Kananga Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Quote = Have you ever earnestly tried consistently turning the other cheek or loving your enemies - just for one day? Thats not religion. That's living by certain morals. You dont need to believe in a religion to do what you are suggesting. Quote = Have you earnestly tried to carefully measure your speech and actions in each situation in order to cause a maximum of benefit and a minimum of harm? Again, thats just self control and tactfulness. Nothing to do with religion. Quote = Those who practice right are not weak people. They are stronger than most. They're stupider than most. Believing in things that are not real just because other people told them its right. That's not strength, that's ignorance. Don't forget, we are all born athiests until people start lying to us. Those who believe the lies become religious. Those who don't, dont. Quote = it is far more easy to just pay lip service to the current scientific theories and claim atheism than it is to stand up for a spiritual system or path. Many atheists have a spiritual path. Dont confuse spiritualism with blind faith in religious doctrines. Hmmm...it's all the standard stereotypes and put downs of people who follow a religion or a spiritual path. Okay, so you aren't religious or spiritual or whatever, but just because someone else is and thinks differently than you, doesn't make them stupid. That's just a put down because you don't like it, but please, don't crap on others because you've got a problem with it or it doesn't work for you. It indeed take a measure of faith, of not knowing, to proceed on a spiritual path because it means you are trying to change yourself in some very basic ways. Now, you can say that is not religion, which may or may not be true. What makes it true is that it will also include a broader view of life, the universe, diety, and the highest possibilities for a person. Typically, a religion or spiritual path includes ideas that existence did not begin when you were born on this earth and does not end when you die. Maybe you don't believe that but others do; and, when they believe that it requires them to follow through on what it takes to gain that knowledge for themselves. Again, it takes a certain amount to faith- maybe you don't buy that, but that's not really your call, is it? You say you don't need to be religious to turn the other cheek or to consider the affects of actions on others, but those ideas are found in religions also. So, saying they can be practiced without religion is simply an indication of their universal application. However, when practiced within the context of spiritual practice, you get the maximum benefit, more bang for the buck. Btw, religion doesn't kill people, people kill people. Quote - Okay, so you aren't religious or spiritual or whatever Who ever said I dont follow a spiritual path? I certainly didnt. I just dont believe in the invisible sky daddy or Santa Claus just because other people have told me I have to or I wont go to Heaven or get any toys for Christmas if I dont. Quote - It indeed take a measure of faith, of not knowing, to proceed on a spiritual path because it means you are trying to change yourself in some very basic ways. It doesnt take a measure of faith at all. And certainly not one that has such conformities attached to it like all the major religions. In fact, I can't think of anything less spiritual than having to live by ridiculous rules with fear of repercussions (Not going to heaven, not being reincarnated as a better animal or not getting the plentiful virgins etc) if not obeyed. Quote - Again, it takes a certain amount to faith- maybe you don't buy that, but that's not really your call, is it? Its my call to voice my own opinion to those who have been conned into thinking there is a afterlife and a big invisible man is watching over them. I mean thats literally just as ridiculous as someone telling you they believe in invisible unicorns made of strawberry icecream. If people who believe this waffle cant accept another point of view then this faith you talk about cant be very strong. Quote - You say you don't need to be religious to turn the other cheek or to consider the affects of actions on others, but those ideas are found in religions also. So, saying they can be practiced without religion is simply an indication of their universal application. However, when practiced within the context of spiritual practice, you get the maximum benefit, more bang for the buck. Actually you get less bang for your buck. People who do good deeds without believing in noah's ark, burning bushes, moses parting the seas, adam and eve and talking snakes etc do it because they feel inside it is the right thing to do. Not because they want to go to heaven or please the lord jesus. If you really want to talk about things found in religions I'll happily share some horrendous passages from the Bible. But of course, people dont follow those ideas, just the ones that suit them just nicely. Quote - Btw, religion doesn't kill people, people kill people. And many of those people kill people in the name of religion. Maybe you could clarify whether you follow a spiritual path since this thread started with a question about Buddhism. It seems not since you say all religions are false. You seem to believe that you may only follow a spiritual path if you believe in a religion. This is completely wrong. All religions are false, but this does not stop someone who knows religion is a load of crap from taking a spiritual path. The word spiritual has evolved (no pun intended) to be associated with the private realm of thought and experience while the word religious is tied solely to the public realm of membership in a religious institution with official denominational doctrines. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meadish_sweetball Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 The word spiritual has evolved (no pun intended) to be associated with the private realm of thought and experience while the word religious is tied solely to the public realm of membership in a religious institution with official denominational doctrines. Wikipedia, Merriam-Webster and Longman all disagree with your definition of spiritual. The term spirituality lacks a definitive definition,[1][2] although social scientists have defined spirituality as the search for "the sacred," where "the sacred" is broadly defined as that which is set apart from the ordinary and worthy of veneration.[3] The use of the term "spirituality" has changed throughout the ages.[4] In modern times spirituality is often separated from religion,[5] and connotes a blend of humanistic psychology with mystical and esoteric traditions and eastern religions aimed at personal well-being and personal development.[6] This is from Merriam Webster: 1spir·i·tu·aladjective \ˈspir-i-chə-wəl, -i-chəl, -ich-wəl\ 1 : of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal <spiritual needs> 2 a : of or relating to sacred matters <spiritual songs> b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal <spiritual authority> <lords spiritual> 3 : concerned with religious values -- Longman: spir‧i‧tu‧al 1 relating to your spirit rather than to your body or mind: Painting helps fill a spiritual need for beauty. spiritual values 2 relating to religion [= religious]: Islam was inspired by the teachings of the spiritual leader Mohammed. 3 somebody's spiritual home a place where you feel you belong because you share the ideas and attitudes of that society —spiritually adjective So we are left wondering what exactly it is that YOU do that you consider spiritual - and also, since you repeatedly are doing the usual Dawkins-style ridiculing, maybe you could also explain why you would do anything like that, since science only talks about a body, most definitely not about a spirit or soul. So why do stuff to meet a need of an entity or aspect of yourself that you cannot prove exists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jawnie Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 (edited) "You seem to believe that you may only follow a spiritual path if you believe in a religion. This is completely wrong. All religions are false, but this does not stop someone who knows religion is a load of crap from taking a spiritual path." "The word spiritual has evolved (no pun intended) to be associated with the private realm of thought and experience while the word religious is tied solely to the public realm of membership in a religious institution with official denominational doctrines." Well, here we are again, splitting hairs on the definition of 'religion' and 'spirituality'. Not sure why you are on this board if you have such a negative view ofreligions. For regardless of the semantic give-and-take about whether Buddhism is a religion or philosophy or a spiritual path, etc., the fact is that Buddhism is all of those. You seem to believe that a religion can't possibly be a spiritual path which is simply not true. You still don't say if you follow a spiritual path or what that path may be. May I suggest that if you are following your own 'spiritual path' ,ie, one devoid of the teachings of any particular religion, that you are hardly in any position to comment on their efficacy. Edited March 12, 2013 by Jawnie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeryble Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Buddhism seems to concentrate on the individual --- "how can I do the right thing for myself?'.I do not see the social dimension of buddhism.Is it possible for a person to reach enlightenment if he does not care for the poor? Buddhism attempts to do away with the false duality of self and other, but you have to work from where you are. At the moment you identify as an individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kananga Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 "You seem to believe that you may only follow a spiritual path if you believe in a religion. This is completely wrong. All religions are false, but this does not stop someone who knows religion is a load of crap from taking a spiritual path." "The word spiritual has evolved (no pun intended) to be associated with the private realm of thought and experience while the word religious is tied solely to the public realm of membership in a religious institution with official denominational doctrines." Well, here we are again, splitting hairs on the definition of 'religion' and 'spirituality'. Not sure why you are on this board if you have such a negative view of religions. For regardless of the semantic give-and-take about whether Buddhism is a religion or philosophy or a spiritual path, etc., the fact is that Buddhism is all of those. You seem to believe that a religion can't possibly be a spiritual path which is simply not true. You still don't say if you follow a spiritual path or what that path may be. May I suggest that if you are following your own 'spiritual path' ,ie, one devoid of the teachings of any particular religion, that you are hardly in any position to comment on their efficacy. Quote - Not sure why you are on this board if you have such a negative view of religions. Because the last time I checked, it was still ok to have an opposing view. Quote - You seem to believe that a religion can't possibly be a spiritual path which is simply not true. No I don't believe that at all and I have not said that. I am stating (again) that you dont need to be religious to follow a spiritual path. A concept that seems to be beyond you. Quote - May I suggest that if you are following your own 'spiritual path' ,ie, one devoid of the teachings of any particular religion, that you are hardly in any position to comment on their efficacy. Yes, you may suggest that. However I disagree with you. I am in a perfectly fine position to comment on the bizarre behaviour of my fellow man. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
