similar leniency for the perpetrators of 9/11.

IGM wrote:

Buddha said we should try to give up being angry and develop loving kindness and compassion for all sounds ‘fanatical’ to you

Does 'Love Thy Neighbour As Thyself' sound fanatical to you?

What is fanatical isn't what Buddha said, but the way Buddhists behaved in Burma/Myanmar.

As for a hidden agenda, you're the one excusing Buddhist fanaticism as not being Buddhist, but the same time condemning fanaticism by other religious groups as being symptomatic of that religion.

Personally I don't see any difference between the Buddhist murderers in Myanmar, the Moslems who flew into the twin tower, or the Christians who gun down doctors who perform abortions. You're the one trying to make a distinction.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

the same time condemning fanaticism by other religious groups as being symptomatic of that religion.

This is untrue and you know it Sad

... more evidence of what looks like a 'hidden agenda'.

Let me make myself clear... any religious person who acts out of anger and harms another, if their religion prohibits it, is no longer a member of that religion they are lapsed, and until they regret their actions which are against their religion they will remain and were at the time not a religious person of that religion. It suits some people to label those who commit crimes with ‘black’ or ‘unemployed’ or ‘whatever’ but the reason for the crime was the inability to control their negative emotions, no matter what race, color, creed or religion they happen to profess or others profess they have on their behalf.

The Buddha taught that we should learn to control them (negative emotions) because they make us and others unhappy; if we ignore this then we are not following the teachings and are therefore not Buddhist. We are not what for example the media ‘label us’ to be.

Why do I think that you are not open to reason on this subject? I hope I am wrong.

1 Reply

If a Buddhist teacher (teaching in accord with the Buddha’s teachings) told someone not to steal and then that person stole some bread and the media headline was 'Buddhist Thief Steals Bread' does that make that person a 'Buddhist Thief' or just a 'Thief'? That person is just a thief who could not follow the teachings of the Buddha. This is the point I’m trying to make. You could remove the word Buddhist teacher and just say any religion you like and the same thing applies if that religion prohibits stealing.

0 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

Set, I stand by my reply to Max above and only by that reply; everything I said last year or in previous years is superseded by that reply. So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth and to believe that there is, can be extremely problematic. At least, that is how I now understand it. I don’t speak for other Buddhists; I am only speaking about my personal understanding of the Buddha’s teachings.

Do you have any idea of how the Buddha KNOWS this...or do you suppose the Buddha was just guessing?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

We are already way off topic with these posts, so create a new topic about this and I'll post some of my thoughts on this subject as I hope will others… if you'd like to of course.

1 Reply

That's a lame dodge. The author has never returned to defend his thesis, nor to respond to information which has been provided. It is in the nature of internet discussions that they go off-topic. How very much more appropriate when the thread died aborning.

0 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5244013)
We are already way off topic with these posts, so create a new topic about this and I'll post some of my thoughts on this subject as I hope will others… if you'd like to of course.

igm...as Setanta just pointed out, it is in the nature of Internet discussions that threads go off topic. And to be honest with you, since this is asking a question about one of your responses to the topic (which apparently was “on topic”), I fail to see that it is truly "off topic."

So, respectfully as possible, I ask again: Since you are asserting that the Buddha taught there is no (absolute truth)…do you have any idea of how the Buddha KNOWS this…or do you suppose the Buddha was just guessing?

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Let me make myself clear... any religious person who acts out of anger and harms another, if their religion prohibits it, is no longer a member of that religion they are lapsed, and until they regret their actions which are against their religion they will remain and were at the time not a religious person of that religion.

So in that case, the terrorists who flew into the twin towers weren't proper Moslems, and the guy who shot a doctor in his own church for carrying out late term abortions wasn't a proper Christian?

Well at least you're being even handed now. Whether or not you're right comes down to semantics.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Do I believe the attempt to tell you would help you in any way? I'm yet to be convinced from your past posts. If you can convince me then I'd try but I believe it would be a waste of time... both mine and yours... I have of course spotted your recurring argument... you know your agnostic argument.

If you really want my response to your question, PM me. I wish you all the best Frank but my gut says you're not really interested in what I have to say only your replies.

2 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5244029)
Do I believe the attempt to tell you would help you in any way? I'm yet to be convinced from your past posts. If you can convince me then I'd try but I believe it would be a waste of time... both mine and yours... I have of course spotted your recurring argument... you know your agnostic argument.

If you really want my response to your question, PM me. I wish you all the best Frank but my gut says you're not really interested in what I have to say only your replies.

I am not looking to you for "help." I am looking for an answer to my question...which goes to the essence of your assertions posted here.

I'm not going to PM you. If you want to reply (and I suspect you truly do not want to) you would not have to do it in another thread or in a PM.

It is okay to duck a question, igm...just as it is okay to call attention to the fact that a question is being ducked.

The assertion "There is no Ultimate Reality" is, in my opinion, an absurdity in and of itself. It is self-defeating, because if there truly is no Ultimate Reality...that would be the Ultimate Reality.

So let me restate my question:

Since you are asserting that the Buddha taught there is no (absolute truth)…do you have any idea of how the Buddha KNOWS this…or do you suppose the Buddha was just guessing?

1 Reply

@igm,

As you can see your "gut" it exactly right.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

So let me restate my question:

Since you are asserting that the Buddha taught there is no (absolute truth)…do you have any idea of how the Buddha KNOWS this…or do you suppose the Buddha was just guessing?

