Why do/don't you believe in ? ?
Options
Comments
-
@maestro_lungs.....
Again you can only speak for your own knowledge level not mine......
Actually, This is what you said....maestro_lungs wrote: »Now Please Point out The Differences in Races other than the Color of our skins!maestro_lungs wrote: »I Oppose you Trying to Link what is Called Social Darwinism With The Theory of Evolution.
The link that you claim is "non-existent" is proven wrong in the Maafa 21 video and the book that I posted......
Believe what you must. However don't try to oppose my argument and then claim that "books" and research are not a proper means of rebuttal.....
You sound stupid ? .....
Asking You to Point out Differences is Me Asking You, Not asking You to go Find a Book & Call that Evidence!
I Said I Oppose You Linking Evolution & Darwinism, Cause It's Not Your Idea. It's Something You Read From somebody & Trying to Pass it off as Fact!
Books & Research are a Proper Means of Rebuttal, But Not The Only Means. Not To Launch a Ad Homin Attack, But Who The ? is This Guy? I'm watch the Video Later I Guess, But Who is He & Why is His View Even Credible to You? -
@maestro_lungs....
That's kind of how historians get down......
A question is asked and we typically cite some sort of documents, preferably primary.....
Although we also use physical evidence associated with anthropology....
I have no clue who the "guy" in the video is or why he should be seen as "credible"......
I assume that he is merely a co-host presenting the research of historians, and scientists....
Please come back or visit the Eugenics thread after you have constructed some sort of argument......*****My son***** -
waterproof wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »maestro_lungs wrote: »To My Understanding, Buddhism is not about either believing or not believing in ? or gods. Rather, the historical Buddha taught that believing in gods was not useful for those seeking to realize enlightenment. In other words, ? is unnecessary in Buddhism. For this reason, Buddhism is more accurately called nontheistic than atheistic . The Buddha also plainly said that he was not a ? , but "awakened.
Exactly. At least he tried
Buddha in his writings spoke on gods and meetings gods, if you was a student like u claimed u would of known this like I said when I get to my computer we going to blow this out the water
the gods you speak of are not supreme creator gods. They are devas, beings with higher powers than humans, but can be referred to as "gods" in the sense that their power can be vastly superior to ours. However, they are not eternal spirits. Me, personally, I believe they were aliens (aliens are described in other ancient cultures as well. The Hermetic philosophy says also that there exists beings greater than mankind) but Buddhism explains that they are born and die like humans and are not all powerful. The Buddha educated them and they were students of the Buddha. I know all of that, playboy, you ain't saying nothin new.
The Buddha said there is no such thing as a creator ? and even the idea of such would conflict with his teaching of Anatta and the law of cause and effect. In Buddhism, the universe (or better word would be metaverse imo) is eternal, a constant state of expanding and contracting (big bang, big crunch) so it is an eternal chain of cause and effect.
The Buddha's teachings are an oral tradition, written down by monks who remembered his words. Since its inception, there have been additions (Zen Buddhism/Chinese Buddhism for example, which includes ideas from other religions, philosophies, and spiritualities) and misunderstandings. You have to read the suttas to get a clearer understanding of the underlying message (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipitaka) What is required of a Buddhist is the understanding of the Four Noble Truths, The Eightfold Path; Anatta, Impermenence, The Five Aggregates, Karma, and to a lesser degree Rebirth, etc. etc... all teachings the schools agree on and are certain that the Buddha actually taught. The Dalai Lama is an atheist and will tell you up front there is no creator ? . Buddhism does not require that you believe in a ? anyway so I dont know where you're attempting to go with this.. -
maestro_lungs wrote: »
I'm Quite Sure They'd Disagree
you would be right. Don't waste your time on ? . When backed into a corner, he just repeats himself, calls you names, and flags all of your posts
-
LOL....
@Jaded Righteousness....Jaded Righteousness wrote: »You asked for evidence of animals in transitional stages between classes and not only did I show you the tiktaalik fossil but being an overachiever, I mentioned the mudskipper which is between fish and amphibians, and the platypus which has features of different classes.@Gold_Certificate
A wise analogy to compare this to how ? trying to disprove Evolution will be nice.
Actually the thread was structured for anti-creationists to "speak your clout".......
So, these ? is trying to prove evolution.....
Take a stab at the DNA evidence rather than pseudo scientific terminology surrounding the duck-billed platypus.....
"the mystery of the origin of the information needed to build the first living organism"
Until such a first life exists Darwinian evolution cannot commence.
Repeating questions or statements that you continue to run from ? overachiever......