partington Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 This thread and its posts is a perfect example of how Human Beings think and behave. We all come to the table with beliefs/habits/conditioning which will shape the way we conduct ourselves and communicate in our lives. You will notice that all participants have already made up their minds and seek argument/evidence/logic to facilitate their case/position. You will also notice that not many (none) have been swayed by anything put forward. Why is each of us so sure of our beliefs? Where did we get these beliefs in the first place? Is it possible that some of our beliefs/habits are not so valid? Could our beliefs have differed had we been raised in a different environment with different carers? If our beliefs/conditioning can vary so much due to our early environment, what makes us so sure ours are better than anothers? When it comes to religion, I can see great aversion. The mind closes once the word is mentioned. When you analyze religion, the one thing in common is that there is a metaphysical component which cannot be proved. There is also an element of belief, as much of the metaphysical (if real) cannot be experienced until there is death. To me Buddhism as the Buddha taught is not a religion but a practice. A practice which can yield benefits on many levels whilst one is alive. One can practice Buddhism without belief in re birth (reincarnation), many lives, relms (deva, animal & hell), and Kharma (ledger of action). The Buddha wouldn't reveal what Awakening was other than what it wasn't. He indicated it was living in the absence of greed, aversion & delusion. If you practice the eightfold path, with an open mind, free of attachment to cosmic interpretations, only that which is real will be revealed. The eight fold path is really just three aspects of action: Wisdom: Right View Right intention. Ethical Conduct: Right speech. Right Action. Right livelihood. Concentration: Right Effort Right Concentration. Right Mindfulness. There is nothing in this practice which has anything to do with the metaphysical or religion. It is purely and simply a practice, just like going to the gym. Those who have an attachment to religious belief, may beileve in all sorts of things, but the reality is that there is only one way to find out what actually is. That is by practicing the eightfold path. If you examine each aspect of the eightfold path, you will see that it is logical and multi layered. On a superficial level mindfulness and concentration, allows you to have the poise and speed to be able to see your bad habits and beliefs as they unfold. To give you the poise to catch these before you act on them, giving you a degree of control over your life and an ability to alter your behavior. If you practice awareness/concentration to deeper levels many real experiences might await you. More importantly, practicing the eightfold path allows you to begin to really live in the present moment. We can only live in the present. Many fear the future and lament the past. Their controlling minds force them to dwell everywhere but in the present moment. One can only experience life when in the present. Of course one must plan for the future and learn from the past, but to be forced in these relms constantly is to miss out on your life. Taking care of the future is simple. Simply make a diary note: "I will set a time for this issue. It will include reviewing, planning, networking, action. Until then I will remove it from my mind and return to the present". A colleague had to identify her husbands body after he had died in an accident. She is locked in a state where she constantly relives these thoughts. Over and over again in her mind. She relives this event dozens of times a day, with the only relief, valium and mogadon, which unleash their own cruel symptoms. Mindfulness/concentration is the only practice I am aware of which allows one to face what happened, grieve, and then move on. To capture the thought when it begins before it has a chance to set off its corresponding feelings. Feelings which are as powerful as the original event. "I have faced this reality. I love my husband dearly. I have felt the hurt and the pain many times. It is time for me to continue with my life. To live my life without reliving the past events with feelings as painful as the actual event. This does not mean I love my husband any less. He remains in my heart." There is only one technique which main stream psychologists now teach. The technique is: Concentration: Right Effort Right Concentration. Right Mindfulness. We have before us a set exercices which, if practiced, allow us to live in the present. To live in the present, without prejudice, bias, fear, hatred, indifference. A way of engaging in life with compassion, in the present moment free of our conditioning. To walk on this earth free from greed, aversion and delusion. Sure some will believe in re birth, many lives, kharma, & relms both demonic and devine, but until experienced these are beliefs. The eightfold path, is a real practice. Just like exercising ones body, it requires effort. It is easy to fall for the religious trap and relegate Buddhism to the scrap heap. On the other hand, with effort, mindfulness/concentration can only allow you to be really aware. Without awareness there is no life. Without awareness one simply goes through the motions until one runs out of time. The motions of habit/belief. The motions which form our unique prisons. There are many who walk on this earth. They place labels on themselves. "I am a Buddhist" In a free world anyone can call themselves what they wish. Of course this has nothing to do with what the Buddha taught. This seems about as sensible a post as I have ever read, even though I have no spiritual or religious beliefs whatsoever. I believe that I have a mind though, and I also believe that