Critical thinking on the existence of God

That is one of the more plausible claims which they teach. Nevertheless, it ignores the power of self-delusion, the power people have to convince themselves of permanence, and to decry change. Dickens has a wonderful description of this attitude in the second paragraph of A Tale of Two Cities:

There were a king with a large jaw and a queen with a plain face, on the throne of England; there were a king with a large jaw and a queen with a fair face, on the throne of France. In both countries it was clearer than crystal to the lords of the State preserves of loaves and fishes, that things in general were settled for ever.

I think everyone needs to acknowledge that there is *something* out there with power over him that he needs to cultivate, and merge with. Speakin for my own damn self, its

WIMMINZ!

My (limited) understanding is that it is directly addressing what you describe. Once you accept that all conditioned things are impermanent, it's obvious that immortality (an immortal soul) is a delusion, and that clinging to things and expecting or wanting them to never change (delusion) contributes to dukkha. One thing that puzzles me is that so many people want to claim that Buddhism is non-dogmatic. Horse hockey. It has dogma.

From everything I've seen and know about Buddha is a hard-partying dude with a beer gut with a genial, ****-eatin smile on his face which tells you that he's liquored-up 24/7. Ya know, the kinda guy ya wouldn't mind hangin around with from time to time.

McGrath explained something that strikes me often in these discussions. He said something like:

'Many atheists are like men trying to get over old lovers. They can't stop talking about them.'

Oh yeah, when i parted with my Buddhist "teacher" he was just livid because i'd given him a piece of mind on the subject of superstition and dogma among Buddhists. I've told you before, i believe, that he was a Kagyu Buddhist. Their stories about Jetsun Milarepa are just hilarious--and hilariously improbable.

Only online, in my case. This never comes up in real life.

Sadly, the same is almost true for me.

I don't think that's anything to be sad about, at least it isn't for me. If i did not come online in the mornings, i'd never discuss religion, and could turn the god botherers away at the door. No problem.

For Tibetan Lamaism to call itself Buddhism is like Kraft claiming to make real cheese. I have a book, Buddhism and Science (Lopez) that relates the story of how a group of US grad students were planning to confront the Dalai Lama on the authenticity of the Mahayana literature, seeing as how the claim to its legitimacy requires gods and a magical land of nagas. The author mentioned this to the Dalai Lama before the meeting, and, "he immediately asked whether they had supernormal powers, suggesting that only someone who had a clairvoyant knowledge of the past could know how the Mahayana began." (p. 193)

I'm trying to figure out a way to distinguish this qualitatively from theists' claims about their god, but I'm drawing a blank.

Don't bet me started on the Dalai Lama . . . the parasitic son of a bitch.

I read Dalai Lama's "My Spiritual Journey" about a year ago expecting to learn something about him and Buddhism. There was virtually nothing about either in it, nor any spiritual journey, mostly a political diatribe on China and Tibet. Very disappointing.

Why is that, because you deem it so?

Yes, fella - Obvious it is, to gullible - I accept cliches as fact, drones.

Just so you know - Buddha's extensive appearance is a symbol of his intellect, not how often he visited macdonalds - You uneducated ignoramous.

Naw, Mark, that aint why. I don't have to "deem" nuthin. It's immediately and intuitively obvious to even the most casual and low-IQ observer, eh? Which, apparently, exludes you, eh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budai

Well, i won't let my blood pressure rise, but that is one of my big resentments against the so-called government in exile of Tibet. The Tibetans have hated the Han, and the Han have despised the Tibetans for a thousand years or more. That's not likely to change. But before the Chinese invasion in 1950, the rule of the monasteries made European feudalism of a thousand years ago look positively enlightened. A peasant felt himself lucky if he could get his son in a monastery because then boy would eat all his life, something he could not be certain of if he stayed at home. It is estimated that before the Chinese invasion, the peasants of Tibet were supporting some 60,000 monks (high end estimates run to 80,000 to 90,000).

At the time of the Chinese invasion, in 1950, there were no paved roads in Tibet, there were no railroads, there was no airport, there were no clinics and no hospitals, no water treatment plants or sewer systems and no public schools. Under Chinese rule, all of these have been provided, if not immediately after 1950. The Dalai Lama was in Tibet until 1959, after which he went into exile. The so-called government in exile is allegedly "freely elected." Oh? By whom? The members of the parliament were "elected" by other Tibetan exiles, most of whom are monks. Those who stand for election come from a short list provided by the Dalai Lama. Beginning in 1960, the CIA provided the Dalai Lama an annual income as the head of a government in exile. According to Wikipedia, that was one million seven hundred thousand US dollars at that time. The last year for which i have seen reliable data, 2007, was the year that he received more than 22,000,000 dollars in donations, some private, some from governemnts which wish to destabalize the Chinese rule. This joker lives in the lap of luxury, in four star hotels, flying first class with his so-called government in exile. I'll bet it does require tens of millions of dollars for that cadre of parasites to live in that style. They made a big deal a few years ago because he gave 900,000 pounds sterling to charity (not a significant fraction of twenty million dollars). However, most of that money went to a foundation to teach science to Tibetan monks and a foundation to study compassion. It was claimed (and disputed) that a million dollars went to feed hungry people in India. Given the population of India, that works out to a fraction of a penny per person. I just personally consider him to be one of history's most successful flim-flam artists. Does he give off an aura of peace and benevolence? Sure--i would too if i got millions of dollars per annum in donations and lived in four star hotels.

End of rant--that was the short version.

Interesting. I thought something in his book didn't smell right but didn't know enough background to know what it was.

Ever see a TV evangelist who didn't have big hair, a big diamond ring, and a big-ass Caddy parked out front, Leddy? I thinks it's obvious, aint it? If god favors you, then you will live in luxury. He will tell people to send you money. Best way to prove you're holy is to get filthy rich, see? All the more holier if you can do it by glorifying god with your words.