A pre-school teacher goes to his class. The school year has just begun, and He decides that he's going to let all of the children know where he stands. He tells all of the children. "I'm an atheist. My mom was an atheist. My dad was an atheist, and I'm an atheist." Then he says to the children,"What are you"? The children striahgtly replied out of fear,"We're atheists too", with the exception of one little girl. The teacher walks over to the little girl and says, "What are you"? The little girl says, "I'm a chritian. My mom's a christian. My dad's a christian, and I'm a christian". The teacher says, "If your mom's a moron, and your dad's a moron, what does that make you"? The little girl replied, "An atheist".

It's a cute joke. No offensiveness there. It's just cute.. LAUGH.

I love you all, Christians, and atheists alike. Because the God I serve, TAKE PLEASURE in mercy, more than sacrifice.

...

I read that thrice hoping that I'd missing something. Nope, it just lame.

And then all the kids in the class stripped the Christian girl bare and raped her until she died.

The End

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:

A pre-school teacher goes to his class. The school year has just begun, and He decides that he's going to let all of the children know where he stands. He tells all of the children. "I'm an atheist. My mom was an atheist. My dad was an atheist, and I'm an atheist." Then he says to the children,"What are you"? The children striahgtly replied out of fear,"We're atheists too", with the exception of one little girl. The teacher walks over to the little girl and says, "What are you"? The little girl says, "I'm a chritian. My mom's a christian. My dad's a christian, and I'm a christian". The teacher says, "If your mom's a moron, and your dad's a moron, what does that make you"? The little girl replied, "An atheist".

It's a cute joke. No offensiveness there. It's just cute.. LAUGH.

I love you all, Christians, and atheists alike. Because the God I serve, TAKE PLEASURE in mercy, more than sacrifice.

You misspelled "cretin", but I won't hold it against you. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

well at least i am not an atheist, i am a buddhist, two steps up.

quote:Originally posted by Graemy

well at least i am not an atheist, i am a buddhist, two steps up.

You say that as if being a Buddhist means one is not an atheist. The majority of Buddhists are atheists. What God or gods do you believe in?

the definition of atheist is without theism

a-without (common scientific prefix, as in aceolem)

theism- theological beliefs

so a definition of athesim is without theological beliefs.

buddhists have an atheistic quality of disbelieving in god, yes.

quote:Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs

another definition is that they don't believe in a god or gods, but i was refering to the above definition. sorry for the mix up.

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:



I love you all, Christians, and atheists alike. Because the God I serve, TAKE PLEASURE in mercy, more than sacrifice.

lol

Patenty ridiculous. Preschool teachers are plump smiling women, not offensive loudmouthed male Stereotpyical Atheists.

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

Patenty ridiculous. Preschool teachers are plump smiling women, not offensive loudmouthed male Stereotpyical Atheists.

Preschool is a little too little to be...wait a second, is the teacher John Mark Karr?

quote:originally posted by Graemy

the definition of atheist is without theism

a-without (common scientific prefix, as in aceolem)

theism- theological beliefs

so a definition of athesim is without theological beliefs.

buddhists have an atheistic quality of disbelieving in god, yes.

Theism is belief in God. What you just defined is the same definition of atheist that we all have. Saying you don't believe in God but are not an atheist is incorrect, even with the definition you supplied.

quote:Originally posted by Zay:

I read that thrice hoping that I'd missing something. Nope, it just lame.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Theism is belief in God. What you just defined is the same definition of atheist that we all have. Saying you don't believe in God but are not an atheist is incorrect, even with the definition you supplied.

look what i am talking about is this, when people ask other people their religion, atheists say atheist, and buddhists say buddhist. they are different. Buddhism is considered to be a religion. when atheism isn't.

the way you are describing it sounds like you have to be atheist to be buddhist. you are describing atheism broadly, some atheists say buddhism "is just as false as a god"(my friend) Atheism isn't just a disbelief in god, it is a disbelief in faith. the common and simpler version (disbelief in a god) is used more often.

in a sense buddhists are atheists, because we don't believe in god, but that is common choice, the Buddha said the concept of a god doesn't matter, so he taught neither that there was or that there was not. so a buddhist could also not be considered atheism. Because traditional buddhism never denies a god just says it is an unimportant concept.

[This message has been edited by Graemy (edited 08-24-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Graemy

look what i am talking about is this, when people ask other people their religion, atheists say atheist, and buddhists say buddhist.

It doesn't matter. You are an atheist by your own definition. You responded to this thread with "well at least i am not an atheist, i am a buddhist, two steps up." Being one does not mean not being the other. You are a Buddhist and an atheist; take two steps back down.



quote:Originally posted by Graemy

Buddhism is considered to be a religion. when atheism isn't.

Atheism isn't a religion and by most accepted definitions, Buddhism isn't either.

http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell03.htm



quote:Originally posted by Graemy

in a sense buddhists are atheists, because we don't believe in god

No, not in a sense. If you don't believe in a god, you are an atheist, period!

look you aren't getting the point. i am saying that buddhism is different from atheism and isn't atheism. it is atheistic.

no i am not an atheist i am a buddhist.

[This message has been edited by Graemy (edited 08-24-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Graemy

no i am not an atheist, i am a buddhist.

For crying out loud; are you that thick headed? YOU CAN BE BOTH! If you don't believe in the existence of gods, you are an atheist! It doesn't matter if you are also a Buddhist, a Republican, an asshole, or anything else.

well can you be a republican and a democrat?

Seriously Graemy, what don't you get? You already admitted that there are Buddhists that are atheists and that you don't beleive in God. That would clearly make you one of the Buddhists who are also atheists.

Drop your ego like a good little Buddhist, admit you were wrong, and stop trying to cover it up by asking stupid questions like "can you be a republican and a democrat".

well if you pay attention he said that you could be both like a buddhist and republican, but however notice that one is a religion and one is a political party.

if you read this post

quote:look you aren't getting the point. i am saying that buddhism is different from atheism and isn't atheism. it is atheistic.

no i am not an atheist i am a buddhist.



i am a buddhist not an atheist, just like a satanist is not an atheist, just like scientology isn't atheism(they don't have a god do they?) being a buddhist happens to entail not believing in a god. you don't have to be an atheist to not believe in a god.

quote:Originally posted by Graemy:

look you aren't getting the point. i am saying that buddhism is different from atheism and isn't atheism. it is atheistic.



He's not saying that they are the same, he's saying that you can be both. Two very different things.

If you're a Buddhist that lacks a belief in gods, then you're also an atheist. If you are a Buddhist who does not lack a belief in a god you are a theist. It's as simple as that.

Your analogy about Democrats and Republicans fails because those are mutually exclusive labels. That doesn't accurately portray the scenario here, because Buddhism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-24-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Graemy:

i am a buddhist not an atheist, just like a satanist is not an atheist, just like scientology isn't atheism(they don't have a god do they?) being a buddhist happens to entail not believing in a god. you don't have to be an atheist to not believe in a god.

here is my rebuttle

quote:Originally posted by Graemy

you don't have to be an atheist to not believe in a god.

Yes, you do! As a matter of fact, it is the ONLY requirement for being an atheist!

C'mon Graemy, it's not that hard a concept to grasp.

so is every scientologist an atheist? every leveyan(sp?) satanist? every religion that does not have a god?

why do you always disregard most of my post or other posts entirly?

i have already grasped the concept that to be an atheist all you have to do is not believe in god. i am a buddhist, and buddhism entails not believing in a god.



[This message has been edited by Graemy (edited 08-24-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Graemy:

here is my rebuttle

That doesn't rebut anything. Are there Buddhists who lack a belief in god? If your answer is "yes", then there are Buddhist atheists. Do you lack a belief in gods? If your answer is "yes", then you are a Buddhist atheist.

Whether there are fundamental differences between atheism and Buddhist does not refute the fact that you can both at the same time.

quote:Originally posted by Graemy

so is every scientologist an atheist? every leveyan(sp?) satanist? every religion that does not have a god?

