Hurray for the Atheist Fanactics

[Sargon The Grape]

Apparently - no one can out debate me. I'll have to go over to the Forum at the National Academy of Sciences

1: A wall of illegible page vomit is not a debate position.

2: Most of us don't care to respond to copy/paste arguments.

3: You will never be able to prove to me that any god exists. Gods are indistinguishable from fantasy, because they are fantasy. (Read the full post in the link before criticizing that statement, because I'm not repeating it for you.)

[leo]

You aren't a buddhist anyway. Your post shows ignorance about buddhism Buddhist alternative.

[Mermaid]

Science, however requires a LOT less faith since there is SO much more evidence compared to say oh "Just believe in something that has NEVER revealed itself in any real measurable way, because we said so!".

Apparently - no one can out debate me. I'll have to go over to the Forum at the National Academy of Sciences

That is because you are so much more rational than anyone else here. Who is going to debate that?

[Solitary]

Buddhist Alternative: Bite me! A Buddhist that believes in God? Buddha never believed in a God, or thought what he said was from divine intervention. You need to read his original writings and not those of the various schools that have been corrupted by Christian dogma. There were no rituals, prayers, no absolute rules written on stone, or gods in his dogma. He also said to never worry yourself with superstitious and supernatural nonsense. Atheism is no way fanaticism, it's a non belief period. You want to debate Buddhism I'm all ears. What a condescending jerk, which is very non-Buddhist way to be.  [-X  :P  #-o    Solitary

Buddha has a view about 'self' - NOT

Buddha has no view about 'self' and it is not his starting point. He starts from the fact of human suffering (persistent dissatisfaction with life). What he says about our sense of 'self' only arises in connection with understanding the causes of suffering. He does have a practice in which we 'look into ourselves'.

Buddha denies the existence of self - NOT

Buddha neither affirms nor denies the existence of self, because that is a fruitless question. In the practice of meditation we look into ourselves and eventually notice that everything going on in us (sensations, thoughts, feelings, pain, etc.) is not permanent but impermanent, not separate and isolated but interdependent, and not substantial but insubstantial. When we see this for ourselves we first feel insecure, and then we have to accept it as a fact and this changes our sense of what we are.

Buddha has a theory of non-self. Buddha was a philosopher and/or psychologist who wanted to promote a theory about self - NOT

Buddha has no theory of non-self, and no theory about anything at all. He is not a theorist. He teaches us only how to do something to change our understanding of ourselves so that dissatisfaction is subdued.

Buddha had a theory or belief in impermanence, interdependence and insubstantiality - NOT

Buddha had no theory or belief in impermanence, interdependence and insubstantiality but used similar words and phrases in his own language only to draw our attention to what we can see for ourselves when we look into ourselves. Eventually, we can see that a refusal to accept these facts (i.e. ignorance) is the source of clinging, craving and dissatisfaction. These are the facts that we have to accept in order to change and live in peace.

Buddha denied the existence of 'soul' and of 'God' - NOT

Buddha neither affirmed nor denied the existence of soul and God, because he thought these were fruitless questions. People can always argue about beliefs, but they cannot argue about what they find in themselves – so the Buddha teaches us how to look.

The Buddha argued that you do not really exist, you just appear to exist - NOT

The Buddha taught nothing about the nature of reality or existence, and no theory about the distinction between reality and appearance.

The Buddha argued that the 'self' is unreal because it is a temporary construction of five elements (aggregates, khandha) - NOT

The Buddha had no theory about five elements (aggregates, khandha). As a teacher trying to be helpful about the method of seeing the source of dissatisfaction he said that if you look into yourself (insight meditation) you may at first get the idea that you are 'essentially' body, or pain and pleasure, or sensations, or thoughts and feelings, or consciousness, etc. (E.g. 'I am really my consciousness'.) But actually one can see that these only arise in the act of looking into oneself. They are not 'separate things' at all. With this insight we become free of attachment to them, and thus free of clinging, craving and dissatisfaction.

If I have no self how can I be responsible for my actions? - NOT

Wrong questions arise from wrong views. The Buddha did not think you have no self, and instead emphasized that you and only you are responsible for looking into yourself in a way that leads to letting go (not clinging) and thus to peace.

Question: If there is no self then who becomes enlightened.

Answer: No one does.

 - What?'''


Wrong answers arise from wrong questions which arise from a wrong view of the Buddha's teaching.

