Reactions

Paintballer:

 

On Topic ... !!!

What's so hard about that, Dejavu, et.al. ... ?

Why do you constantly insist on taking the topic of this thread OffTopic? It's as if you hijacked it for some other agenda than what "was" being discussed.

Please ...

Keep it OnTopic!

 

That is incorrect. There are many geniuses that I do not fully apprehend but I have the full and utmost repect for them.

When I said it cancells out, I meant it in an arithmatic sense; in the equation 2x+1=5y+1 the "+1" can be cancelled out because it is constant to both sides; I meant it is negligible and irrelevant. The fact that everyone chooses to speak cannot be used in an argument regarding bias because it's standard in any case. If all people breathe, you can't use it against one person and not the other because all people do it, it's a constant. It's clear you didn't understand me so I'll disregard the subsequent nonsense.

Strictly, it is defined as a choice, especially one that is made without proper judgement. It's strict implication is strictly limited to meaning a preference without sound judgement. If you don't understand the difference that's a personal problem.

Wrong once again. Just because there is not evidence of one's existance, it does not acknowledge it's non-existance without equally credible evidence validating it's claim. Without proof believing there is no God increases plausibility, but does not lessen the faith required to believe something that has not been proven.

Please stop side-stepping the issues and trying to manipulate my words, that's not what I said at all. What I said was that a higher pressure that exerts the necessary force to drive the universe and its constituents to a more complex state. Humans would not have evolved without the pressure of natural selection, it would be logical for a pressure of sort relative to the universe.

I did not once refer to God as 'him'. I refer to God as God, as proper grammar entails. How can you make a claim that nature is not God when you have said you do not know God? Although, that's not what I meant by any means.

You're sidestepping the issue. Something cannot come from nothing, which is what I was stating. Besides, even Albert Einstein was unsure whether the universe was infinite.

Well thank you captain obvious. Never did I make such a claim; it would be rather unwise to try and disprove claims nobody has presented rather than to defend your own.

 

I apologize for helping the thread drift from its original intent; I just saw some erroneous posting and felt obliged to counter.

Back on topic, how do others react when I tell them of my religion? Unless they ask I don't tell them to begin with; I feel no need to impose my beliefs upon those uninterested. If they do ask and I tell, I get mixed reactions. It often relates me to 'terrorists', most noticeably from Christians, conservatives, whites (didn't I even need to differentiate those three?), and the likes of which whom seem close minded and, for lack of a better term, less intelligent. Those whom appear more liberal and, in most cases, more intellectual, often are inquisitive to any differences between my lifestyle and overall philosophy and that of what is cosidered the 'standard' for society.

 

my mom burned my brother a cd with all christian music on it even though hes not christian, and when i told her he would probly like the cd but wouldnt listen to it, she goes on about how im an atheist (and im not) and im a negative person

 

Shocked ...

Why?

I'm a Buddhist Monk, yet I don't practice Buddhism, with the intention to practice it as a religion.

Buddhism is more appropriately about Impermanance, Suffering, and Non-Self (Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta).

I think the worst reaction I received was from a fellow monk who said that I embarrased and humiliated him because I made that "stance" public, in front of an attentive group of folk.

I think I said something along the lines of, "That's okay. It's your feelings, not mine."

I believe that most of the Southeast Asians who practice as lay people understand this position, though. Others, too realize that since they support us, we need to support them also, even if that means in a religious manor.

The chanting is not a magical formula, just plain ole reciting teachings in the Pali language. What formulas there are, are meant for the individual to say and this is meant to calm their minds and has no effect on the hearer.

HTML:

 

Darrell

Please continue to believe and act as you do.
[and occam will reciprocate ]
Occam may not be 'a buddhist'.
But of all 'paths' buddhism comes closest to, THE path.

"That's okay. It's your feelings, not mine." [quote you]
Is the most pertinent bit of wisdom this one has heard on this board for some time.
The reason the great mass of humanity is so easily manipulated is because
it spends more time worrying about what others think*. than thinking*.
A reducing cycle that leads to idiocy.
We pass this on to our children. And thus 'big brother' is actually watched
by human beings, and having an ipod is a social status not to be ignored.
We have failed them.

Occam

* translate in this case... emote/feel/vocalise

 

This thread gives a very clear indication of their reaction.

That is not the issue. I am not suggesting the universe comes from nothing, but from itself. If you pretend the universe is finite, you have to also pretend it then exists within something, ie. another universe, and so on ad finitum.

I can make a claim that nature is not god, because nature is nature. You say god is the drive to create, but it isn't, the drive to create is the drive to create. You don't know god, so what you may believe is of no consequence. lol



Occam:

And what is that?

 

Deja vu
"Quote:
Originally Posted by Smelly Socks:
When you tell other people of you stance on religion, what is their reaction?
This thread gives a very clear indication of their reaction.


Quote:

Dejavu: Life may not create itself, at least not to begin with, but regarding the universe, the infinite,--isn't it possible that something so mysterious, and unexplainable ...creates itself? Perhaps we can agree on this.

Paintballer: How can something create itself when itself is not there to create in the first place? If I am a bacteria reproducing, I can make more of myself indeed. But first I require myself so I can reciprocate in the first place. Quantum fluctuations set aside, matter does not appear from nothing, something must have put it here.

Dejavu: In an infinity, beginnings and endings make no difference. It would seem you conceive the universe as finite.

Paintballer: You're sidestepping the issue. Something cannot come from nothing, which is what I was stating. Besides, even Albert Einstein was unsure whether the universe was infinite.
That is not the issue. I am not suggesting the universe comes from nothing, but from itself. If you pretend the universe is finite, you have to also pretend it then exists within something, ie. another universe, and so on ad finitum.

Quote:
I refer to God as God, as proper grammar entails. How can you make a claim that nature is not God when you have said you do not know God? Although, that's not what I meant by any means.
I can make a claim that nature is not god, because nature is nature. You say god is the drive to create, but it isn't, the drive to create is the drive to create. You don't know god, so what you may believe is of no consequence. lol



Occam: Quote:
But of all 'paths' buddhism comes closest to, THE path.
And what is that?"
My most common reaction is to be told I am wrong, whether by an atheist, or theist. Buddhists and those practicing traditional spirituality, such as Native Americans, are the exception. They generally echo my view that no one need be wrong, and that it doesn't matter what religion, just that we be kind to each other is all that matters.
Darrell Kitchen once sent me a warning after complaints were made about one of my posts on this topic... and I must thank him for it. It was the best warning I have gotten anywhere from anyone, and that is saying something, and I have saved it for that reason. Deja vu says he cannot believe until he knows... but once one knows they no longer believe, for they have moved past belief into something more firmly held. I have read many of the points and arguments that are meant to prove religion is evil, illogical, inferior, and just plain wrong, and concluded that his view is usually no different a stance than the one being derided. If we are all unique, our lives only known to each of us, then wouldn't our beliefs be unique? Who is able to say what I should find true, or what is right for me to believe? I say none but me. We are all okay, as smelly socks posted early on, and no one need be wrong just because they are different. It is not my place to say that Deja vu's views are just plain wrong, though they are not at all for me, since his often mentioned and self-assured idea that spirituality and theism are views that are certainly inferior to his own, is an idea I can't see ever agreeing with. My views are no more or less valid than anyone's, and if they were, it still is not for me to say so, since I am not living the other person's life, and therefore I certainly can't and don't know what they should believe. Finally, I agree Occam, Buddhism is a very close match to my own views, or my 'the path'. The only spirituality closer to my heart is traditional spirituality, the elder religion, before organized religion. It holds that all is sacred, and we are but one piece of the whole, no better than any other piece.

 

Come on, Dejavu. You don't really want to know! You don't really care why Occam said that ... Now do you? And if you say yes, then I'd have to say that lying doesn't become anyone ... you included ...

Don't tell me this is just another ploy of yours to take the thread off topic [again] ...

Please try to stay on topic if you do reply ...

[OffTopic]: You still haven't started a thread of your own yet ... what's up with that? You just want to go into other peoples threads and badger the posters or something? A troll does that ... And we all know what happens to trolls ...

 

No, I don't believe in THE path, or THE way. But why should you think I don't care if others do? I do happen to care about people, the religious included!

 

I believe you Deja Vu, and I care too. But, I do not feel that my views are superior to other, different views. It is my impression that you feel some views are inferior, at least I think that you have twice written that was your position. If you feel superior to others because you cannot see how they can believe what they do, that, to me, is caring with condescencion. It is like the missionary who pities the poor misguided native and his crazy religious beliefs, while at the same time trying to sincerely improve the person's lot in life. Caring for others is a must, and you and I agree on that one. But, where we seem to part views is when it comes to the subject of whether or not spiritual beliefs, including atheism, are all valid, or whether some are better than others. Usually people say that their faith is the best, not surprisingly. Buddhism says the things I find most closely echo my views, so I like it more than most. It is my view that only you know, 'the path', for you.

 

Blackguard:

Both those times I wrote that they are inferior for me.

Feeling beyond a certain belief comes from understanding it, not ignorance of it. I understand that belief in god is a kind of ignorance as well as a will to it.

The difference being I do not make a show of pity, which counters self-improvement.

And so, 'the path' does not exist. Not for me or for anyone else. Our paths have it so. Though who is to say that one path is not higher than another? Those who rather take a path than make one. But love demands we seek ourselves out, our better selves, and if it turns out we find them best by a boast, well then,--- let the best boast float!
lol

 

From your on mouth ...

You presume too much, Deja, to be speaking for "anyone" else ...

You can-not no the mynd of "everyone", onlee Urs. Because you do not perceive with the eyes, ears, nose, mouth, body, and mind of "anyone" else, only yours.

Arrow-gance does not become anyone, you included ...

Actually you do "make a show" of pity, by your condescendence ...

HTML:

 

But what then is 'THE path'? Whenever anyone describes it it is only ever their own. It has no inherent existence. You didn't even attempt to answer me when I asked!

Is it possible you are purposefully misconstruing my arrow-glance as arrow-gance!? Are you capable of doing so? lol

There is less condescension in my teasing and mockery than in your moralistic tone old man.

 

Inferior for you is not what I thought you wrote, and the actual point you did make is much more agreeable with my own point of view. The word chosen to express your point would likely be of interest to Freudian psychologists, though admittedly I find their theories are most often quite different than my own. It is true that many belief systems are 'inferior for me', as well, though I had not thought of it in those terms. In others' views, my beliefs are inferior for them, but I cannot say any one is better than another. Maybe they do have a hierarchy relative to each other, but I doubt I could imagine which would rate where on that list. My own views are likely near the bottom, though, considering how unpopular they are with near every other group. It means nothing to me, anyway. As for your last points, I agree with you overall, though I don't think boasting, unless clearly in self-deprecating jest, will ever be the best path for me. Boasting, from my observation, usually denotes insecurity and or fear.

 

Dejavu

That is good.
Why is it good? because that is the path.
You say you care about people. The religious included.
Thus you walk the same path.

CARING IS THE PATH.

Occam

----------------------------------
And why is religion not the path?
Because it says.. HELL IS
[and occam states all that believe HELL IS, are lied to,
there can be no hell]
Jesus knew the path, he defined it for us.
Jesus COULD NOT say all who dont accept me as your saviour
will burn forever. He was a good man.

This is a self evidant truth

The 'faithfull' are beguiled by the slippery tallents of the human
offal called 'the speakers for god'

Those that took HIS NAME. and made an indusrty of it.

The users, and sometimes the evil. Those that DO NOT CARE.
Ask torquemada