this mind is the seat of all my experiences. I have seen that people who live and think in the way described in this post are on the whole happier than others. As a superficial example - it's a commonplace experience in our lives that when you are helping other people you forget your own ego and problems to a marked degree, and this has a calming and beneficial effect. The less you think about yourself on the whole, the happier you are. We all know it's true but we don't act on it most of the time. It seems to me that just as there are ways to use your body that result in you being physically unhealthy and uncomfortable, and there are ways that improve your health and capabilities, this is also true of the mind as well. In fact cognitive behavioral therapy is based on this premise. This is completely consistent with my conclusion that consciousness results from brain activity and disappears forever with the destruction of that brain. To me Buddha was an extraordinarily wise man who codified amazing insights into a thinking and behavioural system that has the effect of optimising human experience: "This is how you should use your mind if you want to be as happy as you are capable of". Didn't he say "we are born inside a burning house - this is how to get out", or did I invent that? The stuff about reincarnation, rebirth, devas and layers of hells seems about as irrelevant and dopey as the accretions of other religions, but the psychological truth seems spot on. (I'm not a Buddhist though since I know too little about it, and for the same reasons that I don't use the treadmill everyday even though I know I should...) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fabianfred Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 (edited) The Buddha taught only two things.... Suffering and the escape from suffering, Some see this as pessimistic, often because they have a comfortable life and fail to recognize minor annoyances as suffering. Sure he said that its like being in a burning house....if we fail to leave when we have the chance....who to blame but ourselves. He compared the continual cycle of birth and death in various realms and forms to being in a prison. If we will not admit that we are in a prison then there is no desire or effort to escape. Unless we recognize the horror and suffering of being in prison, which also requires us to know more about the prison, we shall not try to escape. All the semantics about religion or spirituality is irrelevant. Buddha was not simply a clever fellow....a bright wise chappie...... he got there after immense effort which few realise the extent of. Those who refuse to believe the truth about rebirth, karma, and even the Buddha's achievements, are certain to remain in the prison for a long time yet. Edited March 12, 2013 by fabianfred 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jawnie Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 "You seem to believe that you may only follow a spiritual path if you believe in a religion. This is completely wrong. All religions are false, but this does not stop someone who knows religion is a load of crap from taking a spiritual path." "The word spiritual has evolved (no pun intended) to be associated with the private realm of thought and experience while the word religious is tied solely to the public realm of membership in a religious institution with official denominational doctrines." Well, here we are again, splitting hairs on the definition of 'religion' and 'spirituality'. Not sure why you are on this board if you have such a negative view of religions. For regardless of the semantic give-and-take about whether Buddhism is a religion or philosophy or a spiritual path, etc., the fact is that Buddhism is all of those. You seem to believe that a religion can't possibly be a spiritual path which is simply not true. You still don't say if you follow a spiritual path or what that path may be. May I suggest that if you are following your own 'spiritual path' ,ie, one devoid of the teachings of any particular religion, that you are hardly in any position to comment on their efficacy. Quote - Not sure why you are on this board if you have such a negative view of religions. Because the last time I checked, it was still ok to have an opposing view. Quote - You seem to believe that a religion can't possibly be a spiritual path which is simply not true. No I don't believe that at all and I have not said that. I am stating (again) that you dont need to be religious to follow a spiritual path. A concept that seems to be beyond you. Quote - May I suggest that if you are following your own 'spiritual path' ,ie, one devoid of the teachings of any particular religion, that you are hardly in any position to comment on their efficacy. Yes, you may suggest that. However I disagree with you. I am in a perfectly fine position to comment on the bizarre behaviour of my fellow man. Disagree all you want but it's very apparent you have little or no actual knowledge of the practice of Buddhism. So, yes, you have the right to comment but it's obviously an uninformed opinion- what's up with that? Still wondering why you are posting on a Buddhist blog with only negative things to say about it, especially since your aren't Buddhist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post partington Posted March 12, 2013 Popular Post Share Posted March 12, 2013 "You seem to believe that you may only follow a spiritual path if you believe in a religion. This is completely wrong. All religions are false, but this does not stop someone who knows religion is a load of crap from taking a spiritual path." "The word spiritual has evolved (no pun intended) to be associated with the private realm of thought and experience while the word religious is tied solely to the public realm of membership in a religious institution with official denominational doctrines." Well, here we are again, splitting hairs on the definition of 