I actually said this:

The goal of Buddhism is to understand that there is no such thing as conceptual ‘absolute truth’,

Sorry Frank but you'll need to restate your question again the word in bold is important and has led you to misquote me and come to the wrong conclusion.

Could I explain to you in a post what this means… come on Frank… you really don’t know anything about Buddhist philosophy do you. It would take years probably… that’s why loving kindness and compassion is taught and the wisdom aspect is introduced gradually to those who have time to study it.

Again, my gut tells me you just want to show how your agnostic argument will work when you replace some of the words for other words.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5244094)
Frank Apisa wrote:

So let me restate my question:

Since you are asserting that the Buddha taught there is no (absolute truth)…do you have any idea of how the Buddha KNOWS this…or do you suppose the Buddha was just guessing?

I actually said this:

The goal of Buddhism is to understand that there is no such thing as conceptual ‘absolute truth’,

Actually, igm, you said: “Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth…”

But let’s not quibble about what you want to quote about what you said and what I am quoting about what you said.

I will restate my question:

Since you are asserting that the Buddha taught there is no (conceptual absolute truth)…do you have any idea of how the Buddha KNOWS this…or do you suppose the Buddha was just guessing?

Quote:

Again, my gut tells me you just want to show how your agnostic argument will work when you replace some of the words for other words.

Actually, I suspect the agnostic argument works great even without replacing any words. But we are not working on the agnostic argument at all here. We are working on a question I asked about something you wrote.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I will restate my question:

Since you are asserting that the Buddha taught there is no (conceptual absolute truth)…do you have any idea of how the Buddha KNOWS this…or do you suppose the Buddha was just guessing?

I agree with the Buddha, having examined phenomena, that there is no ‘conceptual absolute truth’. The only truth we have is our conventional day-to-day language. If we examine if these concepts are ultimately true they are found not to be but only relative to (dependent on) other concepts.

Both science and western philosophy have not found any concepts which convey the absolute or ultimate truth. Every time we examine a concept it falls apart under scrutiny. The building blocks of a concept are the words that make up that concept. Each individual word has no independent meaning it relies on other words for its definition. If the building blocks are meaningless on their own then the collection of words are meaningless and so too the concepts that they represent but the illusion of meaning is created by their interdependence. Ultimately all concepts are meaningless but conventionally they are useful in our ordinary lives therefore there is no ‘conceptual absolute truth’ and the Buddha new this and I also have full confidence that this is correct.

Did this help probably not but I’m not trying to convince you of anything except I’ve found that loving kindness and compassion make for a happier life.

I’ve given you my reply; if my gut has been correct all along then let’s leave it there. If not please continue but if you are going to repeat the same things again and again then just re-read my reply above. I've done my best in one post I'm not going to improve on that but I know that the Buddha knows because I to some degree know also.

If you don't understand a word I've said or don't wish to understand then fair enough.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Quote:
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

I will restate my question:

Since you are asserting that the Buddha taught there is no (conceptual absolute truth)…do you have any idea of how the Buddha KNOWS this…or do you suppose the Buddha was just guessing?

I agree with the Buddha, having examined phenomena, that there is no ‘conceptual absolute truth’. The only truth we have is our conventional day-to-day language. If we examine if these concepts are ultimately true they are found not to be but only relative to (dependent on) other concepts.

Both science and western philosophy have not found any concepts which convey the absolute or ultimate truth. Every time we examine a concept it falls apart under scrutiny. The building blocks of a concept are the words that make up that concept. Each individual word has no independent meaning it relies on other words for its definition. If the building blocks are meaningless on their own then the collection of words are meaningless and so too the concepts that they represent but the illusion of meaning is created by their interdependence. Ultimately all concepts are meaningless but conventionally they are useful in our ordinary lives therefore there is no ‘conceptual absolute truth’ and the Buddha new this and I also have full confidence that this is correct.

Did this help probably not but I’m not trying to convince you of anything except I’ve found that loving kindness and compassion make for a happier life.

I’ve given you my reply; if my gut has been correct all along then let’s leave it there. If not please continue but if you are going to repeat the same things again and again then just re-read my reply above. I've done my best in one post I'm not going to improve on that but I know that the Buddha knows because I to some degree know also.

If you don't understand a word I've said or don't wish to understand then fair enough.

My, my...you certainly are testy on this, igm. I'm not sure the Buddha would approve.

But anyway...essentially you are saying that both you and the Buddha KNOW that there is no "conceptual absolute truth."

Of course, if that is correct...the fact that there is no conceptual absolute truth...WOULD BE THE CONCEPTUAL ABSOLUTE TRUTH...and also would be the absolute truth.

I'm sorry the Buddha is not here for me to question, but you are...so:

Can you truly not see the contradictory nature of all that?

For the record, I cannot see how anyone can logically assert that there is "no absolute truth" or "no conceptual absolute truth"...because if it were so, it would negate the truth of the assertion.

But, like a Christian, you have got to live with some of the absurdities of your...philosophy, if not religion.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Your conclusion does not follow from my post but that's probably not the point of your post is it? I did say it would take you probably years to even understand the full import of what the Buddha taught on wisdom and I could not hope to convey it in a single post. You as usual have rushed to the wrong conclusion.

Let's not waste any more of our time. You can maintain that you are correct and then there's no harm done to your ego.

Also, I'm perfectly happy thanks for your concern.

If my style of debate seem 'testy' to you then I apologise I was just being direct and open with a Frank Apisa I know only too well... it saves time Smile

1 Reply

Atheist vs believer research

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know