How Buddhism is different from others

[only1]

So you don't know what my point is?

I don't. Please put again in a different manner.

[rockyysdt]

So you don't know what my point is?

I don't. Please put again in a different manner.

Which part do you need re phrased?

[only1]

So you don't know what my point is?

I don't. Please put again in a different manner.

Which part do you need re phrased?

Why ask me such a question ?

I have already given my opinions, and based on my last long reply, if you think I missed your point, only you should know what I missed.

[rockyysdt]

Peace brother.

You don't follow logic and are incoherent with science.

Again, the core teaching of Buddhism is not logical and is not scientifically coherent.

It is simply your "belief".

However you will live your days out attached to such notions.

No problem.

This is your conditioning.

[only1]

Peace brother.

You don't follow logic and are incoherent with science.

Again, the core teaching of Buddhism is not logical and is not scientifically coherent.

It is simply your "belief".

However you will live your days out attached to such notions.

No problem.

This is your conditioning.

That means you missed my POINTS or you refused to accept that fact.

You even missed or forgot I am the TS for the OP.

Read my OP again, Buddhism is both logical and coherent with science, as well as more so, compared to any other religions.

How could you even missed that ?

If you cannot agree with it, show me how it is not logical or not coherent with science.

If I say any other religion is not logical or not coherent with science, I support my claims with details. For eg Abrahamic religions are debunked by science with evolution and they are not logical because a Creator God religion should be the oldest religion, and why not ? And why should an omnipotent God create 3 different religions to fight themselves ?

Now, tell us what makes you think Buddhism is not logical or not coherent with science ?

[rockyysdt]

Now, tell us what makes you think Buddhism is not logical or not coherent with science ?

1. Logical = Reasonable, To be expected.

2. Coherent = Harmonious, In agreement, Consistent with.

Core Buddhist teaching:

1. Nirvana (Nibbana). Highest aim of Buddhism.

A permanent & unconditioned state which is without time or form.

Deathless.Freedom from Suffering and Re Birth.

2. Karma. Action which leads to future consequences, most notably rebirth into other relms of existence in Samsara.

A cycle of rebirth which may continue countless times, perpetuating suffering until one gains freedom through Awakening.

3. Rebirth. Upon death, driven by Karma, consciousness is reborn into one of three relms.

Kāmaloka realm: The world of desire, populated by hell beings, animals, ghosts, and lower demi-gods.

Rūpaloka realm: The world of form, predominately free of baser desires, populated by dhyāna-dwelling gods.

Arūpaloka realm: The world of formlessness, a non corporeal realm populated with four heavens.

Until one escapes rebirth, consciousness is consigned upon death, to recycle in one of the above realms for eternity or until one Awakens.

4. Anatta (non self). There is no unchanging Self, nor permanent Soul or Spirit. Once connection with I, me, ego is broken then there is liberation from rebirth and suffering.

The small self yields to the deathless, immeasurable, unboundless, self free from form, time & suffering.

Now it has already been agreed that not having been de bunked by science does pronounce something as being fact.

Rather it is indicative that our science cannot measure such things.

All the above Buddhist doctrines, are subject to belief, not proven fact.

This means they cannot be currently coherent with science nor logical.

An alternative which some may subscribe to, also subject to belief, is that when you die, that is it, it is all over, and there is nothing.

This view is also possible, and much simpler than the quite intricate & complex system of Buddhist doctrine.

It also happens to be unproven or not de bunked by science.

Other than Arahats, no one knows the answer, especially anyone who uses science as their tool.

[StefanBBK]

Did anyone ever start a war in the name of Buddhism? Maybe that differentiates it from other religions?

[only1]

Did anyone ever start a war in the name of Buddhism? Maybe that differentiates it from other religions?

This is also a difference but better do understand why. Buddhism discouraged killings, even on animals, unlike the major religions which actually allowed even killing of people, as written in their books, thus crusades and holy wars.

In a way, it also proved Buddhism is a much more sincere religion compared to any others. They don't propose high amount of donations from followers based on their monthly income. Neither do they use tricks to collect more money by passing around the money bag. They just go out to collect food or a stationed donation box.

[only1]

rocky,

What makes you think anyone is saying anything not debunked by science must be taken as facts(or proven true) ?

How is it that anything not proven by science means it is not logical ?

Science is definitely logical but it don't means that anything that is logical must be scientifically proven too.

Thus, logic is more important than science when it comes to religious beliefs.

If a religious claim or story is illogical, you don't need science to disprove it too.

So do understand what it means by logic-defying too.

[VincentRJ]

For eg Abrahamic religions are debunked by science with evolution and they are not logical because a Creator God religion should be the oldest religion, and why not ? And why should an omnipotent God create 3 different religions to fight themselves ?

I sense a great confusion in your thinking here, Only1. You seem to place a lot of faith in logic and science, yet you don't seem to understand that religions are created by man, not by Gods, at least from a scientific and logical perspective.

Your statement that "Abrahamic religions ...... are not logical because a Creator God religion should be the oldest religion", is nonsense.

As humans develop their understanding, using logic and the scientific method of falsification, the later religions should be more accurate in their descriptions of any God than the older religions, if those who created the religions were to embrace logic and science, which they apparently don't.

We simply don't know what the oldest religion was, because of a lack of written records, but Egyptian religions go back to 4,000 BC.

To claim that ancient Egyptian religions are more true simply because of their age, is nonsense.

[rockyysdt]

rocky,

What makes you think anyone is saying anything not debunked by science must be taken as facts(or proven true) ?

How is it that anything not proven by science means it is not logical ?

Science is definitely logical but it don't means that anything that is logical must be scientifically proven too.

Thus, logic is more important than science when it comes to religious beliefs.

If a religious claim or story is illogical, you don't need science to disprove it too.

So do understand what it means by logic-defying too.

You concentrate on one minor point or preface while completely avoiding to address the main content of the post.

[only1]

VincentRJ and rockkysdt,

I know both of you are EITHER trying very hard to disagree with me that Buddhism is different from others, especially compared with Abrahamic religions OR trying to cover up your own flaws of belief. Both of you failed as you cannot beat logic or spin any further with your own words.

Don't you guys agree or learnt from Buddhism after so long here ?

[only1]

I will give you details later.

[rockyysdt]

rocky,

What makes you think anyone is saying anything not debunked by science must be taken as facts(or proven true) ?

How is it that anything not proven by science means it is not logical ?

Science is definitely logical but it don't means that anything that is logical must be scientifically proven too.

Thus, logic is more important than science when it comes to religious beliefs.

If a religious claim or story is illogical, you don't need science to disprove it too.

So do understand what it means by logic-defying too.

You have still not answered why you believe Buddhism is coherent with science & why you believe it is logical.

Re read what I posted.

What is logical or scientifically coherent about the teaching, and why?

My stance is that it is a belief, but I have faith enough to desire practice and experience.

Until proven, I won't cling to such vagaries as "it is logical, or scientifically coherent", as these have no meaning.

You use these to spin, and using your own words, "it could undermines my aims. At least I bring to people's attention that Buddhism MIGHT be scientific."

This is a meaningless statement.

Anything that "might be" remains a belief until proven.

I thought you were logical or understood logic.

[camerata]

Several posts have been deleted either for trollish personal remarks and insinuations or for denigrating Buddhism without any supporting evidence.

From the Buddhism Forum rules:

"Posts whose primary purpose is to slag off Buddhism in general or Thai Buddhism in particular are not welcome. Such posts will be edited or deleted immediately, and the member will be warned and/or suspended."

From ThaiVisa Board general rules:

"7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

8) You will not post disruptive or inflammatory messages, vulgarities, obscenities or profanities.

9) You will not post inflammatory messages on the forum, or attempt to disrupt discussions to upset its participants, or trolling. Trolling can be defined as the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

[camerata]

Did anyone ever start a war in the name of Buddhism? Maybe that differentiates it from other religions?

This is one thing that differentiates Buddhism from theist religions. While there have been cases of Buddhist temples and sects fighting with each other (notably in Japan in the Heian and Kamakura periods when rival temples hired "warrior monks"), they fought over imperial privilege and land ownership. Even though there was much tension between the Shinto shrines and Buddhist temples, there was never a war in the name of the Buddha. Buddhism just kind of hijacked the Shinto deities, making them into bodhisattvas, and absorbed the shrines.

[only1]

Re read what I posted.

What is logical or scientifically coherent about the teaching, and why?

How any times do you want me to answer your same question ?

Newton's law on relativity is coherent to karma and Enstein's theory on energy is coherent with rebirth.

I asked you 3 questions on my last post to you on the 16th and 2 more yesterday but you did not reply. This will be my last reply to you since I find you quite unreasonable.

[only1]

Your statement that "Abrahamic religions ...... are not logical because a Creator God religion should be the oldest religion", is nonsense.

Why do you call my statement nonsense ?

If you cannot support with any explanation, you have insulted yourself.

[VincentRJ]

Your statement that "Abrahamic religions ...... are not logical because a Creator God religion should be the oldest religion", is nonsense.

Why do you call my statement nonsense ?

If you cannot support with any explanation, you have insulted yourself.

I thought I had provided an explanation. Didn't you read the rest of my post? Perhaps I've misunderstood your point. In case my explanation wasn't clear, I'll expand on it for your benefit, out of my sense of Buddhist compassion.

Your statement which I find does not make sense, which you've repeated a few times in various posts, is the implication that the oldest religion promoting the concept of a creator God should logically be a truer religion. Is this not what you are implying?

Since you appear to believe in the theory of evolution, which you claim debunks certain stories in the Old Testament, then you should appreciate the theory that human beings have very gradually evolved over millions of years to their current state of self-awareness, with a large brain and the capacity for abstract thought.

About 6 million years ago, our ancestors were basically just a species of ape who had learned how to walk consistently on two legs, an activity which freed their hands and gave them the advantage of being able to perform all sorts of tasks more easily, such as carrying food and supplies, and making primitive tools.

As the brains of these early ancestors gradually grew larger, they developed a more complex language than the grunts, hoots and screeches of their fellow apes, and were able to begin thinking about abstract matters such as the meaning of it all, why is there thunder and lightning, is some powerful creature in the sky responsible for it, where do people go when they die, and so on.

It is reasonable to suppose that the number and variety of explanations would have been huge and would have sometimes included the concept of a 'Chief God' or a 'Creator God', or an 'All-powerful God', but without written or carved records, it's impossible to know the details.

One of the oldest civilizations is the Indus Valley, or Harappan civilization which had it's origins as far back as 7,500 BC in the region of Pakistan and India. This civilization appears to have developed a written language, yet modern science has been unable to decipher it, so we can't be certain about the details of their religion, but there are theories that Gautama Buddha was continuing the religious practices that existed in the Harappan civilization prior to the Aryan invasion which introduced the caste system.

Perhaps the oldest religions we have any record of are the religious beliefs of the Australian Aborigines. Some of their rock paintings have been dated to 40,000 years ago. The Aboriginals arrived in Australia about 60,000 years ago, and perhaps even earlier. The Aboriginal religions include a lot of fanciful myths which vary from tribe to tribe, but amongst those myths is the belief in a 'Creation Figure' who has created people, the landscape and the environment.

In summary, human concepts of religion have gradually evolved over a long period of time. To claim that the earliest one involving a Creator God, should logically be the one we should subscribe to, (if we're inclided to believe in a Creator God), appears nonsense to me.

However, if I've misunderstood your statement, then please clarify your point.

[only1]

VincentRJ,

It's amazing how you could have new "misunderstandings" over my comments in every of your reply.

My stand is clear and constant.

I believe in evolution because it's scientifically proven.

I don't believe in Abrahamic religions for at least several reasons; it's Adam and Eve claim being debunked by science and the oldest Abrahamic religion is barely 3000 - 4000 years, which is not even as old as Hinduism, as based on the names of Abraham, his wife Sarah, the great flood compared to Brahma, Sarasthi, the great flood, it must have been copied from Hinduism. Abrahamic religions claimed their God is omnipotent and creator of humans with Adam and Eve，why then are there older religions(with Creator or no creator types) and why then Judaism's Creator created Christianity and Islam to go against them ? They are all logically and scientifically debunked and refuted. That means nonsense, can you follow ?

Whatever you wrote in your last post did not answer or prove at all that my explanations are invalid.

1) Evolution of life that leads to humans did not start with apes. I "wonder why"(no prize for knowing) all the religious people always think so.

2) Older religions that believed in Creator don't claimed Adam and Eve or omnipotent, so they are all "more" logical(I never say I believe them, so don't claim that later).

Am I clear enough now ?

3) Your use of civilization history don't support or coherent with Adam and Eve story and it don't debunk or refute my beliefs at all, so why write so much on it ?

Just to add a little information for those interested, you can use your civilisation part to explain rebirth and karma. Due to those apes or whatever called before or after them, due to their effort to learn and work for improvement, we are humans today; that is the best evidence of karma.

Let's see how you can spin further now :-)

[VincentRJ]

VincentRJ,

It's amazing how you could have new "misunderstandings" over my comments in every of your reply.

My stand is clear and constant.

I believe in evolution because it's scientifically proven.

So do I, and I have never implied that you don't believe in evolution. So why raise that? In my last post I wrote that I assumed you believe in evolution. Did you not read that?

　

I don't believe in Abrahamic religions for at least several reasons; it's Adam and Eve claim being debunked by science

Nor do I believe in Abrahamic religions, and have I never implied that you do, so why raise that? It's pretty obvious that anyone who believes in evolution would consider the Old Testament to be a fanciful set of stories. However, the existence of a Creator God is not debunked by science. That's a subject which is beyond the scope of scientific enquiry. Scientists even admit that they don't understand the nature of 95% of the matter and energy that surrounds us. They call it Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

.....and the oldest Abrahamic religion is barely 3000 - 4000 years, which is not even as old as Hinduism.....Older religions that believed in Creator don't claimed Adam and Eve or omnipotent, so they are all "more" logical (I never say I believe them, so don't claim that later).

This is the point that makes no sense to me, your implication that an older religion should be better or more logical. Older religions may not have the Adam and Eve story, but they have lots of other myths just as ridiculous, if not more ridiculous. The theory of evolution is a much better explanation, and that's less than a couple of hundred years old. What's age got to do with it? This is the point you should try to clarify. Newer belief systems should be better and more logical than older belief systems, if mankind is progressing.

[only1]

I never said all religions' Creator God is debunked by science. I only said creator God of Abrahamic religions debunked by science.

Why is it that you always "missed" to observe that ?

[only1]

I never said all religions' Creator God is debunked by science. I only said creator God of Abrahamic religions debunked by science.

I said other religions are "more logical" in comparison to Abrahamic religions.

Why is it that you always "missed" to observe that ?

BTW, some myths, in fact most, are not debunked by science too.

Show us which(other than Adam and Eve being the first 2 humans) ?

[VincentRJ]

I never said all religions' Creator God is debunked by science. I only said creator God of Abrahamic religions debunked by science.

I said other religions are "more logical" in comparison to Abrahamic religions.

Why is it that you always "missed" to observe that ?

Probably because I'm not aware of any other religions that describes a Creator God in a rational and logical manner free of mythological fairy stories as fanciful as the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Albert Einstein believed in a Creator God, but his concept of a Creator God was not part of any religion, unless you consider the study of Physics a religion. He believed in an impersonal God, along the lines of an Intelligent Designer who did not intervene in human affairs. Albert Einstein had no time for the prayers and rituals of any religion, which he thought were silly. His attempt to understand God was through his own study of Physics.

Likewise, there are some people who accept the processes of evolution as scientific fact, yet still believe in a Creator God who was responsible for starting the processes of evolution, because they think that the chances of a number of inanimate chemicals in a soupy sea combining to form the first, most primitive form of life, are too remote for credibility.

So perhaps you can help me out here, Only1, and provide a list of other religions which accept a Creator God, and which you think are more logical than the Abrahamic religions.

BTW, some myths, in fact most, are not debunked by science too.

Show us which(other than Adam and Eve being the first 2 humans) ?

Most myths, by definition, tend to be widely held but false beliefs, stories, or ideas. If they can't be debunked by science, it's because the subject matter is outside of the range of scientific enquiry and investigation, as the existence of a Creator God is.

However, you, not me, seem to think that there are certain myths that are not debunked by science and are presumably therefore credible. Please provide a list of some of those myths which are credible, unlike than the Adam and Eve story, so we can discuss them.

[only1]

Hinduism God Lord Brahma is probably the best known Creator God today beside the Abrahamic one. The great flood story is also there. One of his consort name Sarasthi, while Abraham's is Sarah. See how similar is Abraham and Sarah compared to Brahma and Sarasthi. So is the great flood story. I don't know about other religion's Creator God. Chinese religion have one too but I don't know Chinese or Hindu is older. Both of them do not have the Adam and Eve part that could be debunked by science.

Like Enstein, I don't worship any God because I believe we have nothing to do with them and they could not influence our lives. Even if they could have the power, I don't believe they could do us any good or harm unless we offended them badly(like the "freaky incident" happened in Penang I mentioned recently) Unlike Enstein, I will not say I believe or don't believe whether there was a Creator God. Maybe a creator God created evolution, why not ? I will only say anything based on science, logic or common sense. I don't believe in anything based on beliefs, hearsay or what the majority said. I concluded that Abrahmanic religions and God fake, based on all the evidence found on them, their similarities with others like Brahma, Buddha's, Horus's etc, add in their stories, teachings, behaviour, practice and the happenings in their history and today.

I never said any religion or belief is credible because it's not debunked by science. Unless I misunderstood your meaning on "credible". I believe

1) that anything that was debunked by science or defied by logic MUST be false.

2) myths(although believed to be false) or stories might not be all 100% false unless proven by science or logic. Take the Penang freak accident for example. It's a true incident but 1000 years into the future if anyone talk about it, people will consider it a myth too.

3) science is not the only source to be relied on. Science have not discovered or explained everything yet. So I will not say science proved or disproved karma or rebirth theory. I can only say rebirth and karma theories are coherent with science and logic.

[VincentRJ]

Hinduism God Lord Brahma is probably the best known Creator God today beside the Abrahamic one. The great flood story is also there. One of his consort name Sarasthi, while Abraham's is Sarah. See how similar is Abraham and Sarah compared to Brahma and Sarasthi. So is the great flood story. I don't know about other religion's Creator God. Chinese religion have one too but I don't know Chinese or Hindu is older. Both of them do not have the Adam and Eve part that could be debunked by science.

Only1,

I'm aware of the apparent connection between Brahma and Abraham and pointed this out many months ago on this forum in another thread.

However, I'm not an expert on Hinduism, and rely upon internet reports and Wikipedia for details. As I understand, these Hindu Gods of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are surrounded in fanciful mythology, not to be taken literally, just as the Garden of Eden story should not be taken literally.

Here's an extract form the mythological stories surrounding Brahma.

"From Vishnu's navel, within a giant cobra where Lord Vishnu sleeps, a lotus flower is sprung. In the middle of the blossom sat Vishnu's servant Brahma.

He awaited the Lord's command. Vishnu commanded Brahma 'create the world'.

A wind swept up the waters, Vishnu and the serpent vanished. Brahma set to work. He created grass, flowers, trees and plants, Animals, insects, birds and fish which he gave the sense to touch, smell, see, hear and movement."

Do you think this is less fanciful than the Garden of Eden story, and do you think it is more logical?

[only1]

Yes, they are all fanciful but my point is they proved that Abrahamic religions copied from Hinduim. Thus, proving Jesus is not a son of God too.

Fanciful but it was not debunked by science or logic, unlike the story of Adam and Eve or the "omnipotent" God.

Those deities, Gods or divas have their own world if they existed

Link them all up and you will understand why certain religions are created.

I consider it a SCAM.

[VincentRJ]

Yes, they are all fanciful but my point is they proved that Abrahamic religions copied from Hinduim. Thus, proving Jesus is not a son of God too.

Everything is a modified copy of everything else, according the theory of evolution, which you claim to accept. Just as the Abrahamic religion is a development from Brahma, (not an exact copy), Hinduism is also a development from an earlier religion, which history is less clear about, and that earlier religion is also a development from another yet earlier religion. The further back we go, the less information we have about those early religions.

Likewise, the further back we go into the evolutionary development of mankind, the less information we have. There is a similar process taking place with regard to ideas in general. Ideas evolve in a similar fashion to biological processes. We call them 'memes', which are the psychological equivalent of 'genes'. Have you heard of the 'meme', Only1?

Once the idea of a Creator God is imagined in the human mind and is communicated and spread orally, and/or in writing, the idea continues to evolve and change like any living organism does.

As I mentioned before, the Australia Aboriginals had a concept of a Creator God over 40,000 years ago. Where they got that concept from, no-one knows, but the original concept might go back a few hundred thousand years for all anyone knows.

[only1]

I don't see what are you trying to say have any relationships with Buddhism or what is true or false.

If all or more older religions believe in a Creator, the more it proved that the AdaM and Eve part was created later to fool people. All these beliefs in a Creator God was not debunked by science or logic. Only AdaM and Eve story was debunked by science and an omnipotent God debunked by LOGIC. No matter how the story evolved, we know now that who ever created the Adam and Eve part is up to no good since it's proven fake. Understand it before you go further. If not, it only show you are not rational or....I save that word, it's not allowed.

BTW, if anything is "not clear", why bring it up ? People will think it's made up.

[VincentRJ]

I don't see what are you trying to say have any relationships with Buddhism or what is true or false.

If all or more older religions believe in a Creator, the more it proved that the AdaM and Eve part was created later to fool people. All these beliefs in a Creator God was not debunked by science or logic. Only AdaM and Eve story was debunked by science and an omnipotent God debunked by LOGIC. No matter how the story evolved, we know now that who ever created the Adam and Eve part is up to no good since it's proven fake.

What is not logical is to claim that the Adam and Eve story was created to fool people. If that were true, it would imply that the writers of the Adam and Eve story had some pre-knowledge of the processes of evolution and knew that what they were writing was not true.

I see no evidence for this. The writers of the Adam and Eve story probably had no thoughts at all of any theory of evolution. A scam results when a person knows that what he is promoting is not true.

The Abrahamic religion evolved long before the concept of the scientific method existed. I have no reason to suppose that the writers of the Adam and Eve story did not whole-heartedly believe in what they were writing. Do you have any reason to doubt that, Only1? If so, please give your reasons.