You become more enlightened every time you accept the facts (mentioned above) that you find when you look honestly into yourself. You become more endarkened (ignorant and dissatisfied) every time you ignore or reject these facts.

What is the state of enlightenment like? - What?

Wrong Question again.

There is no separate and unique state of enlightenment to be achieved, so the question of what it is 'like' does not arise. Instead enlightenment is a process or path. You are traveling along it, stuck on it or traveling backwards. Traveling forward along it there may be a significant point, in which one's entire view of things fundamentally changes and this is (metaphorically) a 'rebirth'.

There is a 'fully enlightened being' called an 'arahant', who is perfect - NOT

There is no such thing as an arahant who is completely different from ordinary people because he/she is perfect. The question of whether someone can be perfect is fruitless and unhelpful. Every person can move in the enlightenment direction, and away from the endarkenment direction. (It is probably better not to speak of 'arahants'.)

Question: If there is no self, then who accumulates good karma or bad karma?

Answer: No self accumulates it; it accumulates by itself.

What?   

A wrong view gives rise to a wrong question and a wrong answer. The Buddha did not hold the belief that there is no self. Obviously, if you do good it has results for you and others and if you do wrong it has results for you and others.

If there is no self, who is reborn?

You are not reincarnated, but something with a likeness to you is reborn (like one candle flame from another) - NOT

A wrong view gives rise to a wrong question and a wrong answer. The Buddha neither affirmed nor denied the existence of a person after death, because it is a fruitless question. When you have looked into yourself sufficiently you will see things differently and you will have no further interest in the question of birth and death.

Bad karma is reborn, and good karma accumulates and eventually releases us from the 'round of rebirth' - NOT

The Buddha thought it was fruitless to ponder whether life and the world is eternal or cyclic or whatever.

It is obvious to most people that good thoughts and actions live on in other people and the environment, and bad ones do too. This is one way in which all human life is interconnected. But this is not a belief or philosophy, but ordinary experience of life.

How you live your life determines whether you become more enlightened, stuck or endarkened. A whole society can also (historically) become more enlightened or stuck or more endarkened. But this was not the Buddha's main concern.

'Rebirth' is not primarily about what happens in time or history, but about you 'here and now'. As mentioned above, as you persistently and honestly look into yourself you become more enlightened until you feel a significant change has come over you. You might like to describe such a point as a 'rebirth'.

So, if I am really good I won't come back to this world, but if I am bad then I will? - NOT

The belief or theory about 'release from the round of rebirth' is confused, and arises from misunderstanding 'rebirth' as a historical process. Although in some Buddhist scriptures we find such a belief put into the mouth of the Buddha, he could not have held such a view. This is because it contradicts his basic teaching (which he discovered for himself) about looking into oneself to dissolve the source of dissatisfaction. The Buddha said many times that he was not concerned with the intellectual question of whether there is life after death (whether you will be historically reborn, etc.).

The Buddha was a 'Lord' and savior of the world - NOT

The Buddha never professed to be 'Lord' and savior of the world. He was concerned only with you seeing the truth for yourself now so that your dissatisfaction ceases. ''' The Buddha gave''' a great deal of guidance on what we can sensibly talk about, and on what we should sensibly remain silent. This crucial teachings of his cannot be ignored in any discussion of 'rebirth', 'kamma' etc. or other 'philosophical' matters.

[Shiranu]

On matter and consciousness; We can look at the brain and say, "Okay, this part is lit up therefor this person is thinking or feeling this.". Likewise if you cut out piece x or y of the brain we know what effect it will have... remove their ability to feel pain, to be able to think in an organized manner, etc. etc.. Brain injuries are also becoming more and more understood on how damage to the matter of the brain causes predictable changes in the consciousness. Finally we have all sorts of drugs, from prescriptions for depression to THC and DMT for recreational use that we can track the chemicals as they find the brain and alter consciousness in all sorts of crazy ways.

To say that consciousness transcends matter is to say something that frankly runs contradictory to all modern science. While we do not fully understand consciousness, the medical science all points to it being a product of our brain... matter.

As for not being able to go back before the Big Bang, that is correct as far as I know... but what you are proposing cannot be observed either and has the added flaw of being logically less likely. Therefor it is safer to assume that nature works with natural causes rather than some outside force, because there is nothing in nature that we have observed to this date that is influenced by outside causes.

[Shiranu]

Buddhist Alternative: Bite me! A Buddhist that believes in God? Buddha never believed in a God, or thought what he said was from divine intervention. You need to read his original writings and not those of the various schools that have been corrupted by Christian dogma. There were no rituals, prayers, no absolute rules written on stone, or gods in his dogma. He also said to never worry yourself with superstitious and supernatural nonsense. Atheism is no way fanaticism, it's a non belief period. You want to debate Buddhism I'm all ears. What a condescending jerk, which is very non-Buddhist way to be.  [-X  :P  #-o    Solitary

Western Buddhism like this guy's ALMOST manages to annoy me as much as Tibetan Buddhism.

[leo]

Buddhist Alternative: Bite me! A Buddhist that believes in God? Buddha never believed in a God, or thought what he said was from divine intervention. You need to read his original writings and not those of the various schools that have been corrupted by Christian dogma. There were no rituals, prayers, no absolute rules written on stone, or gods in his dogma. He also said to never worry yourself with superstitious and supernatural nonsense. Atheism is no way fanaticism, it's a non belief period. You want to debate Buddhism I'm all ears. What a condescending jerk, which is very non-Buddhist way to be.  [-X  :P  #-o    Solitary

Western Buddhism like this guy's ALMOST manages to annoy me as much as Tibetan Buddhism.

I think this guy  is confusing buddhism with the new age crap. Tibet buddhism is the biggest corruption of the Buddha original teachings.

[Shiranu]

My 11 year old sons: "Dad, where does all the matter that goes into a black hole go?', I respond "That's one of the things they're trying to figure out, Nick." He considers it for a moment and says "I think it probably starts another universe somewhere else."

An 11 year old can develop a recognized theory on his, yet religious people can't even when explained to them, that says a LOT.

That's a pretty cool theory, actually. Not sure if it is at all scientifically accurate... but I don't see why a black hole couldn't warp space and time enough to have another side where it is ejecting the raw material of everything it's sucked in given the stupid amounts of gravity they have.

My money is still just a ridiculously tight pack of matter and energy though...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

In other news, OP was returned to us from National Academy of Sciences.

In three boxes.

[Shiranu]

What, they didn't ride his remains out to the four corners of Albion? What do these uppity fucks think they are trying to pull on us, do they have no respect for Atheist Alliance™ treaties on how to dispose of such trash?

[aileron]

My two B.A.'s are not in Philosophy or Physics, so feel free to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Okay.  You don't know what you're talking about.  Seriously.

My rebuttal is that the Universe is composed of Matter, Energy, Gravity, Time and Space; all of which require being created.

Says who?

In fact, if you're a follower of the Niels Bohr Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, it is Consciousness that creates Matter.

Nope.

A Supreme Consciousness may very well indeed not have required being created.

So things as simple and mundane as fundamental forces and elementary particles need to be created, but something as grandiose and sophisticated as a supreme consciousness needs no creation?  Why is that?

... you should know that using the word 'somehow' poses a lot of philosophical problems and questions.

Science can't explain something, therefore God... Nope... It's not working for me.

For example, Immanuel Kant in 'The Critique Of Pure Reason' surmised that Space and Time are only the relationship of one object to another; but, if we did not have the concept of Space and Time 'A Priori' in our Minds before we were born, we would not have been able to relate one sense impression to another. There would be no Awareness or Consciousness.

Kant was neither a physicist nor a cognitive scientist.  His ideas on both subjects were conjectural and are not supported by modern science.  

First, Quantum Mechanics has become all things to all people. [snip]

You're not rebutting the current state of physics, just listing some cranks and rhetorical flourishes and taking exception to them.  The musings of cranks and the purple passages of science writers don't represent the current state of physics.

... the question is: 'Why is there something instead of nothing ?'

Why should there be nothing instead of something?  What makes "nothing" the default?  Also, if nothing is the default, then there should be no God.  

My answer to that is: If you want to stay up all night outside your kid's bedroom after one of them loses a tooth; and the tooth fairy never shows up – you can reasonably assert that there is no tooth fairy.

No, you can't because everybody knows the Tooth Fairy won't come unless everyone in the room is asleep.  It's the same with God.  When people make predictions about his existence and they fail, there's always some excuse for why.

"This is why Issac Asimov preferred Rationalism over Atheism..."

A distinction without a difference if ever there was one.  

"...and why Buddhists, although they believe in God..."

Er... You do know that Buddhism is a nontheistic religion, right????