-
See what I mean, Maestro. Even though I answered his question in the hermetics thread and embarrassed him, he acts like he didn't see it. Now he just follows me around like a scorned woman, LOL'ing and flagging my posts and cosigning anyone who disagrees with me on any matter.
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »waterproof wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »maestro_lungs wrote: »To My Understanding, Buddhism is not about either believing or not believing in ? or gods. Rather, the historical Buddha taught that believing in gods was not useful for those seeking to realize enlightenment. In other words, ? is unnecessary in Buddhism. For this reason, Buddhism is more accurately called nontheistic than atheistic . The Buddha also plainly said that he was not a ? , but "awakened.
Exactly. At least he tried
Buddha in his writings spoke on gods and meetings gods, if you was a student like u claimed u would of known this like I said when I get to my computer we going to blow this out the water
the gods you speak of are not supreme creator gods. They are devas, beings with higher powers than humans, but can be referred to as "gods" in the sense that their power can be vastly superior to ours. However, they are not eternal spirits. Me, personally, I believe they were aliens (aliens are described in other ancient cultures as well. The Hermetic philosophy says also that there exists beings greater than mankind) but Buddhism explains that they are born and die like humans and are not all powerful. The Buddha educated them and they were students of the Buddha. I know all of that, playboy, you ain't saying nothin new.
The Buddha said there is no such thing as a creator ? and even the idea of such would conflict with his teaching of Anatta and the law of cause and effect. In Buddhism, the universe (or better word would be metaverse imo) is eternal, a constant state of expanding and contracting (big bang, big crunch) so it is an eternal chain of cause and effect.
The Buddha's teachings are an oral tradition, written down by monks who remembered his words. Since its inception, there have been additions (Zen Buddhism/Chinese Buddhism for example, which includes ideas from other religions, philosophies, and spiritualities) What is required of a Buddhist is the understanding of the Four Noble Truths, The Eightfold Path; Anatta, Impermenence, The Five Aggregates, Karma, and to a lesser degree Rebirth, etc. etc... all teachings the schools agree on and are certain that the Buddha actually taught. The Dalai Lama is an atheist and will tell you up front there is no creator ? .
Man cut the ? out, deva are gods and in buddha writing he said using psychic powers he confronted the brahma gods, there is 3 realms where they go, and they don't die they reincarnate.
ye are elohim but ye will die like men -
waterproof wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »waterproof wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »maestro_lungs wrote: »To My Understanding, Buddhism is not about either believing or not believing in ? or gods. Rather, the historical Buddha taught that believing in gods was not useful for those seeking to realize enlightenment. In other words, ? is unnecessary in Buddhism. For this reason, Buddhism is more accurately called nontheistic than atheistic . The Buddha also plainly said that he was not a ? , but "awakened.
Exactly. At least he tried
Buddha in his writings spoke on gods and meetings gods, if you was a student like u claimed u would of known this like I said when I get to my computer we going to blow this out the water
the gods you speak of are not supreme creator gods. They are devas, beings with higher powers than humans, but can be referred to as "gods" in the sense that their power can be vastly superior to ours. However, they are not eternal spirits. Me, personally, I believe they were aliens (aliens are described in other ancient cultures as well. The Hermetic philosophy says also that there exists beings greater than mankind) but Buddhism explains that they are born and die like humans and are not all powerful. The Buddha educated them and they were students of the Buddha. I know all of that, playboy, you ain't saying nothin new.
The Buddha said there is no such thing as a creator ? and even the idea of such would conflict with his teaching of Anatta and the law of cause and effect. In Buddhism, the universe (or better word would be metaverse imo) is eternal, a constant state of expanding and contracting (big bang, big crunch) so it is an eternal chain of cause and effect.
The Buddha's teachings are an oral tradition, written down by monks who remembered his words. Since its inception, there have been additions (Zen Buddhism/Chinese Buddhism for example, which includes ideas from other religions, philosophies, and spiritualities) What is required of a Buddhist is the understanding of the Four Noble Truths, The Eightfold Path; Anatta, Impermenence, The Five Aggregates, Karma, and to a lesser degree Rebirth, etc. etc... all teachings the schools agree on and are certain that the Buddha actually taught. The Dalai Lama is an atheist and will tell you up front there is no creator ? .