I didn't say that all Buddhists are atheists. The ones who don't believe in the existence of Gods are. The same would hold true for scientologists, satanists, etc.



quote:Originally posted by Graemy

why do you always disregard most of my post or other posts entirly?

Sorry. Tell me exactly what you want me to respond to and I will.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

That doesn't rebut anything. Are there Buddhists who lack a belief in god? If your answer is "yes", then there are Buddhist atheists. Do you lack a belief in gods? If your answer is "yes", then you are a Buddhist atheist.

Whether there are fundamental differences between atheism and Buddhist does not refute the fact that you can both at the same time.

i didn't say that you can't be both at the same time. i said i am not although i don't beleive in a god or gods. the basic tenets of buddhism say (basically) you need proof for things. that is why a god or gods is not believed in. it is atheistic, but it isn't atheism. you don't have to be an atheist to not believe in a god or gods.

if you think so why? just because you have the requirement to be something doesn't mean you have to be that something.

it is like saying all nerds are geniuses, a jock has an iq of 166(genius iq) is he a nerd, no he fits the requirements to be a nerd but he is just a smart jock.

lets say you aplly to multiple colleges. you meet the requirements for all of them, does that mean you will be approved bay all of them? no. even if you were approved, do you have to go to all of them? no.

quote:Originally posted by Graemy:

i didn't say that you can't be both at the same time. i said i am not although i don't beleive in a god or gods. the basic tenets of buddhism say (basically) you need proof for things. that is why a god or gods is not believed in. it is atheistic, but it isn't atheism. you don't have to be an atheist to not believe in a god or gods.



There is a difference between what you personally want to identify yourself as, and what you are. Whether or not the jock doesn't want to be identified as a nerd doesn't refute the fact that if we define nerds as "those with X amount of IQ or higher" and he has that number or more, then he's a nerd by definition.

The same applies here. If you lack a belief in gods, then you are an atheist by definition. There is nothing to debate. This is simple logic.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Sorry. Tell me exactly what you want me to respond to and I will.

nothing really, you just skip over stuff and address what you want and not all of it.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

There is a difference between what you personally want to identify yourself as, and what you are. Whether or not the jock doesn't want to be identified as a nerd doesn't refute the fact that if we define nerds as "those with X amount of IQ or higher" and he has that number or more, then he's a nerd by definition.

The same applies here. If you lack a belief in gods, then you are an atheist by definition. There is nothing to debate. This is simple logic.

he is a nerd by definition but all his life he was a jock. he isn't identifying himself as a jock, he is a jock. what i was getting at is it isn't that you fit the requirements, that just opens doors, it is what you are. i am a buddhist, i could be an atheist, but i have chosen buddhism because it is what i am by nature. my behaviour fits buddhism. by that i mean that i don't want to hurt people, my emotions are normally optemistic. i am happy alot, i don't identify myself as a buddhist, it is what i am.

quote:Originally posted by Graemy

i said i am not although i don't beleive in a god or gods.

That's impossible! If you don't believe in the existence of God or gods, you have the title of atheist. This is the last time I'm going to write this. It is simple logic. If you are a boy, you are a male. If you don't believe in the existence of God or gods, you are an atheist!

quote:Originally posted by Graemy

it is atheistic, but it isn't atheism.

Uhh, those are different forms of the same word. They mean the same thing.



quote:Originally posted by Graemy

it is like saying all nerds are geniuses, a jock has an iq of 166(genius iq) is he a nerd, no he fits the requirements to be a nerd but he is just a smart jock.

Correct. All nerds are not geniuses (if we're defining nerds as goofy, non-jock types). All Buddhists are not atheists. But the ones who have no belief in Gods are!

quote:Originally posted by Graemy

lets say you aplly to multiple colleges. you meet the requirements for all of them, does that mean you will be approved bay all of them? no. even if you were approved, do you have to go to all of them? no.

You don't have to be approved by anyone to be an atheist. If you meet the one requirement of being an atheist (non-belief in gods), you are an atheist.



[This message has been edited by Martini (edited 08-24-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:



I love you all, Christians, and atheists alike. Because the God I serve, TAKE PLEASURE in mercy, more than sacrifice.

So, he still enjoys sacrifice a little right?

quote:Originally posted by Graemy:

he is a nerd by definition but all his life he was a jock. he isn't identifying himself as a jock, he is a jock. what i was getting at is it isn't that you fit the requirements, that just opens doors, it is what you are. i am a buddhist, i could be an atheist, but i have chosen buddhism because it is what i am by nature. my behaviour fits buddhism. by that i mean that i don't want to hurt people, my emotions are normally optemistic. i am happy alot, i don't identify myself as a buddhist, it is what i am.

What you keep evading is the fact that you're an atheist by definition. It's not that you could be an atheist; it's that you ARE an atheist. Whether you don't identify yourself as an atheist, and whether your behaviour 'fits Buddhism better' doesn't change this.

There is absolutely no difference between what you keep saying is "having the requirements of an atheist" and actually being an atheist. If you "have the requirements", then that's what you are. Just like -2 is "has the requirement for being a negative number"... and it is a negative number.

The moment that you lack a belief in god, you're an atheist. It's as simple as that. Anything else is just your penchant for not being labeled an atheist for some reason.

"i am a buddhist, i could be an atheist, but i have chosen buddhism because it is what i am by nature."

Holy crap! Graemy, it doesn't matter if you chose Buddhism. If you choose to be a Buddhist, you still have to be either a girl or a boy. Your race still has to be black, white or other. You either have to believe in gods, not believe in gods, or not be sure. The ones who believe are theistic, the ones who don't are atheistic, which means they are atheists. Yes, both Buddhist and atheist, which you admitted earlier in this thread is entirely possible. You are a Buddhist, who happens to be a boy, who happens to be an atheist.

quote:Originally posted by Rust

Anything else is just your penchant for not being labeled an atheist for some reason.

I don't know why I didn't think of this before, but I think that's what's holding him back from grasping this simple logical concept. He does not like the label of "atheist", although he is one.

Graemy, atheism and Buddhism are not mutually exclusive; therefore, you can be both. Just like you can be a black Christian or something.

I think the issue here is one of primary labels. He doesn't see himself as an atheist, he sees himself as a Buddhist. He may accept that his belief is atheistic, but feels it would be wrong to call hm just an atheist because his actual and main belief is Buddhism. Atheism is just incidental to that, like vegetarianism is to Jainism. Jains would be vegetarians as well as Jains (Jainists?), but to encompass their full range of beliefs - to call them what they actually are - you would have to refer to them as, well, Jains. He sees someone who refers to themselves as just an atheist as someone with no religious beliefs at all, whereas he believes in Buddhism too - he feels that therefore there should be a qualifier: a Buddhist atheist. He's technically an atheist, too, but to call him that wouldn't provide the whole picture. Am I close at all, Graemy?



[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 08-24-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret

but feels it would be wrong to call hm just an atheist because his actual and main belief is Buddhism.

There are a few problems with that line of thinking. The first being that atheism isn't a belief; it's a lack of one.

He may feel it wrong to be called an atheist because his "main" belief is Buddhism, but he'd be wrong. Just like it wouldn't be incorrect to call him an American, a male, a Rebublican (if he is one), etc.

We all fit under many labels. Some are clear cut, like being a male, others not so clear cut, like being a Republican. In this case, based on what we know about Graemy, his being an atheist is clear cut.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

There are a few problems with that line of thinking. The first being that atheism isn't a belief; it's a lack of one.

He may feel it wrong to be called an atheist because his "main" belief is Buddhism, but he'd be wrong. Just like it wouldn't be incorrect to call him an American, a male, a Rebublican (if he is one), etc.

We all fit under many labels. Some are clear cut, like being a male, others not so clear cut, like being a Republican. In this case, based on what we know about Graemy, his being an atheist is clear cut.

You misunderstand. Of course it would be techincally correct to call him an atheist; however, that provides an incomplete picture, so he feels he should be referred to as a Buddhist, which encompasses atheism and the special Buddhist-specific ideas he holds.

Of course, I haven't read all of this thread, so it may be that he objects to being called an atheist at all. In which case I have no idea what he means.

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:



however, that provides an incomplete picture, so he feels he should be referred to as a Buddhist, which encompasses atheism and the special Buddhist-specific ideas he holds.

"Buddhist" does not encompass atheism, because he could be a theist Buddhist. There is no way around the fact that he is an atheist, and that "atheist" serves to further describe his beliefs. Buddhist alone does not do so, because it leaves open the possibility of he being a theist (i.e. one who believes in gods).

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-25-2006).]

quote:originally posted by Twisted_Ferret

Of course, I haven't read all of this thread, so it may be that he objects to being called an atheist at all.

He objects to being called an atheist at all.

he also says "you don't have to be an atheist to not believe in a god" and also says "i said i am not [an atheist] although i don't beleive in a god or gods".

you know what i have come to notice that when ever i post and martini closely follows the whole thread seems to go on some huge tangent.

i was going to post a long lecture right now, but i know it is pointless because people aren't picking up on my meaning and they would just say the same thing over and over agian, never addressing the true meaning.

It would be pointless because apparently you are incapable of making a coherent point.

Anyone who doesn't believe in God is an atheist.

Nobody cares if that's an incomplete description. Nobody cares if it's an adjective that you aren't keen on.

If you don't believe in God, then you are an atheist.

The fact is, the term does not describe anything more than that one point. Atheist is not an indication of any further personal beliefs. The fact that I am an atheist and NOT a Buddhist, you are an atheist and a Buddhist, and the Mr. X is a Satanist and an atheist is all quite irrelevant to the point that we still all share the property of atheism.

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:



A pre-school teacher goes to his class. The school year has just begun, and He decides that he's going to let all of the children know where he stands. He tells all of the children. "I'm an atheist. My mom was an atheist. My dad was an atheist, and I'm an atheist." Then he says to the children,"What are you"? The children striahgtly replied out of fear,"We're atheists too", with the exception of one little girl. The teacher walks over to the little girl and says, "What are you"? The little girl says, "I'm a chritian. My mom's a christian. My dad's a christian, and I'm a christian". The teacher says, "If your mom's a moron, and your dad's a moron, what does that make you"? The little girl replied, "An atheist".

It's a cute joke. No offensiveness there. It's just cute.. LAUGH.

I love you all, Christians, and atheists alike. Because the God I serve, TAKE PLEASURE in mercy, more than sacrifice.

Can you say passive aggressive?

That's just pathetic.

quote:Originally posted by PerpetualBurn:

It would be pointless because apparently you are incapable of making a coherent point.

Anyone who doesn't believe in God is an atheist.

Nobody cares if that's an incomplete description. Nobody cares if it's an adjective that you aren't keen on.

If you don't believe in God, then you are an atheist.

The fact is, the term does not describe anything more than that one point. Atheist is not an indication of any further personal beliefs. The fact that I am an atheist and NOT a Buddhist, you are an atheist and a Buddhist, and the Mr. X is a Satanist and an atheist is all quite irrelevant to the point that we still all share the property of atheism.

i will give it one last go.

just because you fit the requirement of something doesn't mean you are that thing. just because you have a penis doesn't make you a male(transexuals) they fit the requirement. but hey they aren't male.

Buddhism is atheistic as in it has qualities of atheism. it isn't atheism. i am saying that not believing in god is inherent to the fundamentals of buddhism. it is a complete package so to speak. since it is a complete package it is irrelevant to call your self an atheist and a buddhist. you just have to call yourself a buddhist. it is different from atheism which is why i said it is two steps up. that was the point of most of my arguement against Martini. i was making the point that Buddhism isn't Atheism and shouldn't be considered so.

if it is an incomplete description then it is completely relevant to the debate, and not caring is ignorance. if it is an incomplete description then it is wrong. the point i was trying to convey is that it means more than it says.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

He objects to being called an atheist at all.

he also says "you don't have to be an atheist to not believe in a god" and also says "i said i am not [an atheist] although i don't beleive in a god or gods".

you are correct. i do this because not believing in a god or gods is in the fundamentals of buddhism.

quote:Originally posted by Graemy

just because you fit the requirement of something doesn't mean you are that thing.

Yes, it does. If there is one requirement for being something and you fit that one requirement, you ARE that thing.

quote:Originally posted by Graemy

just because you have a penis doesn't make you a male(transexuals) they fit the requirement. but hey they aren't male.

A transexual has gone through a sex change operation, therefore doesn't any longer have a penis. Getting in to gray areas does not help you make your point correct. There is no gray area as far as your disbelief in gods go; you have made it clear that you don't belive in gods, which clearly makes you an atheist.

quote:Originally posted by Graemy

Buddhism is atheistic as in it has qualities of atheism. it isn't atheism.

We've gone over this ad nauseum. No one is saying that Buddhism is atheism.

quote:Originally posted by Graemy

i am saying that not believing in god is inherent to the fundamentals of buddhism.

If that statement were true, then all Buddhists are atheists.



quote:Originally posted by Graemy

since it is a complete package it is irrelevant to call your self an atheist and a buddhist.

That's fine. You don't have to go around calling yourself an atheist. However, saying that you are not an atheist when you don't believe in the existence of gods is incorrect. You ARE an atheist.



quote:Originally posted by Graemy

it is different from atheism which is why i said it is two steps up.

We've all agreed with this many times. Buddhism IS different than atheism. Atheism has one requirement- not believing in the existence of gods. Being labeled a Buddhist has a different set of requirements. This doesn't change the fact that saying "well at least i am not an atheist, i am a buddhist, two steps up" was an incorrect statement because you are both an atheist and a Buddhist.



quote:Originally posted by Graemy

that was the point of most of my arguement against Martini. i was making the point that Buddhism isn't Atheism and shouldn't be considered so.

I have never, ever claimed that Buddhism is atheism!



quote:Originally posted by Graemy

if it is an incomplete description then it is completely relevant to the debate, and not caring is ignorance. if it is an incomplete description then it is wrong. the point i was trying to convey is that it means more than it says.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.



[This message has been edited by Martini (edited 08-25-2006).]

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda03.htm that is what buddhists believe on the god idea. the "theistic" buddhists are bastardized forms of hinduism.

you said that i should take 2 steps down, this loosely implies that buddhism is atheism. and that is where i went from that.

the part where you have no idea was based on Perpetual's post.

quote:Originally posted by Graemy:

the Buddha said the concept of a god doesn't matter, so he taught neither that there was or that there was not. so a buddhist could also not be considered atheism. Because traditional buddhism never denies a god just says it is an unimportant concept.



nuff said!

Namaste http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Graemy:



just because you fit the requirement of something doesn't mean you are that thing.

If there is only one property required to fit the description, then yes it does.

I would respond to the rest of the post, but you fell at the first hurdle.

quote:Originally posted by Graemy:

http:// www.buddha (http: //www.budd hanet.net/ e-learning /qanda03.h tm) net.net/e- learning/qanda03.htm that is what buddhists believe on the god idea. the "theistic" buddhists are bastardized forms of hinduism.

you said that i should take 2 steps down, this loosely implies that buddhism is atheism. and that is where i went from that.

the part where you have no idea was based on Perpetual's post.



Sorry Graemy, but there was no implication that buddhism is atheism. No one is suggesting that you should not believe in buddhism.

Atheism is not a belief. It is simply the lack ok belief in a god or gods. It is not a religion.

quote:"...i didn't say that you can't be both at the same time. i said i am not although i don't beleive in a god or gods...

These are your own words. You don't believe in a god= you are an atheist.It's irrelevant as to what other buddhists believe. Since you don't believe in a god, you are an atheist. That doesn't effect tha fact that you are a buddhist.

quote:... the basic tenets of buddhism say (basically) you need proof for things. that is why a god or gods is not believed in. it is atheistic, but it isn't atheism. [b]you don't have to be an atheist to not believe in a god or gods..."

