Depending on the flavor, Buddhism doesn't ask anything outside what you can observe and prove for yourself. Its basically...if you don't want to cause yourself suffering, lead a moral life, develop your wisdom and learn to focus your attention. All the rest is either advice on how to do that, advice on how to keep out of trouble in the mean time, or trappings and marketing hype to keep the monastics from starving and the populace entertained. Everything of value in Buddhism can be found in: if you don't want to cause yourself suffering, lead a moral life, develop your wisdom and learn to focus your attention. Or for people with American attention spans... be kind, do better, pay attention.
You seem to assume the arguments are symmetrical, but they are not. Theists are proposing a magic fairy and atheists are waiting for the least shard of evidence. Your magic fairy is important to you. So important that you annoy atheists about it. If you reverse the positions the atheists just don't care. The manifest lack of magic fairies is more than sufficient in and of itself. Your particular magic fairy is just one of an infinite number of magic fairies that aren't here. So what? Atheists couldn't care less. Disproving your magic fairy is no more important than disproving leprechauns, spaghetti monsters or any amount of non existent crap. Atheists tend care about things like facts, evidence, and sound methodologies. Allah is meaningless.
That's not how a theists and an atheists differ after death, it's how their headstones differ. I just wanted to know whether or not SAM thinks atheists go to heaven.
Trick question ? This thread is about extreme religious views, is it not ? I was thinking about the crap Jehova's witnesses always told me, "If you don't believe in God you will burn in hell for eternity." I find that an extreme view, and was just checking what SAM's believe on this matter is. Why do you care anyway ?
I've given some sincere thought to Buddhism in the past. I feel almost ashamed to say so because it comes off as so hippy-college-leftist stereotype. Daoism, as well, was quite appealing. I read the Dao high up in the mountains of Yunnan with snow and winter above me, the colours of fall beside me and hot summer below. Not a soul in sight. I've never felt so at peace. Then I saw Daoist temples, monks and celebration. I think modern Daoists seem to have completely missed the point of the Dao. Mind you, I haven't read the later commentators on Dao, so I'm not sure how it evolved. And, for that matter, every religion's major groups seem to have completely bastardized the original text.
Remember even in Buddhism there aer the core principles and then there is what happens in the temples. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But in particualar there is the original Daoism, which died out but which you were reading the main text of, and there is neo Daoism which is what you saw and is tied up in the quest for "immortality," alchemy, and other stuff I might find off the mark. Some suggestions, I've read both of these and found them interesting. "The Way of Chuang Tzu" by Thomas Merton (Often considered the second most important early Daoist work. Is a good example of how Daoism came to influence Ch'an/Zen.) "The Secret of the Golden Flower" by Thomas Cleary (A classic book of Daoist mysticism, I would class this as more esoteric.)
Not really an answer, but ok.. I care because you accused me of something that I didn't do. Hint: most people don't like that.
Actually, the huge outcry is because the islamic nations of the UN feel that their feelings are not irrelevant. In the context described above, actually: yes, some feelings are being treated as irrelevant. Or rights, one could as easily say.
I had to check 'some other opinion', which is that the things you listed are not 'religious views'. To clarify: Everyone has a right to believe or not believe in God Sure but this isn't a 'religious view', it's a human rights view. The Religion forum should be used only to discuss the scientific nature of religious belief# This isn't a religious view, it's an opinion on what a forum should be used for. 3. Theists/atheists should not be persecuted for their beliefs, since God is not an empirical absolute and belief, by definition requires no evidence Better stated as: "people should not be persecuted for their beliefs". This isn't a religious view, it's a human rights view. 4. Atheists should be held to the same standards of scientific enquiry in the Religion forum as theists This isn't a religious view, it's a demand to equal standards.
It's a completely legitimate answer. What exactly did I accuse you of? Any way... my apologies, whatever it was wasn't intended as an accusation.
that is like saying that if there was a car forum the only thing that should be discussed is peoples desire to drive cars...or 'the psychological desire to sit in a car and step on the pedal'
Jehovah's Witless told me they don't believe in hell & nonbelievers just die. Isn't extreme beyond the norm??? It's normal to believe if you don't believe in God you will burn in hell for eternity. Tho it is stupid, unfair, absurd, the cruelest thing I've heard, read or imagined & fearfully fabricated by ignorant arrogant immature humans. “ Originally Posted by swarm What exactly did I accuse you of? Any way... my apologies, whatever it was wasn't intended as an accusation. ” Nothing wrong with trick questions.
That's not what they told me, they told me non-believers (in their particular religion) go to hell and burn forever. I have spoken with a number of Jehovah's witnesses and the all said it. Maybe not, but I didn't ask any trick questions. I don't like to be accused of things I didn't do.