Man cut the ? out, deva are gods and in buddha writing he said using psychic powers he confronted the brahma gods, there is 3 realms where they go, and they don't die they reincarnate.
ye are elohim but ye will die like men
Yeah in Buddhism all beings reincarnate and humans have the possibility of being born in the realm of samsara so where are you going?? Devas are gods but not the same sense as Christian or Abrahamic religions "? ". They are born and die, suffer and follow the path just like humans. They are referred to as gods because of their abilities. Brahmas are the name for them, but again, Buddhism and Hinduism are not the same in their idea of Brahma. Brahma means highest. Brahma as a term has various meanings in Indian tradition. Brahma, Brahmins, Brahmas, Brahmans all have different meanings.
I'm cutting the ? out by explaining this to you so hopefully you wont go out and speak wrongly about Buddhist tradition.
If Buddhism is true and Devas are indeed real (The Buddha taught to question him and his teaching), the ancients would refer to them as "gods" or the equivalent of "gods" because thats the term that was available. Like I said, I personally believe they were aliens; beings from another time and/or place but that's me. If you want to believe they are eternal spirits, which the Buddha taught against, that's fine with me but Buddhism doesn't require that you do. Buddhism doesn't require that you know every detail about the Devas or even believe they existed as mortal beings; I don't know who or what they were for certain but again, it doesn't matter -- that's not the core of the Buddha's teaching. -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »See what I mean, Maestro. Even though I answered his question in the hermetics thread and embarrassed him, he acts like he didn't see it. Now he just follows me around like a scorned woman, LOL'ing and flagging my posts and cosigning anyone who disagrees with me on any matter.
LOL...
You prolly wont get any GOATS or dickriding out of that ? anytime soon....@maestro_lungs.....
Again you can only speak for your own knowledge level not mine......
Actually, This is what you said....maestro_lungs wrote: »Now Please Point out The Differences in Races other than the Color of our skins!maestro_lungs wrote: »I Oppose you Trying to Link what is Called Social Darwinism With The Theory of Evolution.
The link that you claim is "non-existent" is proven wrong in the Maafa 21 video and the book that I posted......
Believe what you must. However don't try to oppose my argument and then claim that "books" and research are not a proper means of rebuttal.....
You sound stupid ? .....
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »waterproof wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »waterproof wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »maestro_lungs wrote: »To My Understanding, Buddhism is not about either believing or not believing in ? or gods. Rather, the historical Buddha taught that believing in gods was not useful for those seeking to realize enlightenment. In other words, ? is unnecessary in Buddhism. For this reason, Buddhism is more accurately called nontheistic than atheistic . The Buddha also plainly said that he was not a ? , but "awakened.
Exactly. At least he tried
Buddha in his writings spoke on gods and meetings gods, if you was a student like u claimed u would of known this like I said when I get to my computer we going to blow this out the water
the gods you speak of are not supreme creator gods. They are devas, beings with higher powers than humans, but can be referred to as "gods" in the sense that their power can be vastly superior to ours. However, they are not eternal spirits. Me, personally, I believe they were aliens (aliens are described in other ancient cultures as well. The Hermetic philosophy says also that there exists beings greater than mankind) but Buddhism explains that they are born and die like humans and are not all powerful. The Buddha educated them and they were students of the Buddha. I know all of that, playboy, you ain't saying nothin new.
The Buddha said there is no such thing as a creator ? and even the idea of such would conflict with his teaching of Anatta and the law of cause and effect. In Buddhism, the universe (or better word would be metaverse imo) is eternal, a constant state of expanding and contracting (big bang, big crunch) so it is an eternal chain of cause and effect.
The Buddha's teachings are an oral tradition, written down by monks who remembered his words. Since its inception, there have been additions (Zen Buddhism/Chinese Buddhism for example, which includes ideas from other religions, philosophies, and spiritualities) What is required of a Buddhist is the understanding of the Four Noble Truths, The Eightfold Path; Anatta, Impermenence, The Five Aggregates, Karma, and to a lesser degree Rebirth, etc. etc... all teachings the schools agree on and are certain that the Buddha actually taught. The Dalai Lama is an atheist and will tell you up front there is no creator ? .
Man cut the ? out, deva are gods and in buddha writing he said using psychic powers he confronted the brahma gods, there is 3 realms where they go, and they don't die they reincarnate.
ye are elohim but ye will die like men
Yeah in Buddhism all beings reincarnate and humans have the possibility of being born in the realm of samsara so where are you going?? Devas are gods but not the same sense as Christian or Abrahamic religions "? ". They are born and die, suffer and follow the path just like humans. They are referred to as gods because of their abilities. Brahmas are the name for them, but again, Buddhism and Hinduism are not the same in their idea of Brahma. Brahma means highest. Brahma as a term has various meanings in Indian tradition. Brahma, Brahmins, Brahmas, Brahmans all have different meanings.
I'm cutting the ? out by explaining this to you so hopefully you wont go out and speak wrongly about Buddhist tradition.
If Buddhism is true and Devas are indeed real (The Buddha taught to question him and his teaching), the ancients would refer to them as "gods" or the equivalent of "gods" because thats the term that was available. Like I said, I personally believe they were aliens; beings from another time and/or place but that's me. If you want to believe they are eternal spirits, which the Buddha taught against, that's fine with me but Buddhism doesn't require that you do. Buddhism doesn't require that you know every detail about the Devas or even believe they existed as mortal beings; I don't know who or what they were for certain but again, it doesn't matter -- that's not the core of the Buddha's teaching.
so wheres the science at in speculating devas may be real and may be? the dalai lama dont believe in a christian ? but that ? not atheist. he himself is supposed to be a ? of some sort. either way he just dont reject the unseen. u a closeted deist buddhist.. -
The Buddha speaks about Devas but again, they are not central to Budhhist religion. The Dalai Lama has written books on the subject and I can quote them if you would like to go that route. Nothing is closeted about my beliefs.
-
The core of Buddhism is The 4 Noble Truths and The Eightfold Path. You will find Buddhists who vary in beliefs surrounding the core. My beliefs are my own, influenced by the teachings of the Buddha. I never said the Dalai Lama rejects the unseen. For one, he believes In rebirth. He rejects the idea of a creator ? , The Buddha did, and so do most Buddhists.
-
What do you mean where is the science in speculating? The Buddha mentioned Devas but I've never seen one to my knowledge. The only conclusion I have would be that they are aliens, based on their description but they may have been a tribe on Earth. Either way, it doesn't matter. The point is they suffer like humans and are born and die like humans so either way whether they are aliens, another species or whatever, they are not eternal spirits like the ? of classical theism. With or without them, Buddhism does not change.
-
Whoever came up with religion is a ? genius x 1,000.
They have convinced millions of people to believe that something is true without any evidence, and even moreso, they have trained them to reject evidence that discredits what they have been told.
Faith is often defined as a belief in something without proof. People who claim to have faith in religion are willingly deciding to believe in lies. AND THEY PAY MONEY FOR IT!
got damn, the minute i get a time machine i'm creating my own religion. Something gangsta as ? -
@jadedrighteousness Buddha teaches to become oneJaded Righteousness wrote: »What do you mean where is the science in speculating? The Buddha mentioned Devas but I've never seen one to my knowledge. The only conclusion I have would be that they are aliens, based on their description but they may have been a tribe on Earth. Either way, it doesn't matter. The point is they suffer like humans and are born and die like humans so either way whether they are aliens, another species or whatever, they are not eternal spirits like the ? of classical theism. With or without them, Buddhism does not change.
you do not know what you speak, human spirits are eternal they never die......who's teaching this guy -
@waterproof The Buddha taught that there is no self or soul and that everyone will die at some point. Fact. If you want me to quote suttas, I can and will
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »@waterproof The Buddha taught that there is no self or soul and that everyone will die at some point. Fact. If you want me to quote suttas, I can and will
man i got books on the dude you do know the difference between the soul and spirit right??? and Buddha teaches rebirth the spirits leaves and finds a different body and how their actions can lead them to different realms, come on mayne -
It is not a spirit; it is the mindstream. A moment of consciousness proceeds another and the energies that constitute a being continue and can create something new.
-
like a candle burning through out a night. It is neither the same flame nor a different one.
-
just because thats not the belief of the judeo-christian surface dwellers does not mean that is not a spiritual belief. spiritual because it cannot be empirically proven by current standards and measurements to exist as an actual process. whatever it is i dont understand how you cant see how such a fine tuned and intricate piece of machinery known as our physical "experience" had to have been created and not by a random explosion but by an intelligence with intent and capacity to create such a complex order and network known as "existence" (who perhaps used a not random explosion to bring "reality" into reality. this is my understanding derived from the writings that are source(s) of the bible and other books not included, like the book of enoch. this is not my personal interpretation either. this is what it say in the hebrew thought with cultural context and a hieroglyph implications of whole words and root consonant clusters in mind.Jaded Righteousness wrote: »It is not a spirit; it is the mindstream. A moment of consciousness proceeds another and the energies that constitute a being continue and can create something new.
-
Yall trying to catch me in something like I'm some type of hypocrite I guess. First of all, I'm not a Buddhist and I've said that several times on this forum. What I did say is that I study Buddhism and Taoism. I've studied Rastafari too but I don't claim to be one. I'm far from it. My beliefs are influenced by what I study. I would say that the teachings of the Buddha play a big part in who I currently am. The Buddha himself said not to get attached to his teachings or caught up in ideas and theories. you can keep asking me questions abput Buddhism; I would be happy to answer them but if you are trying to make me upset, don't waste your valuable time. If you arent genuinely trying to learn anything, please don't waste my time. If ypu want to disprove Buddhism, please do
-
Judah I will answer that soon my phone bout to die and I'm at work
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Yall trying to catch me in something like I'm some type of hypocrite I guess. First of all, I'm not a Buddhist and I've said that several times on this forum. What I did say is that I study Buddhism and Taoism. I've studied Rastafari too but I don't claim to be one. I'm far from it. My beliefs are influenced by what I study. I would say that the teachings of the Buddha play a big part in who I currently am. The Buddha himself said not to get attached to his teachings or caught up in ideas and theories. you can keep asking me questions abput Buddhism; I would be happy to answer them but if you are trying to make me upset, don't waste your valuable time. If you arent genuinely trying to learn anything, please don't waste my time. If ypu want to disprove Buddhism, please do
You know what page Im on. If I wanna have my screen persona be an ? Ill do that. My modes as mercurial on here as to get things out of my system that are not expedient in the "real"(lol) world. the man behind the myth says, nothing wrong with the core principles of buddhism, its been altered in form like everything else but its part of a larger framework of interlacing core principles in seemingly opposing religious forms when you peel back the dermis. this implied larger network implies all this stuff, including the bible and buddhism, was broken off a larger chunk. that and other stuff ive mentioned and not mentioned ties into my skepticism of evolutionary theory in its origins and relation to the political/ economic climate of the scientific community at large. it is a very plausible scenario that those in power know about that ? and the ? millions of years men been creating ? and ? up over and over again with global cataclysms following set patterns (mayans/hopi/hebrew/sumerian etc). and they ASSIMILATED COLLECTIONS OF THAT KNOWLEDGE and destroyed their footprints (almost). many military missions in the modern era have been about capturing relics and not just politics or money. hence, iraqs occupation. hello...sumer? babylon? im pretty sure that mixed with inter-dimensional ("alien") interference is why religion and atheism were created by the same structure. keep mufuckas beefing while the looking at the bigger picture with 150,000 year old decoder rings (lol) controlling everybody ? with ancient secrets they have you believe are myths or realities removed from your reality.
-
nothing wrong with the core principles of buddhism, its been altered in form like everything else but its part of a larger framework of interlacing core principles in seemingly opposing religious forms when you peel back the dermis. this implied larger network implies all this stuff, including the bible and buddhism, was broken off a larger chunk.
Actually, this is why I don't tie myself down to a particular religion. The Kybalion, what I posted in the 7 principles thread got me onto this. This larger framework is what I'm trying to get a grip on by studying and debating religion and spirituality. Chemist suggested some books to read to understand the idea of light and consciousness. It caught my attention when he mentioned it because I had read this: http://www.gnosis.org/library/hermes1.html earlier on, on the path.
-
just because thats not the belief of the judeo-christian surface dwellers does not mean that is not a spiritual belief. spiritual because it cannot be empirically proven by current standards and measurements to exist as an actual process. whatever it is i dont understand how you cant see how such a fine tuned and intricate piece of machinery known as our physical "experience" had to have been created and not by a random explosion but by an intelligence with intent and capacity to create such a complex order and network known as "existence" (who perhaps used a not random explosion to bring "reality" into reality. this is my understanding derived from the writings that are source(s) of the bible and other books not included, like the book of enoch. this is not my personal interpretation either. this is what it say in the hebrew thought with cultural context and a hieroglyph implications of whole words and root consonant clusters in mind.Jaded Righteousness wrote: »It is not a spirit; it is the mindstream. A moment of consciousness proceeds another and the energies that constitute a being continue and can create something new.
Personally, I just don't see it. I believe there is more to this energy that forms the universe and our being that we have yet to understand fully. I would have to really think on an answer to that question because it's difficult to put into words. The idea of eternal energy seems more logical to me than an eternal ? sitting behind it. I like the example of the ocean and the waves and I constantly bring it up to explain my beliefs to different people. The waves and foam and bubbles, etc. are all very complex and beautiful but they are not created by any being or intelligence. They are caused by forces such as wind, motion. We are very complex creatures and the universe is beautiful to us, but it is all energy, vibration. I have no reason to assume that it was created by any preceding intelligence.