Buddhism not taking a position on the existance of a god doesn't change the definition of atheism. If you don't believe in a god, you are atheist.

again every one is missing my meanings. fitting one requirement if it is the only requirement qualifies you to be that thing. you don't have to be an atheist to not believe in god, because not believing in god is part of being a buddhist.

ok let's use another analagy. lets say for christmas you get a present(buddhism), and buddhism entails not believing in a god. you don't say i got buddhism and atheism, you say i got buddhism. it is atheistic, it has atheism in it. therefore saying you are a buddhist and an atheist, is being ignorant of the basic teachings of buddhism.

Perpetual, if you are going to ignore the rest of my post, then you are truely ignorant. you are like a creationist who picks and chooses what evidence to attack in evolution.

[This message has been edited by Graemy (edited 08-25-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Graemy

again every one is missing my meanings.

Graemy, please, I beg you, be open minded that all of us are not missing your meanings, but it is you who are missing ours.

quote:Originally posted by Graemy

fitting one requirement if it is the only requirement qualifies you to be that thing.

Correct. It not only qualifies you to be that thing, you now have the title of being that thing. If the one reuirement for being a boy is having a penis and you have a penis, you are a boy. If the one requirement for being a soldier is being in the armed forces and you are in the armed forces, you are a sodier. If the one requirement for being in atheist is not beleiveing in the existence of gods, and you have no belief in the existence of gods, you are an atheist.



quote:Originally posted by Graemy

you don't have to be an atheist to not believe in god, because not believing in god is part of being a buddhist.

First of all, not believing in God is not part of being a Buddhist, and it seems like you understood this on a post you made on the first page of this thread. You do not have to be an atheist to be a Buddhist.

But lets say that you're correct and not believing in God is part of being a Buddhist. That is exactly the same thing as saying being an atheist is part of being a Buddhist.



quote:Originally posted by Graemy

lets say for christmas you get a present(buddhism), and buddhism entails not believing in a god. you don't say i got buddhism and atheism, you say i got buddhism.

It doesn't matter what you'd say. If you got a car for Christmas, you don't say I got a car and four wheels, you say you got a car. That does not change the fact that you also have four wheels.



quote:Originally posted by Graemy

it is atheistic, it has atheism in it.

Exactly. You are a Buddhist and an atheist. It doesn't matter that when someone asks you what your religion is, that you say Buddhist without bringing up atheism. But if someone's follow up question is, "are you an atheist"?, your answer would be "yes, I don't believe in the existence of gods".



quote:Originally posted by Graemy

therefore saying you are a buddhist and an atheist, is being ignorant of the basic teachings of buddhism.

No, it isn't. It is being precise about your beliefs. As you posteds earlier:

"the Buddha said the concept of a god doesn't matter, so he taught neither that there was or that there was not. so a buddhist could also not be considered atheism. Because traditional buddhism never denies a god just says it is an unimportant concept."

You were absolutely correct. Therefore saying that you are a Buddhist and an atheist is merely telling more about yourself than just saying I'm a Buddhist. Some Buddhists believe no gods exist (they are atheists) and some believe that a God or gods do exist (they are theists).

the ones buddhists that do believe in gods are bastardized forms of hinduism.

you had it right here.

quote:It doesn't matter what you'd say. If you got a car for Christmas, you don't say I got a car and four wheels, you say you got a car. That does not change the fact that you also have four wheels.



that is my meaning. buddhism has atheism, but you don't say that you are a buddhist and an atheist. i said buddhism was 2 steps up from atheism. that is what i was trying to convey. you don't need the title atheist to not believe in a god. because atheism is in buddhism when you say you are a buddhist people with know that you don't believe in a god.

qualification just means you have the possibility to give some one a title, a qualification isn't absolute.

WARNING; MARTINI, DON'T SKIP THIS QUESTION

why is it that when i post something and you closly follow we some how go on a huge tangent?

END WARNING

you are right if someone does follow up a question after i answer buddhism with "are you an atheist?" the only answer i could possibly give is yes.

quote:Originally posted by Graemy

the ones buddhists that do believe in gods are bastardized forms of hinduism.

That is not necessarily true. There are plenty of Buddhists that believe in various non-hindu Gods. As you said earlier, Buddhism does not require that you do or don't believe in gods.

quote:Originally posted by Graemy

that is my meaning. buddhism has atheism, but you don't say that you are a buddhist and an atheist.

For crying out loud, Graemy, we ALL agreed with that you don't have to say anything about yourself. Our problems are with these statements that you made:

"well at least i am not an atheist"

"no i am not an atheist i am a buddhist"

"i am a buddhist not an atheist"

"i said i am not although i don't beleive in a god or gods."

"it is atheistic, but it isn't atheism. you don't have to be an atheist to not believe in a god or gods."

"just because you have the requirement to be something doesn't mean you have to be that something."

"i am a buddhist, i could be an atheist, but i have chosen buddhism because it is what i am by nature."

"just because you fit the requirement of something doesn't mean you are that thing."

"you don't have to be an atheist to not believe in god"



quote:Originally posted by Graemy

because atheism is in buddhism when you say you are a buddhist people with know that you don't believe in a god.

No, they don't. There are people who will ask and know nothing about Buddhism and there are people who know that some Buddhists do indeed believe in God.



quote:Originally posted by Graemy

why is it that when i post something and you closly follow we some how go on a huge tangent?

Because both of us and others continue to post? Are you blaming me for something here?

quote:Originally posted by Graemy

you are right if someone does follow up a question after i answer buddhism with "are you an atheist?" the only answer i could possibly give is yes

Hallelujah!

Ok, it seems Graemy, that you are trying to give us this old logic question (seen on a lot of IQ tests):

If all X's are Y then are all Y's X's?

The answer of course being no. A good example of why being this:

All men are people, so all people are men.

This is obviously false, as some people are women.

I think this is your basis for the argument, or at least you are trying to apply a similar process of logic. Of course, this does not work in this situation. Atheist is simply not a term which defines the item, it is merely a descriptive term.

All those who do not believe in God are atheist.

All those who are atheist do not believe in God.

As you can see, this is adopting the same format as the above X and Y progression, but no fallacy is committed as in this example X and Y are synonymous.

It simply does not matter what your reasons for being atheist are, or what other beliefs can be attributed to you, you still come under the set of those who do not believe in God: Atheism.

I really hope that clears things up as I'm sure it's quite impossible to make it any more obvious. The only other thing I can think of is that you draw a Venn Diagram of the situation if you know what that entails.

Shellz, you're constantly stirring the water...and I've come to realize that, that is better than a stagnant pond.

Don't ever lose that ability to provoke thought and communication. That is the key to finding truth.

[This message has been edited by HampTheToker (edited 08-26-2006).]

no martini i am not blaming you, but usually when we post in the same thread we go on some huge tangent, debate.

martini what i meant by "well at least i am not an atheist, i am a buddhist" is that i am not exactly an atheist. i meant that i had other beliefs. i was using my friends definition that atheism is a lack of faith.

you are right but most of them are hinu bastardizations. believing in a god is frowned upon, though. it is because buddhists believe that before believing you should have proof.

perpetual it is more than that. lets look at it this way, lets use biology. all men have XY(kinda ironic) chromosomes, all women have XX chromosomes. but a true hermaphrodite is born with XX and XY chromosomes. so is the Hermaphrodite a boy or a girl? Neither. it is a combination of the two.

That example doesn't fit into the context at all.

A hermaphrodite is neither male nor female. It is something else.

Please respond to the post intelligently.

quote:Originally posted by PerpetualBurn:

That example doesn't fit into the context at all.

A hermaphrodite is neither male nor female. It is something else.

Please respond to the post intelligently.

A Perfect hermaphrodite would posess both male genitalia and organs, and female genitalia and organs...so it would have testacles and ovaries, a penis and a vagina.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite

In zoology and botany, a hermaphrodite is an organism that possesses both male and female sex organs during its life[1]. In many species, hermaphroditism is a common part of the life-cycle. Generally, hermaphroditism occurs in the invertebrates, although it occurs in a fair number of fish, and to a lesser degree in other vertebrates.

___________________________________________

quote:Originally posted by Graemy

martini what i meant by "well at least i am not an atheist, i am a buddhist" is that i am not exactly an atheist.

You are exactly an atheist.



quote:Originally posted by Graemy

i meant that i had other beliefs. i was using my friends definition that atheism is a lack of faith.

You are not forbidden to have other beliefs to be called an atheist and your friend's defintion is wrong. You can have faith in Bigfoot, Santa Clause, and the Tooth Fairy and if you don't believe in the existence of gods, you are an atheist.



quote:Originally posted by Graemy

you are right but most of them are hinu bastardizations.

That may or may not be true, but I doubt you have any statistics that show what gods most theist Buddhists believe in.

quote:Originally posted by Graemy

believing in a god is frowned upon, though. it is because buddhists believe that before believing you should have proof.

No, skeptics believe that before believing you must have proof (or at least a reasonable amount of strong evidence). Most Buddhists believe in Karma, reincarnation/rebirth, and that the Buddha was omniscient (or enlightened), all without any reasonable amount of proof or evidence.

quote:Originally posted by Graemy

perpetual it is more than that. lets look at it this way, lets use biology. all men have XY(kinda ironic) chromosomes, all women have XX chromosomes. but a true hermaphrodite is born with XX and XY chromosomes. so is the Hermaphrodite a boy or a girl? Neither. it is a combination of the two.

If your talking about my example that I gave, that if the one requirement of being a boy is having a penis and you have a penis you are a boy, that was only a hypothetical. There are obviously more requirements to being a boy than having a penis. If someone cuts off your penis you are still a boy. If you have a penis and a vagina, you may be labled a hermaphrodite.

The difference is, being an atheist is one of those rare titles that has one, and only one requirement. If you don't believe in the existence of God or gods, you are an atheist, period. All those who don't believe are atheists, and all atheists don't believe in gods.

[This message has been edited by Martini (edited 08-26-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

A Perfect hermaphrodite would posess both male genitalia and organs, and female genitalia and organs...so it would have testacles and ovaries, a penis and a vagina.

ht tp://en.wi kipedia.or g/wiki/Her maphrodite (http: //en.wikip edia.org/w iki/Hermap hrodite)

In zoology and botany, a hermaphrodite is an organism that possesses both male and female sex organs during its life[1]. In many species, hermaphroditism is a common part of the life-cycle. Generally, hermaphroditism occurs in the invertebrates, although it occurs in a fair number of fish, and to a lesser degree in other vertebrates.

___________________________________________





Thanks for that incredibly irrelevant post.

The reference was to humans.

I am fully aware and informed of what a hermaphrodite is.

A hermaphrodite person is neither male nor female.

Just what the hell were you trying to say?

quote:Originally posted by PerpetualBurn:



Thanks for that incredibly irrelevant post.

The reference was to humans.

I am fully aware and informed of what a hermaphrodite is.

A hermaphrodite person is neither male nor female.

Just what the hell were you trying to say?

I'm glad you know what a hermaphrodite is.

So did your post have a purpose, or are all your posts so inane?

quote:Originally posted by PerpetualBurn:

So did your post have a purpose, or are all your posts so inane?

Well you can check all my posts and you'll probably come to a judgement.

ok let me explain the hermaphrodite thing.

the only requirement to be a boy is XY chromosomes period. that is what gives you everything a boy should have and get. the only requirement to be a girl is XX chromosomes. A true hermaphrodite has XY and XX chromosomes(by martini's logic it is a boy and girl, since they fit the one requirement) ok lets say having XY means atheism and having XX means theism. now hermaphrodites have XY and XX, it is neither be cause it has a little atheism and a little theism.

Karma is like a higher power governing our actions isn't it? it judges us to see if we have done good or bad and then punishes us/rewards us with similar deeds back to us. that seems a little like Theism, the beleif in a higher power that judges us.

the only other buddhism that i can think of that has god is a Chinese Mahayana form that does. then there are the Mahayana forms in India(or whats left) and they have been changed by hinduism.

That's a false dichotomy.

A male is XY.

A female is XX.

A hermaphrodite is XXY or XO (a single X chromosome).

A hermaphrodite is neither male nor female.

This is all very irrelevant and I would like you to actually address the logic I laid down in my other post.

Edit: You also appear to misunderstand the nature of chromosomes. There are two chromosome that determine sex: X and Y. You should have two of them, but hermaphrodites can have 3 - XXY. They don't have an "XX" and an "XY".

[This message has been edited by PerpetualBurn (edited 08-26-2006).]

http://tinyurl.com/qrjgj

that is my source, it says a true hermaphrodite has a karyotype of 46XX/46XY.

i did address your logic, if you would read my post then you would probably get it and the relevancy of my post.

quote:Extended genetic analysis was performed and it was was shown that the person had inherited material from both X chromosomes of the mother, and from both the X and Y chromosomes of the father. (Unlike the person in the last section, all of whose X chromosomes were maternal)

that is a quote from my source.



[This message has been edited by Graemy (edited 08-26-2006).]

It's not quite this simple, but I really don't want to get sidetracked into discussions of the genetics of chimerism, hermaphroditism, intersex etc. etc.

The point is that you are using a false dichotomy, because a hermaphrodite is simply distinct to a male and a female, though they may appear similar to both.

Please address the actual argument I gave you instead of taking the discussion off at an irrelevant tangent. I don't care for your analogies when you could discuss the actualities.

quote:Originally posted by Graemy

(by martini's logic it is a boy and girl, since they fit the one requirement)

How the fuck are you interpretting anything I said to come to this conclusion?

Can we get off the hermaphrodite thing now? You have been shown quite clearly that this is a bad analogy to prove that you are an atheist.

You already admitted, "you are right if someone does follow up a question after i answer buddhism with "are you an atheist?" the only answer i could possibly give is yes"

You are an atheist! EXACTLY an atheist!



quote:Originally posted by Graemy

Karma is like a higher power governing our actions isn't it?

Do you think that Buddhists that you say "believe that before believing you should have proof" have proof of a higher power that "judges us to see if we have done good or bad and then punishes us/rewards us with similar deeds back to us."?

you are the one who started the tangent by talking about me having a false dichotomy and then i post a source and you say that i should get back on track.

i have explained it and you don't address it at all. you just say it is a false dichotomy. and you saying that if someone has just one X chromosome makes them a hermaphrodite is wrong. because they need a Y chromosome to tell the body to produce Testosterone and other things.

quote:A hermaphrodite is XXY or XO (a single X chromosome).



ok now martini. does it matter that we have proof? do you think that the Skeptics that you say "believe that before believing you must have proof" have proof there is no god, Karma, reincarnation?

quote: It not only qualifies you to be that thing, you now have the title of being that thing. that is how martini

How is it a bad analagy when i have posted a source for my claims and he just says it is wrong?

if someone does follow up a question after i answer buddhism with "are you an atheist?" the only answer i could possibly give is yes, what else am i going to say, i am not an atheist i am a buddhist, then i would have to go on this whole tangent with them.

Google Klinefelter's syndrome.

I'm not backtracking, but I want you to ADDRESS MY POST.

There's the old riddle:

How is a raven like a desk? Edgar Allen Poe wrote on them both.

The point of the origin of the riddle proved that any two things can be analogous, but to use them argumentatively is inane.

Get back to the issue, don't sidetrack the debate with a faulty analogy.

I think the problem here is that Graemy has bought into religious propaganda that atheists are some sort of weird cult or a certain type of people, so he doesn't want to be associated with them. Why else would he say he was "two steps above?"

Graemy: Atheism is not a religion and there are no followers.

It is like ethnicity: if you are German, then you are European. Maybe German describes you more specifically, but it doesn't make you any less European. Just like that, you believe in no god/s (atheist), but more specifically you subscribe to Buddhist thought. It doesn't make you any less of an Atheist.

Don't feel superior to people because you have beliefs, that is one step closer to religious fanaticism.

Edit: formatting error.

[This message has been edited by malaria (edited 08-26-2006).]

ok perpetual that is a condition where it is 47XXY/46XY, i was talking about the true condition 46XX/46XY. how is it faulty? it is true that Hermaphrodites can have XX and XY chromosomes as stated in my source. and i criticized when you said that they could have one X chromosome and not the one with three. even so the one with Three also has XY and XX. (X[X)Y]. so my analogy still holds.

i have explained it and you won't address it. my analagy is addressing your post.

and no malaria i have not bought into that. they are not getting my point and are repeating the same thing over and over again. Martini didn't address my part on karma. he just asked if Buddhists have proof. what i am saying is that Buddhism is a mix of Atheism and Theism. at the cause of Karma. this Makes it completely diferent(already has been settled) and makes it two steps up.

quote:Originally posted by Graemy

ok now martini. does it matter that we have proof?

It matters if you're going to make the claim that "buddhists believe that before believing you should have proof". That is an inaccurate claim that many Buddhists make, and I don't want you to get bamboozled into thinking that Buddhism is as skeptical a religion or philosophy as some would have you beleive.

quote:Originally posted by Graemy

do you think that the Skeptics that you say "believe that before believing you must have proof" have proof there is no god, Karma, reincarnation?

Skeptical, rational people don't make claims that they have proof that there is no god, Karma, or reincarnation.



quote:Originally posted by Graemy

that is how martini

How is it a bad analagy when i have posted a source for my claims and he just says it is wrong?

You have not posted a source for your claims. If there is "one" requirement for being something then you are that thing. If there is "one" requirement for being a hermaphrodite, then you are a hermaphrodite. If there is "one" requirement for being an atheist, then you are an atheist.

Buddhism is not a mix of atheism and theism. It is atheism with supernatural beliefs.

Your analogy is flawed and I am not going to debate the exact nature of hermaphrodites as it is quite irrelevant.

It does not have anything to do with my post.

Ok, explain to me why it is two steps up. I want to know why your belief is better than someone elses non-belief.

If you can explain why that makes you better, then I will accept that you haven't bought into anti-atheist propaganda. Otherwise, I will assume you are the worst buddhist ever who is absorbed in labels.

malaria i am not saying it is better. i am saying it is different. since Karma is a higher force that judges us means it is a little theistic, which makes it different then atheism. infact the post in question was a joke post.

i was joking that since the OP said that two morons made an atheist i was saying buddhism is different and therefore two steps up.

Perpetual theism is the belief in a higher power that governs you, karma states that if you do something good, something good will happen to you. yes it does have to do with your post because you just used atheism, when more is involved in the debate.

Martini the tinyurl is the source. i didn't post the source of my beliefs. i posted the source of my analagy, which was said to be faulty but yet no one can explain to me why it is faulty.

they do, there are some on the board, they say there is no god. Buddhists didn't say they had proof of Karma.

Nonlocality is proof of karma. Nonlocality is a Quantum Physical theory that there is a seamless whole. and that everything must equal zero acoording to the laws of physics. particles come into existence and at the same time another goes out of existence. if you have an angular momentum, something somewhere else has an equal but opposite angular momentum.

quote:Originally posted by Graemy

malaria i am not saying it is better. i am saying it is different.

Saying "well at least i am not an atheist, i am a buddhist, two steps up" is not saying you are different than an atheist; it is saying you are better than an atheist.



quote:Originally posted by Graemy

since Karma is a higher force that judges us means it is a little theistic, which makes it different then atheism.

Yes, Graemy, karma is different than atheism. You saying "we don't believe in god" is EXACTLY atheism! Your statement, "you don't have to be an atheist to not believe in a god" is INCORRECT! I have never had such a hard time getting through to someone! Buddhists do not believe that karma is a higher force!



quote:Originally posted by Graemy

Nonlocality is proof of karma.

You are so, so misinformed! You can not prove karma with a physical theory!



quote:Originally posted by Graemy

if you have an angular momentum, something somewhere else has an equal but opposite angular momentum.

We are talking about particles moving here. You can absolutely, positively not use this as proof that if you do something good, something good will come back to you and if you do somethin bad, something bad will come back to you.

quote:Martini the tinyurl is the source. i didn't post the source of my beliefs. i posted the source of my analagy, which was said to be faulty but yet no one can explain to me why it is faulty.

Your analogy about hermaphrodites is not valid because it does not in any way, shape, or form show that you are not an atheist.

Please wrap your mind around this concept and respond to it without getting too wrapped up in what the true definition of a hemaphrodite is and Xs and Ys:

If there is "one" requirement for being something, and you fit that requirement, then you are that thing.

If there is "one" requirement for being a hermaphrodite, and you fit that requirement, then you are a hermaphrodite.

If there is "one" requirement for being an atheist, and you fit that requirement, then you are an atheist.

[This message has been edited by Martini (edited 08-26-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Graemy:



How is it a bad analagy when i have posted a source for my claims and he just says it is wrong?

First of all, it's an unnecessary analogy because the issue has already been resolved. There is nothing to debate here. You are an atheist Buddhist. You are an atheist the moment you say that you lack a belief in gods, which you've already admitted to. That's it, end of discussion. That you think that Buddhist describes you more accurately, or that you hate the label of atheist, or any other complaints you might have, they are ultimately are inconsequential. The fact remains that you're an atheist, an atheist Buddhist.

Second of all, you're deliberately defining "male" and "female" to your convenience in order to make this argument of yours work. However, not only is that arbitrary but it is not the definition of "male" and "female" commonly used.

The source you provided shows a particular case of Hermaphrodism called "Chimerism". The "boy" in that case had some cells with XX chromosomes and some cells with XY chromosomes. That's not a male according to the most common definition of male. A male would have only XY chromosomes in all his cells.

As such, we can say that a case of Chimerism would not produce a male or a female, but something else completely. He doesn't fulfill the requirements of a male, because he possesses cells with XX chromosomes on top of the cells with XY chromosomes. He doesn't fulfill the requirements of a female for the same reason.

quote:Originally posted by Graemy:



Perpetual theism is the belief in a higher power that governs you, karma states that if you do something good, something good will happen to you. yes it does have to do with your post because you just used atheism, when more is involved in the debate.



Nope. Theism is belief in God.

quote:Originally posted by Graemy

theism is the belief in a higher power that governs you, karma states that if you do something good, something good will happen to you.

Karma is not a higher power that governs you. You really should learn a little more about the religion that you claim you believe in.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Originally posted by Graemy

theism is the belief in a higher power that governs you, karma states that if you do something good, something good will happen to you.

Karma is not a higher power that governs you. You really should learn a little more about the religion that you claim you believe in.

well let me see. according to karma if you do something good then something good happens to you. isn't this an example of surroundings being controled? how can it make something good happen to you unless it has some control.

and martini you seemed to skip this part of my post. "i was joking that since the OP said that two morons made an atheist i was saying buddhism is different and therefore two steps up."

let me put it this way, you don't have to be an atheist to not believe in god, but to be an atheist you have to not believe in god.

and all hermaphrodism that has both XX and XY chromosomes are Chimerism i wrote a biology paper on it and i got a perfect score. i was not deliberately defining Male and Female to my convenience, i was stating the qualifications of being a male and female which i have read in many books that they are Male=XY and Female=XX.

i am done here, no one sees my points and we just keep arguing in a circle. i will no longer complete the circle.

quote:Originally posted by Graemy

let me put it this way, you don't have to be an atheist to not believe in god

YES, YOU DO!

quote:Originally posted by Graemy

well let me see. according to karma if you do something good then something good happens to you. isn't this an example of surroundings being controled?

In Buddhism, karma is believed to be controlled by the person doing the good or bad, meaning it is a form of cause and effect, not a punishment or reward given by a higher power.

quote:Originally posted by Graemy:



and all hermaphrodism that has both XX and XY chromosomes are Chimerism

Who the hell said otherwise? I distinctly rember saying preciesly the source you provided was talking about a particular case of hermaphrodism called Chimerism, which entails having some cells with XX and others with XY.

quote: i was not deliberately defining Male and Female to my convenience, i was stating the qualifications of being a male and female which i have read in many books that they are Male=XY and Female=XX.