'religion' and 'spirituality'. Not sure why you are on this board if you have such a negative view of religions. For regardless of the semantic give-and-take about whether Buddhism is a religion or philosophy or a spiritual path, etc., the fact is that Buddhism is all of those. You seem to believe that a religion can't possibly be a spiritual path which is simply not true. You still don't say if you follow a spiritual path or what that path may be. May I suggest that if you are following your own 'spiritual path' ,ie, one devoid of the teachings of any particular religion, that you are hardly in any position to comment on their efficacy. Quote - Not sure why you are on this board if you have such a negative view of religions. Because the last time I checked, it was still ok to have an opposing view. Quote - You seem to believe that a religion can't possibly be a spiritual path which is simply not true. No I don't believe that at all and I have not said that. I am stating (again) that you dont need to be religious to follow a spiritual path. A concept that seems to be beyond you. Quote - May I suggest that if you are following your own 'spiritual path' ,ie, one devoid of the teachings of any particular religion, that you are hardly in any position to comment on their efficacy. Yes, you may suggest that. However I disagree with you. I am in a perfectly fine position to comment on the bizarre behaviour of my fellow man. Disagree all you want but it's very apparent you have little or no actual knowledge of the practice of Buddhism. So, yes, you have the right to comment but it's obviously an uninformed opinion- what's up with that? Still wondering why you are posting on a Buddhist blog with only negative things to say about it, especially since your aren't Buddhist. Because the actual question the OP asked was "Why are you (or conversely WHY ARE YOU NOT) a Buddhist", which is as clear an invitation to non-Buddhists to post and explain why they are not Buddhists as it is possible to make. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jawnie Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 "You seem to believe that you may only follow a spiritual path if you believe in a religion. This is completely wrong. All religions are false, but this does not stop someone who knows religion is a load of crap from taking a spiritual path." "The word spiritual has evolved (no pun intended) to be associated with the private realm of thought and experience while the word religious is tied solely to the public realm of membership in a religious institution with official denominational doctrines." Well, here we are again, splitting hairs on the definition of 'religion' and 'spirituality'. Not sure why you are on this board if you have such a negative view of religions. For regardless of the semantic give-and-take about whether Buddhism is a religion or philosophy or a spiritual path, etc., the fact is that Buddhism is all of those. You seem to believe that a religion can't possibly be a spiritual path which is simply not true. You still don't say if you follow a spiritual path or what that path may be. May I suggest that if you are following your own 'spiritual path' ,ie, one devoid of the teachings of any particular religion, that you are hardly in any position to comment on their efficacy. Quote - Not sure why you are on this board if you have such a negative view of religions. Because the last time I checked, it was still ok to have an opposing view. Quote - You seem to believe that a religion can't possibly be a spiritual path which is simply not true. No I don't believe that at all and I have not said that. I am stating (again) that you dont need to be religious to follow a spiritual path. A concept that seems to be beyond you. Quote - May I suggest that if you are following your own 'spiritual path' ,ie, one devoid of the teachings of any particular religion, that you are hardly in any position to comment on their efficacy. Yes, you may suggest that. However I disagree with you. I am in a perfectly fine position to comment on the bizarre behaviour of my fellow man. Disagree all you want but it's very apparent you have little or no actual knowledge of the practice of Buddhism. So, yes, you have the right to comment but it's obviously an uninformed opinion- what's up with that? Still wondering why you are posting on a Buddhist blog with only negative things to say about it, especially since your aren't Buddhist. Because the actual question the OP asked was "Why are you (or conversely WHY ARE YOU NOT) a Buddhist", which is as clear an invitation to non-Buddhists to post and explain why they are not Buddhists as it is possible to make. Apart from the open invitation, the comments have no credibility and indicate no real background on the subject. Sure, post away on subjects you know nothing about.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fabianfred Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 About time this was locked..... mostly posts by those wanting to slag everything....and the Buddhists trying to defend or inform the obstinate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosse137 Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 If this thread is only for the experts,I have to appologize for my contributions...But I have had new insights and think is has been rewarding,but again,perhaps I should shut up..Another uninformed thought before that,since there is no God in Buddhism (or am I wrong) and an atheist is someone who do not believe in God,does that mean,that Buddhists are atheists?? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kananga Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 (edited) "You seem to believe that you may only follow a spiritual path if you believe in a religion. This is completely wrong. All religions are false, but this does not stop someone who knows religion is a load of crap from taking a spiritual path." "The word spiritual has evolved (no pun intended) to be associated with the private realm of thought and experience while the word religious is tied solely to the public realm of membership in a religious institution with official denominational doctrines." Well, here we are again, splitting hairs on the definition of 'religion' and 'spirituality'. Not sure why you are on this board if you have such a negative view of religions. For regardless of the semantic give-and-take about whether Buddhism is a religion or philosophy or a spiritual path, etc., the fact is that Buddhism is all of those. You seem to believe that a religion can't possibly be a spiritual path which is simply not true. You still don't say if you follow a spiritual path or what that path may be. May I suggest that if you are following your own 'spiritual path' ,ie, one devoid of the teachings of any particular religion, that you are hardly in any position to comment on their efficacy. Quote - Not sure why you are on this board if you have such a negative view of religions. Because the last time I checked, it was still ok to have an opposing view. Quote - You seem to believe that a religion can't possibly be a spiritual path which is simply not true. No I don't believe that at all and I have not said that. I am stating (again) that you dont need to be religious to follow a spiritual path. A concept that seems to be beyond you. Quote - May I suggest that if you are following your own 'spiritual path' ,ie, one devoid of the teachings of any particular religion, that you are hardly in any position to comment on their efficacy. Yes, you may suggest that. However I disagree with you. I am in a perfectly fine position to comment on the bizarre behaviour of my fellow man. Disagree all you want but it's very apparent you have little or no actual knowledge of the practice of Buddhism. So, yes, you have the right to comment but it's obviously an uninformed opinion- what's up with that? Still wondering why you are posting on a Buddhist blog with only negative things to say about it, especially since your aren't Buddhist. Quote - Disagree all you want but it's very apparent you have little or no actual knowledge of the practice of Buddhism. No, it is apparent that I have not openly discussed the practice of Buddhism. It is impossible to draw a conclusion of my knowledge based on what I have not said, the same way it is impossible to continue coming up with accusations against me which I cannot refute. Have you noticed that, how i successfully refute all your accusations against me forcing you to continually make up new ones, which I then successfully refute. Just like this one. Quote - So, yes, you have the right to comment but it's obviously an uninformed opinion Is it obviously? Because I haven't discuss something in detail? Let me guess, this is an example of someone religious taking something on 'faith' because there is nothing in the real world that could lead you to successfully draw that conclusion. Quote - Still wondering why you are posting on a Buddhist blog with only negative things to say about it, especially since your aren't Buddhist. Because the actual question the OP asked was "Why are you (or conversely WHY ARE YOU NOT) a Buddhist". If you want to start a topic about Buddhism and only expect people who believe that they will be reincarnated (LOL) to discuss how wonderful it is then by all means feel free and I and my comments on the subject of spirituality and religion will leave you in peace. It is clear for everyone here to read that you dont like my opinions and have unsuccessfully attempted to discredit me by making unfounded accusations such as the ones I have kindly listed below. so you aren't religious or spiritual or whatever - Unfounded accusation. Maybe you could clarify whether you follow a spiritual path since this thread started with a question about Buddhism. It seems not since you say all religions are false. - Unfounded accusation as you are confused with the differences between religion and Spirituality You seem to believe that a religion can't possibly be a spiritual path which is simply not true. - Unfounded accusation and again an example of your confusion with the differences between religion and Spirituality Disagree all you want but it's very apparent you have little or no actual knowledge of the practice of Buddhism. - Unfounded accusation used as a smokescreen to deflect attention away from the fact you dont know the difference between religion and Spirituality. you have the right to comment but it's obviously an uninformed opinion - Yeah, obviously. Based on the obvious? Which is what? What makes my comment so obviously uninformed? Well, here we are again, splitting hairs on the definition of 'religion' and 'spirituality'. - I'm not splitting hairs. I am repeatedly attempting to explain the fundamental differences to you but like so many religious zealots you are either unable or unwilling to accept the truth. And you have the audacity to accuse others of not knowing what they are talking about. Dear Lord! Edited March 12, 2013 by Kananga 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nidieunimaitre Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 QUOTES: 1/ Apart from the open invitation, the comments have no credibility and indicate no real background on the subject. Sure, post away on subjects you know nothing about.... 2/ About time this was locked..... mostly posts by those wanting to slag everything....and the Buddhists trying to defend or inform the obstinate WOOOW. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camerata Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 @bosse137 Yes, Buddhists are atheists. Feel free to open a new topic about this or anything else you would like to know. Meanwhile, this topic has run its course, and as an open invitation to slag off Buddhism, it was somewhat trollish from the get-go. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts