A good arguement

[ChristineES]

With all due respect, you can't disprove God to a theist any more than you can prove God to an atheist.
All these threads are getting a bit old so I may just take a bit of a vacation from the RF until we get back the EDUCATION threads. I liked those better.

 

[newhope101]

JamesC, good advice. Just keep true to yourself.

God, in his wisdom, chose to leave no scientific evidence so that the nations would KNOW firstly that there is a God, secondly which of all the religions is his/her favourite. I think God is very pleased with those that believe in him by faith. I believe ALL or at least most will benefit from the blood of Jesus anyway. Those that have faith and are devoted to God may not get any greater reward as salvation is for all. It's kind of like a parent being pleased when their child does something for their parent out of their heart and not seeking a reward. That is a special gift. I'm sure if there is a God He/She is pleased with anyone that believs in him regardless of their religion. I think God sees non believers as the 'lost sheep'. The unrighteous are the ones that need salvation most. These dark times are a part of prophesy, preordained to happen, the falling away of the faith, a time where the nations would say "there is no God". If God left proof and we were all little goodies his point would not have been made so obviously. That is that mankind is unable to rule himself and is leading itself to its' ultimate deteriment. The world is a mess, global warming, war, starvation, greed, and now we see advances in things like medicine that the average person can not afford, so now science has entered a realm where it's benifits are not being offered to all, just the rich...it's a sick world when looked at holistically. Humans are like a virus ruining the planet. God has shown we are incapable of ruling ourselves. I think that's why he left the world no evidence of his existence. Then mankind is free to do as he pleases..and look what's happened!

As for atheists...hey if one never gets a religious education and has non believing parents how will faith be inculcated or even be considered by the child. There was a time when bible based religion was in the school corriculum. If religion is taught at all in public schools it is not bible based it's more about the theology of the various religions. So some never grow up with the concept of God as a real person, but rather a myth of the various cultures. So as previously posted such a person does not stop believing in God, they never started. Then there are those that had some belief and for some reason have lost it because of their own experiences or that of someone they love', the state of the world, religious war etc. Religion is not a pretty sight at the moment. Certainly any good work any religion does, like running charities, and feeding the poor is way over shadowed by the religious wars, terrorism in Gods name, the starving etc. Gods plan certainly isn't easy to see, if there is one.

 

[Tathagata]

Oh, dont get me wrong, I understand what you are saying. But what I am saying is that just because there isnt enough evidence A did it, doesnt mean A didnt do it. I feel like some atheist think," Oh becuase I have no evidence God created all of this, he must not exist" and to me that is a flawed arguement. That all. Now, in real world justice we would go on to C, but sometimes the wrong people are acused because of evidence problems and go to jail innocent.

That's not what Atheists claim. They simply say that without evidence there is NO REASON to believe that God exists. This is usually the argument that Christopher Hitchens makes. He doesn't go out to disprove God (though some times he destroys the Theists Teleological Argument), but rather argues that there is no good reason to believe in God.

.

 

[Akshara Dasa]

That's not what Atheists claim. They simply say that without evidence there is NO REASON to believe that God exists. This is usually the argument that Christopher Hitchens makes. He doesn't go out to disprove God (though some times he destroys the Theists Teleological Argument), but rather argues that there is no good reason to believe in God.

.

Well, then why do you believe in Buddhism. You cant prove "Enlightenment", or anything like that. You cant prove Paranirvana, or the movement of Karma after death, why do you believe in Buddhism then? Based on the logic of your above post, the same goes with Buddhism.

 

[Tathagata]

Well, then why do you believe in Buddhism.

Buddhism doesn't make any propositions that require faith. And if any aspect of it does, Buddha says not to accept anything unless it is subject to observation and analysis or understood intuitively.

You cant prove "Enlightenment", or anything like that.

Uh, what? Lol. Enlightenment is not something you believe in. That's like asking "do you believe in wisdom."

You cant prove Paranirvana,

As I understand it, Nirvana is the cessation of suffering, the extinguishing of the aggregates that make a self. In other words, death.

or the movement of Karma after death,

Karma is based on the law of cause and effect. Or put another way, causality applied to ethics. Buddha said that there is no afterlife for the self. He also said Karma is "deeds and continued effects of deeds."

why do you believe in Buddhism then? Based on the logic of your above post, the same goes with Buddhism.

Actually, Buddhism can be demonstrated to be true. Perhaps I'll make a thread explaining why Buddhism is true.

.

 

[Akshara Dasa]

Buddhism doesn't make any propositions that require faith. And if any aspect of it does, Buddha says not to accept anything unless it is subject to observation and analysis or understood intuitively..

The second fetter to be destroyed is "lack of faith in the scriptures". I know this because I was a Theravada Buddhist

Uh, what? Lol. Enlightenment is not something you believe in. That's like asking "do you believe in wisdom."

Ok, but its relative. What is Enlightenment to you may not be to others. What is wise to you may not be for others, therefore its relative not absolute. And it is something you believe in, my father and mother dont believe in it and you do. Therefore belief is involved.

As I understand it, Nirvana is the cessation of suffering, the extinguishing of the aggregates that make a self. In other words, death.

I was talking about Paranirvana, the death of an Arhat or Buddha. How do you know for sure that an enlightened being when they die are extinguished, or go one to some other place? It is said in the Pali Canon that an Arhat is extinguished, in the Mahayana Scripture it says that the Arhat becomes dormant, how do you know this?

Karma is based on the law of cause and effect. Or put another way, causality applied to ethics. Buddha said that there is no afterlife for the self. He also said Karma is "deeds and continued effects of deeds."

Buddha says that the effects of Karma go on life after life. From ignorance arises the Karmic Skandha which then gives rise to conscoiusness, name, form, and so on. How do you know this.

Actually, Buddhism can be demonstrated to be true. Perhaps I'll make a thread explaining why Buddhism is true.

Do as you please, but understand that Buddhism has its flaws too.

 

[Tathagata]

The second fetter to be destroyed is "lack of faith in the scriptures". I know this because I was a Theravada Buddhist

There was no scripture during Buddhas time. I think you mean Dharma. In the Kalama Sutta, Buddha said not to accept things merely because they are found in your religious texts and to reject them if they don't meet the standards of testable truth. It is not required that a person take scripture word for word and believe it, but rather use the scriptures as a guide to understand the Dharma.

Ok, but its relative. What is Enlightenment to you may not be to others. What is wise to you may not be for others, therefore its relative not absolute.

Well, in the case of Buddhism, Enlightenment is the realization and understanding of Dharma. But even if it were relative, that has nothing to do with whether it's a faith based proposition or not.

And it is something you believe in, my father and mother dont believe in it and you do. Therefore belief is involved.

No, I don't believe in it because it's not a belief. Let's say that I consider someone to be "wise," but your parents never heard of wisdom and don't think anyone is wise. How is wisdom a belief?

I was talking about Paranirvana, the death of an Arhat or Buddha. How do you know for sure that an enlightened being when they die are extinguished, or go one to some other place? It is said in the Pali Canon that an Arhat is extinguished, in the Mahayana Scripture it says that the Arhat becomes dormant, how do you know this?

Buddha said that he refuses to say whether a Tathagata exists after death or not. He says this in the Pali Canon and the Mahayana Lankavatara Sutra.

Buddha says that the effects of Karma go on life after life.

Um, life after what life? He said there is no afterlife for the self. He said that
your deeds in this life will have an affect after you're dead which is observabley true.

From ignorance arises the Karmic Skandha which then gives rise to conscoiusness, name, form, and so on. How do you know this.

I've never read that. Show me his exact words and the Sutta.

Do as you please, but understand that Buddhism has its flaws too.

Buddhism does have many flaws, but the Buddha dharma does not.


.

 

[Akshara Dasa]

There was no scripture during Buddhas time. I think you mean Dharma. In the Kalama Sutta, Buddha said not to accept things merely because they are found in your religious texts and to reject them if they don't meet the standards of testable truth. It is not required that a person take scripture word for word and believe it, but rather use the scriptures as a guide to understand the Dharma. .

I do mean Dharma, I appologise for causeing unnecissary confusion. And I completely agree with what is said here.

Well, in the case of Buddhism, Enlightenment is the realization and understanding of Dharma. But even if it were relative, that has nothing to do with whether it's a faith based proposition or not. .

But it does. You belief that Buddha was Enlightened, others dont. He was realized in one Dharma, and others may not believe in that Dharma. You have to believe in this Dharma to realize it. That is why Buddha says that the second Fetter is lack of doubt in the teachings.

No, I don't believe in it because it's not a belief. Let's say that I consider someone to be "wise," but your parents never heard of wisdom and don't think anyone is wise. How is wisdom a belief? .

Its not whether you have heard of wisdom or not, it depends on the individual. In the Gita Krishna says that the Wise never lament for the dead. My parents would not take that as a wise at all. There are many things some find wise and others do not. You believe this is wise, I dont. And Vice versa.

Buddha said that he refuses to say whether a Tathagata exists after death or not. He says this in the Pali Canon and the Mahayana Lankavatara Sutra. .

According to the Pali canon, not Mahayana Scripture, when the Enlightened Being dies their Aggrigates dissolve and all trace of Aggrigatial existence ceases, but this does not mean that there is no existence though, just not in the form of Aggrigates.

Um, life after what life? He said there is no afterlife for the self. He said that
your deeds in this life will have an affect after you're dead which is observabley true..

Your right, there is no life for the self in Buddhism because there is no self. But do you understand what is meant by self? He uses the term "self" to mean that part of you which does not change. So every part of you changes. Therefore there is not a self. But the Karma is reborn and you have to experiance it in the form of Aggrigates. And your right, your deeds will leave effects after death but to outer things. You cant prove that when you die you will experiance the consequences of your actions. .

I've never read that. Show me his exact words and the Sutta. .

Buddha:
Dwelling at Savatthi... "Monks, I will describe & analyze dependent co-arising for you.
"And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.
"Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death.
"And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth.
"And what is becoming? These three are becomings: sensual becoming, form becoming, & formless becoming. This is called becoming.
"And what is clinging/sustenance? These four are clingings: sensuality clinging, view clinging, precept & practice clinging, and doctrine of self clinging. This is called clinging.
"And what is craving? These six are classes of craving: craving for forms, craving for sounds, craving for smells, craving for tastes, craving for tactile sensations, craving for ideas. This is called craving.
"And what is feeling? These six are classes of feeling: feeling born from eye-contact, feeling born from ear-contact, feeling born from nose-contact, feeling born from tongue-contact, feeling born from body-contact, feeling born from intellect-contact. This is called feeling.
"And what is contact? These six are classes of contact: eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, intellect-contact. This is called contact.
"And what are the six sense media? These six are sense media: the eye-medium, the ear-medium, the nose-medium, the tongue-medium, the body-medium, the intellect-medium. These are called the six sense media.
"And what is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called name-&-form.
"And what is consciousness? These six are classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness. This is called consciousness.
"And what are fabrications? These three are fabrications: bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, mental fabrications. These are called fabrications.
"And what is ignorance? Not knowing stress, not knowing the origination of stress, not knowing the cessation of stress, not knowing the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called ignorance.
"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

Buddhism does have many flaws, but the Buddha dharma does not.


.

What? Buddhism is not Buddha Dharma, wow I have something to learn!

 

[waitasec]

I have seen many atheists, both on this forum and some outside of this forum, say that theists dont have good arguements for the existence of God. So, what im asking the atheists is, can you give me a good and valid arguement? Im not doing this becuase I hate atheists or because I want to put them down, I just want to hear if you have any better arguements.

To me, a lack of evidence doesnt disprove God. For example, if Man:A kills Man:B and there isnt alot of evidence to show that Man:A did that action, that doesnt mean that he did not do it. I can see that a lack of evidence can bring you to agnosticism, but full out Atheism, what is the reason for that?

Im eager to hear all arguements and sides, thanks!

i guess i'm against putting whatever it is,if there is anything, in a box.
if the creator of everything plays favorites, that i have a problem with. it's just plain ignorance. Problem is most wars are caused because both parties involved believe their god is the only true god or they are gods favorite. But think about it, the creator of everything our solar systems and the universe... is concerned about who gets what...come on, isn't that putting god in a box?

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

So, what im asking the atheists is, can you give me a good and valid arguement?

Hmmm, what about this one?