You definately are. You're defining male to mean someone who possesses some cells with XY chromosomes, when we can just as easilly define it as someone who posseses all of his cells with XY chromosomes. If we define it the way you were, then we would have to accept that the case your source describes would be both male and female, yet if we define it as the latter, then that particular case of hermaphrodism would not be both male and female, but something else.

Seeing as nobody here ever defined male or female, then it's pretty obvious that it was you injecting the definition that you wanted.

quote:

i am done here, no one sees my points and we just keep arguing in a circle. i will no longer complete the circle.

The only reason we keep arguing in a circle is because you cannot comprehend that when somebody lacks a belief in a god, then he or she is an atheist. You admit that you lacked a belief in a god, therefore, you're an atheist.

quote:Originally posted by HampTheToker:

Shellz, you're constantly stirring the water...and I've come to realize that, that is better than a stagnant pond.

Don't ever lose that ability to provoke thought and communication. That is the key to finding truth.



I have to correct you, bro. Not out of 'pride', but out of love. Truth doesn't come from thought, it comes from the Word of God. Assurance of what is true. Jesus is the way. Jesus is the truth. Jesus is the life.

Follow God. Get over the past, and RUN the race you were destined to run. Seek His face, and find His plan for your life. This is what I want for you, because I know that in God, lies everything your heart has EVER desired. It's IN GOD. Don't persist in your own ways. Persist against your own ways. It's a war against the flesh we fight, the devil is a liar, and a defeated foe. I love you, Bro. I really do. "If you can see the invisible, you can do the impossible."

-God's Daughter

Nope. Truth is gained by observation and logical deduction.

But you were oh so close.

http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=8,2859,0,0,1,0

Interesting opinion

It's an interesting take on the subject, but they use an online dictionary that I've never heard of presumably to force definitions that suit their purpose.

Perpetual it is merriam webster online dictionary.

Well that sure as hell made me look a pillock. In my defence it is still rather contentious to pick their definitions like that when the terms are rather open to interpretation.

Maybe, i didn't know what it was until i went there a direct quote "what is this place...oh"

quote:Originally posted by Graemy

Perpetual it is merriam webster online dictionary.

So what? You are an atheist according to that definition along with your own definition.

You said that "buddhism is different from atheism and isn't atheism. it is atheistic". If you believe that Buddhism is atheistic, and you are a Buddhist, you are an atheist.

You also said, "i have already grasped the concept that to be an atheist all you have to do is not believe in god. i am a buddhist, and buddhism entails not believing in a god."

By your own words again, you are an atheist.

And other nonsense:

"just because you have the requirement to be something doesn't mean you have to be that something."

"i am a buddhist, i could be an atheist, but i have chosen buddhism because it is what i am by nature."

"you don't have to be an atheist to not believe in god, because not believing in god is part of being a buddhist."

This statement shows what you are not getting:

"if someone does follow up a question after i answer buddhism with "are you an atheist?" the only answer i could possibly give is yes, what else am i going to say, i am not an atheist i am a buddhist, then i would have to go on this whole tangent with them."

You seem to think that you are an atheist, but being a Buddhist somehow overshadows that fact. It doesn't. It's not one or another. You are an atheist by your own admission that also follows the Buddhist philosophy.

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

And then all the kids in the class stripped the Christian girl bare and raped her until she died.

The End

The only part of the entire thing that made me laugh. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:

No offensiveness there. It's just cute.. LAUGH.

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:

The teacher says, "If your mom's a moron, and your dad's a moron, what does that make you"? The little girl replied, "An atheist".

I guess it's only offensive to call Christians morons.

ok martini, what are you doing. i just said it was merriam webster online dictionary.

About Buddhists being Athiests, you are forgetting the word: NON-THEISM.

Non-theism: having no belief or faith of a god.

A-theism: having a negative belief or faith of a god.

The two are different.

quote:Originally posted by Xerxes89:

About Buddhists being Athiests, you are forgetting the word: NON-THEISM.

Non-theism: having no belief or faith of a god.

A-theism: having a negative belief or faith of a god.

The two are different.

The prefix "A-" means "not" in Greek, the root language of the word, and the word "theist" means, well, theist. Someone who has a faith or religion. Thus, a-theist = not a theist. There is no "negative belief", whatever that means. I think you hold the common view that an atheist is someone who has an almost religious faith in the nonexistance of God. There very well may be such people, but when I call myself an "atheist" I mean I don't believe in a God because no reason to believe has been presented to me - not that I have faith that God doesn't exist; it's just a default position. God might exist, for all I know, but until you give me a reason to suppose so I will continue to fail to offer any devotions to him.

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

Originally posted by Xerxes89:

About Buddhists being Athiests, you are forgetting the word: NON-THEISM.

Non-theism: having no belief or faith of a god.

A-theism: having a negative belief or faith of a god.

The two are different.

The prefix "A-" means "not" in Greek, the root language of the word, and the word "theist" means, well, theist. Someone who has a faith or religion. Thus, a-theist = not a theist. There is no "negative belief", whatever that means. I think you hold the common view that an atheist is someone who has an almost religious faith in the nonexistance of God. There very well may be such people, but when I call myself an "atheist" I mean I don't believe in a God because no reason to believe has been presented to me - not that I have faith that God doesn't exist; it's just a default position. God might exist, for all I know, but until you give me a reason to suppose so I will continue to fail to offer any devotions to him.

How would you define God? Would your god be modeled off Jehovah, Allah, Odin, Zeus, Brahmin, Ahura Mazda, .... ?

quote:Concise Collins Dictionary: god 1. a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world or is a personification of some force

A question you may like to answer Graemy - are you saying Karma is that force, and God is a name humans give to it? Because that's what your explanations sounds like to me, and that's ok. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) To my mind there is a higher power, and it works somewhat like what we call our 'unconscious' mind.

That of course is not unconscious at all but zapping away interpreting things like tone, body language, scents, sounds, choosing a suitable mate, operating the cells and organs ... the list goes on. So much is happening in our 'unconscious' minds and ordinarily we are unaware.

How is it that labels like buddhist, atheist, christian, muslim, etc., are even necessary?

What does it matter? Are we not all members of the one human species? How can we help one another endure? How can one's spirit soar? Is there more to life than suffering? Every human wants the same things, to be happy and free from suffering? How does attaching a label to oneself achieve that? In taking a set definition of oneself, as denoted by the label, do you in fact hinder the flow? Could one's mind become stagnant because of the label?

Is one an atheist if they believe in an impersonal force as the higher power?

The Gods rejected by atheist belief, are they a religious 'personification of some universal force'?

The Greeks believed Logos ruled the universe a term used by philosphers to denote reason as the controlling principle of the universe.(Concise Collins) Is it unreasonable to say that Karma/cause-effect is the controlling principle/force? Could Karma fit the definition of God as a controlling principle or force?

Namaste http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Inti:

I guess it's only offensive to call Christians morons.

Yes it seems quite childish and fun but is it?

[This message has been edited by redzed (edited 08-31-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by redzed

A question you may like to answer Graemy - are you saying Karma is that force, and God is a name humans give to it?

Haven't you been paying attention to some of the things he has been saying?:



"just because you fit the requirement of something doesn't mean you are that thing."

"you don't have to be an atheist to not believe in god"

This has clearly not been about him personifying karma, or he would have explained that off the bat.



quote:Originally posted by redzed

How is it that labels like buddhist, atheist, christian, muslim, etc., are even necessary?

Why don't you go ask the Dali Lama why he often says, "I am just a simple Buddhist monk - no more, no less."?



quote:Originally posted by redzed

Every human wants the same things, to be happy and free from suffering?

Not every human. To me being free from suffering would make on less human, not more human.



quote:Originally posted by redzed

The Gods rejected by atheist belief, are they a religious 'personification of some universal force'?

No. Unless of course a "universal force" would send you to hell for picking the wrong religion or tell you that pork is forbidden.



quote:Originally posted by redzed

Is it unreasonable to say that Karma/cause-effect is the controlling principle/force?

Again, you're getting off topic, because if that's what Graemy meant, he wouldn't have made the arguements that he did.

I don't know any Buddhists who give human attributes to karma.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

Haven't you been paying attention to some of the things he has been saying?:



"just because you fit the requirement of something doesn't mean you are that thing."

"you don't have to be an atheist to not believe in god"

This has clearly not been about him personifying karma, or he would have explained that off the bat.



Originally posted by redzed

How is it that labels like buddhist, atheist, christian, muslim, etc., are even necessary?

Why don't you go ask the Dali Lama why he often says, "I am just a simple Buddhist monk - no more, no less."?



quote:Originally posted by redzed

Every human wants the same things, to be happy and free from suffering?

Not every human. To me being free from suffering would make on less human, not more human.



quote:Originally posted by redzed

The Gods rejected by atheist belief, are they a religious 'personification of some universal force'?

No. Unless of course a "universal force" would send you to hell for picking the wrong religion or tell you that pork is forbidden.



quote:Originally posted by redzed

Is it unreasonable to say that Karma/cause-effect is the controlling principle/force?

Again, you're getting off topic, because if that's what Graemy meant, he wouldn't have made the arguements that he did.

I don't know any Buddhists who give human attributes to karma.



I see Karma more as a System that is in place in all things, in the Universe: Cause and Effect, Reflectivity, what goes around comes around.

About the Universal Force that Bans pork and interferes with human beings attempting to bestow upon them knowledge...You should check out the book Eat Right 4 Your Type by Dr. D'Adamo, he's not a Muslim, but he and his father before him, and japanese scientists before them both did extensive studies on Blood Typology and Blood Type Lectins (Allergins) and reactive foods. What they discovered is every blood type reactes to some different things which contain Lectins specific to that blood type. THE ONLY FOOD THEY DISCOVERED THAT HAS HEAVILLY REACTIVE BLOOD TYPE LECTINS FOR ALL BLOOD TYPES, A B AB O, WAS PORK. Dr. D'Adamo explains it on his website, I think I have something about it in my Interested in Islam thread. Everyone's blood reactes negatively to pork causing various problems but basically blood agglutination in order to ship out the lectins out of the body, its not good for the body, and so the Universal Force through Messengers informed the humans not to do it. But why did the Universal Force make it in the first place? Why did the universal force make other things that aren't healthy for people? It probably has something to do with balance, but its better not to eat pork.

What kind of Universal force interferes and informs what exists within it and by it? I don't know, according to the Universal Force, it apparently does that.

You're waaaay off topic, Abrahim, but blood does not react negatively to pork. D'Adamo is a quack. There is absolutely no science at all to picking what types of food you should eat based on your blood type. Let's not discuss this further here though, since this thread has already become quite the train wreck.

http://skepdic.com/bloodtypediet.html

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/NegativeBR/d'adamo.html

quote:A question you may like to answer Graemy - are you saying Karma is that force, and God is a name humans give to it? Because that's what your explanations sounds like to me, and that's ok

redzed you could call say it like that.

martini at one point i stated something about karma, that is what he was getting at.

EDIT:Nontheism- broadly conceived, is the absence of belief in both the existence and non-existence of a deity (or deities, or other numinous phenomena

http://tinyurl.com/ocowf

it says it is used to define buddhism as well as atheism, as well as a few other eastern religions. the point being, atheism isn't necessarily a negative belief in a god or gods.

although it does fit the Buddha's statement that belief in a god or gods, isn't important.

[This message has been edited by Graemy (edited 08-31-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

You're waaaay off topic, Abrahim, but blood does not react negatively to pork. D'Adamo is a quack. There is absolutely no science at all to picking what types of food you should eat based on your blood type. Let's not discuss this further here though, since this thread has already become quite the train wreck.

http://skepdic.com/bloodtypediet.html

http: //www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/NegativeBR/d'adamo.html (http: //www.quac kwatch.org /04Consume rEducation /NegativeB R/d'adamo. html)



this is true, blood type has nothing to do with it.

quote:How would you define God? Would your god be modeled off Jehovah, Allah, Odin, Zeus, Brahmin, Ahura Mazda, .... ?

I see no reason to believe in any of them, but I was thinking specifically of Jehovah. Christianity is the religion most common around here, so I direct most of my thought toward the problems with that particular conception.

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by redzed

The Gods rejected by atheist belief, are they a religious 'personification of some universal force'?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No. Unless of course a "universal force" would send you to hell for picking the wrong religion or tell you that pork is forbidden.

.........

I don't know any Buddhists who give human attributes to karma.



Mate you obviously missed the question because your answer indicates Yes you are thinking of an anthropomorphic god and you have completely missed the significance of Karma being used to represent that force, not as a personification. No human characteristics were given to karma where did you get that understanding? What is it that makes you so anti everything? Rarely do you post anything other than attacks on others.

Namaste http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

How would you define God? Would your god be modeled off Jehovah, Allah, Odin, Zeus, Brahmin, Ahura Mazda, .... ?

I see no reason to believe in any of them, but I was thinking specifically of Jehovah. Christianity is the religion most common around here, so I direct most of my thought toward the problems with that particular conception.



What of logos or karma as god, in the sense of the controlling principle of the universe? Like the unified theory, the one theory that ties everything together, that physicists are searching for? If that force is discovered could that meet the wider definitions of god?

Is one an atheist if they believe in an impersonal force as the higher power?

Namaste

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

Is one an atheist if they believe in an impersonal force as the higher power?

Nah. That's deism. It would be kind of pointless to "believe in" an impersonal power, though. It'd be like worshipping gravity just because it holds stuff together. I mean, there's not really a point. If it is, in fact, impersonal, it doesn't give two shits if people recognize it or not.

quote:Originally posted by redzed:



What of logos or karma as god, in the sense of the controlling principle of the universe? Like the unified theory, the one theory that ties everything together, that physicists are searching for? If that force is discovered could that meet the wider definitions of god?

Is one an atheist if they believe in an impersonal force as the higher power?

Namaste

That would be a Deist, they believe in an impersonal force as a higher power sort of.

I believe in a God that is like The Brahman, that uniting force which binds all things, but besides being impersonal and all controlling I also find it to be something one can have a personal relationship with, though it may just be a personal relationship with yourself, I believe in communication with the God/Force.

quote:Originally posted by redzed

Mate you obviously missed the question because your answer indicates Yes you are thinking of an anthropomorphic god and you have completely missed the significance of Karma being used to represent that force, not as a personification.

Not as a personification? You are the one who gave the following dictionary definition and said that maybe Graemy was giving that definition to karma "and that's ok".

Concise Collins Dictionary: god 1. a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world oris a personification of some force.



quote:Originally posted by redzed

No human characteristics were given to karma where did you get that understanding?

See above.



quote:Originally posted by redzed

What is it that makes you so anti everything? Rarely do you post anything other than attacks on others.

I'm not anti everything at all. Maybe you only pay attention to the negative things. If you read my posts, I am very pro rational thought, critical thinking, science, anti- magical thinking (which I see as a pro). This forum is mostly about debate. You may see honest debate as attacks, but that's something that you may need to contemplate with your inner Buddha.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:



About the Universal Force that Bans pork and interferes with human beings attempting to bestow upon them knowledge...You should check out the book Eat Right 4 Your Type by Dr. D'Adamo, he's not a Muslim, but he and his father before him, and japanese scientists before them both did extensive studies on Blood Typology and Blood Type Lectins (Allergins) and reactive foods. What they discovered is every blood type reactes to some different things which contain Lectins specific to that blood type. THE ONLY FOOD THEY DISCOVERED THAT HAS HEAVILLY REACTIVE BLOOD TYPE LECTINS FOR ALL BLOOD TYPES, A B AB O, WAS PORK. Dr. D'Adamo explains it on his website, I think I have something about it in my Interested in Islam thread. Everyone's blood reactes negatively to pork causing various problems but basically blood agglutination in order to ship out the lectins out of the body, its not good for the body, and so the Universal Force through Messengers informed the humans not to do it. But why did the Universal Force make it in the first place? Why did the universal force make other things that aren't healthy for people? It probably has something to do with balance, but its better not to eat pork.



Hahahahahahahahahahahaha