Atheists - nothing wrong in Hinduism & Bhuddhism

[tejpat]

This Elsy guy is nothing but a Christian mouth piece of the Hindu fanatics. His writings on Hindu history is nothing but junk! Any Hindu who quotes this guy has no pride in being a Hindu.

Swami Vivenkananda was a Hindu monk, and no one has any problems about his Hindu theological statements. But his statements about the history of Hinduism is nothing but garbage, since he was no historian.

All the people you have mentioned are clowns by any standard except that from Hindu fascists. No other proof needed for those praised only by Hindu fanatics and ridiculed by everyone else. By their authentication of lies from Hindus fanatics on Hindu history, they have cheapened Hinduism. Only a cheap religion would need such pitiable outsiders so desperately. No self respecting Hindu would run after these characters.

Your are one pathetic christian fanatic.
Your just like a frog which lives in a well and bloats that His world = well , is HUGE.
anyone who talks what you like is authentic and who ever doesn't is a false propagandist.

[LCD]

Isn't the internet amazing? I just completely demolished your half witted uneducated arguments with a few fast searchs of keywords youself provided. Ouch.

Oh, really, I'm supposed to be impressed by the fact you used Wikipedia? Really, I;'m supposed to totally shrink into a corner, over the fact, that if you actually read the articles, it says certain things that you so easily ignore.

Like the fact, it states, persons under 18, which technically could be considered child molestation.

Secondly, there's loit of little tidbits you skipped over--so i thank you for your decptive attempts to bury the truth, but i don't consider wikipedia the be all end all of truth, and i think its fascinating, that homosexuality tends to be frowned on throughout history and has never EVER been accepted in any culture, proir to The advent of christianity,. but yet, christianity gets the shaft as always.

Your display of the law code of isreal, i don't have to debunk. Those p[eople lived under god as is described in the section, and he protected them and fed them, and they knew the rules. The quivalent would be dating a girl, and having sex with another girl in front of said girl. CLEARLY wrong, and clearly against the rules of that society, such as following another president under the agreed upon control of a president who actually did things--you can't make a free speech argument in a society that lived under a present and clear god, and the rules for living under the one god, which were choice, not enforced, cannot be shirked.

Thanks for playing.

[byteresistor]

homosexuality tends to be frowned on throughout history and has never EVER been accepted in any culture, proir to The advent of christianity

More pwnage from wikipedia you despise so much:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual ... ent_Greece

And that's just one example of many. On the other hand I am not aware of a single christian society where homosexuality has been truly accepted (if at all even), ever. And I'm talking about real christian societies, not countries that happen to have a christian majority population, but countries where religion is the law (the US for example would not qualify for this). You are free to prove me wrong...

[Sten]

Your display of the law code of isreal, i don't have to debunk. Those p[eople lived under god as is described in the section, and he protected them and fed them, and they knew the rules.

The thing that disturbs me is, you have no problem with your god's lust for blood. You fully believe that your god wanted people to stone each other to death for such insignificant "crimes" as picking up sticks. IMO that reveals a psychotic streak in you.

[Wootah]

Your display of the law code of isreal, i don't have to debunk. Those p[eople lived under god as is described in the section, and he protected them and fed them, and they knew the rules.

The thing that disturbs me is, you have no problem with your god's lust for blood. You fully believe that your god wanted people to stone each other to death for such insignificant "crimes" as picking up sticks. IMO that reveals a psychotic streak in you.

No Sten. It just reveals an understanding of life and death.

[Sten]

No Sten. It just reveals an understanding of life and death.

That's a weird thing to say. Do you think that it is right to kill someone for picking up sticks on the wrong day? Do you think that it automatically becomes right if a god commands it?

[Wootah]

No Sten. It just reveals an understanding of life and death.

That's a weird thing to say. Do you think that it is right to kill someone for picking up sticks on the wrong day? Do you think that it automatically becomes right if a god commands it?

I consider, these days, disobeying God to be the path of death. I consider specifically that example as God choosing a people to whom he would teach and so for them the consequences of disobeying God were more acute. So many sins are no worse than that man's and the recognition has to come one day that these small sins literally destroy the individual and the society.

[byteresistor]

No Sten. It just reveals an understanding of life and death.

That's a weird thing to say. Do you think that it is right to kill someone for picking up sticks on the wrong day? Do you think that it automatically becomes right if a god commands it?

I consider, these days, disobeying God to be the path of death. I consider specifically that example as God choosing a people to whom he would teach and so for them the consequences of disobeying God were more acute. So many sins are no worse than that man's and the recognition has to come one day that these small sins literally destroy the individual and the society.

So your answer to sten's question is, yes, it is automatically right if a god commands it. Yet you are in a anti-islam forum arguing against the same logic used by muslims about their god.

[aceaxe2]

I respect Bhuddhism as one of most non violence religion except in Japan ( when there are warrior monk , but I think the name of religion is zen ) . But one question , isn't the plant also alive ? When you are not allowed to eat living things

[crazymonkie_]

I know you're being cutesy, and it is sort of funny, but I'm going to reply as seriously as possible to your question.

First: Not all Buddhist sects are strictly vegetarian. Theravada sects vary- what matters there, usually, is that you don't have meat-based dishes specifically cooked for you. Mahayana Buddhist groups, however, tend to be quite strictly vegetarian.

Second: Plants don't have nerves and can't feel pain. No, the reactive releasing of foul-tasting sap does not count as a pain reflex response.... Just in case you decided to trot out that ol' chestnut.

Third: EVEN IF you REALLY wanted to make sure you didn't KILL any plants- it's possible to eat vegetables, fruits, drupes, nuts, and so on, without killing the plants. Jains do it- but Jains are kind of crazy. But again, I've only heard of a really, really tiny minority of people even worrying about that. Life does need to feed on life, but the life that is fed upon doesn't need to die terrified, in pain, or surprised (if, for instance, they're pampered until they're slaughtered). Though of course, plant life and microorganisms are the only living things where that's possible.

[aceaxe2]

The science told me " the smallest living thing is cell " then vegetables, fruits, drupes, nuts, and so on is alive . But may be science wrong , let give them more time for another research

But if there aren't an order not to eat living things from your religion , sorry it was my mistake to make that conclusion

[Sten]

So your answer to sten's question is, yes, it is automatically right if a god commands it. Yet you are in a anti-islam forum arguing against the same logic used by muslims about their god.

What he said. ^^

You consider disobeying god to be the path of death, so any "sin" no matter how insignificant, if it carries a death penalty from your god, deserves death automatically. The problem is, you are believing this not on knowledge but on faith - so you have faith that it is automatically right to kill someone because your god may or may not command it depending on whether he exists. You better hope he exists Wootah, and that there is some kind of magical divine reason why the stick gatherer had to die at the hands of that mob, because otherwise you are defending senseless cold blooded murder.

[tejpat]

The science told me " the smallest living thing is cell " then vegetables, fruits, drupes, nuts, and so on is alive . But may be science wrong , let give them more time for another research

But if there aren't an order not to eat living things from your religion , sorry it was my mistake to make that conclusion

well, the goal is to minimize the killings,
for eg. If you have veg dinner on your plate, count as 1 life.
now if you have non-veg dish than, will it count as 1 ?
No, because that animal didn't come from Tree. in order to slaughter an adult animal = 1 life, one has to feed it.
so if you give twice a day veg meal to the animal for 1 year = 730 lives
than after coming on your platter, it counts 731 lives.

PS : above calculations should be considered only if you want to minimize killings.
If one chooses to eat by choice than no calculations required.

[Yohan]

I respect Bhuddhism as one of most non violence religion except in Japan ( when there are warrior monk , but I think the name of religion is zen ) . But one question , isn't the plant also alive ? When you are not allowed to eat living things

Buddha emphasized non-violence, and tolerance, but he was also a practical man. He himself was a non-vegetarian. Buddhists are also generally non-vegetarian. Buddha never preached any dogma, such one has to be a vegetarian, and so on.

Buddha was most like Jesus on so many matters, except when it came to God.

[Wootah]

So your answer to sten's question is, yes, it is automatically right if a god commands it. Yet you are in a anti-islam forum arguing against the same logic used by muslims about their god.

1 - My opinion is my considered thought and far less to do with 'if God says it, it must be right.' I would agree that as I put my faith in God I am more prone to look at things from that side first and try to understand why but I am also more prone to sleep during the night and be active during the day.

2 - Islam is illogical. In a basic logical sense justice and mercy are contradictions.

[Wootah]

So your answer to sten's question is, yes, it is automatically right if a god commands it. Yet you are in a anti-islam forum arguing against the same logic used by muslims about their god.

What he said. ^^

You consider disobeying god to be the path of death, so any "sin" no matter how insignificant, if it carries a death penalty from your god, deserves death automatically. The problem is, you are believing this not on knowledge but on faith - so you have faith that it is automatically right to kill someone because your god may or may not command it depending on whether he exists. You better hope he exists Wootah, and that there is some kind of magical divine reason why the stick gatherer had to die at the hands of that mob, because otherwise you are defending senseless cold blooded murder.

I disagree it is just on faith. I think I am wiser than I was and I think I finally do start to see how corruption and petty crimes over time render an individual and a society apart. There is no reason in the bible for myself as a Christian today to believe that 'it is automatically right to kill someone because your god may or may not command it depending on whether he exists'.

Islam is the religion with direct orders for Muslims to fight.

It is just your stubborn and deliberate confusion of religions that causes this. I don't mind you hating on Christianity what I do mind is that by confusing religions you simply confuse societies about what to be doing and so Islam grows. You also strengthen Muslims who believe that other religions are like theirs and so they believe it is OK to carry on as they do.

[aceaxe2]

So the Buddha followers made up that command , I thought it was Buddha order when it's follower make such fuss about being Vegetarian .

[enceladus]

So the Buddha followers made up that command , I thought it was Buddha order when it's follower make such fuss about being Vegetarian .

Buddhists are pretty relaxed about everything. I'm not Buddhist myself (I'm atheist), but I really like the general laid-back and common-sense approach to life of Buddhism. I also like a number of Buddha quotes, hence my sig.

I worked with a guy from Sri Lanka who was Buddhist, and he said that it is as much a lifestyle as anything.

What I *can* say is that in a comparison between Islam and Buddhism, Islam will be the loser every time. Islam is *vastly* more violent and evil than any other religion.

Someone burns a Quran and all hell breaks loose with Muslims.

On the other hand, the Taliban destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas, and what did the Buddhists do? Nothing. There is the difference for you.
- enceladus

[Sten]

I disagree it is just on faith. I think I am wiser than I was and I think I finally do start to see how corruption and petty crimes over time render an individual and a society apart. There is no reason in the bible for myself as a Christian today to believe that 'it is automatically right to kill someone because your god may or may not command it depending on whether he exists'.

So was it right for the people to stone to death the man who picked up sticks, or wasn't it? I'm sorry I don't understand your sentence above, it doesn't make your opinion clear. I'm sure it wasn't your intention to confuse the issue, so perhaps you would like to indulge me and tell me what you really think.

If corruption and petty crimes over time render a society and individual apart, what do you think would happen to a society where mobs are allowed to stone people to death for the most minor "crimes"? Can you imagine a model of society where this kind of violent mob rule actually works? This story depicts a mob of people who caught someone doing something minor that was against their religious rules, and killed him in a gruesome, horrible way. What kind of link between individual and society would that sort of widespread behaviour create, I wonder?

Islam is the religion with direct orders for Muslims to fight.

It is just your stubborn and deliberate confusion of religions that causes this. I don't mind you hating on Christianity what I do mind is that by confusing religions you simply confuse societies about what to be doing and so Islam grows. You also strengthen Muslims who believe that other religions are like theirs and so they believe it is OK to carry on as they do.

Who is hating? I'm just pointing out an area of your religion that is abhorrent, and which you Christians show a psychotic streak by refusing to disagree with.

It's not stubborn and deliberate confusion at all. Deep down, all monotheistic religions are hostile to freethinking and individuality. Deep down, all of these religions want to suppress anything that isn't specifically sanctioned by their god. Christians may have learned to smooth over the rough parts of their creed, but that doesn't mean it didn't have violent, primitive origins. It's not the instructions to fight that is the problem, fighting in some circumstances is the only sensible thing to do - it's the circumstances in which people are instructed to fight that is the problem, which often includes executing others in cold blood.

For example: Here we have a story about a man who was stoned to death because he picked up sticks on the wrong day. Instead of condemning the killing as barbaric, we have not one but two Christians who seem pretty cool with it, because apparently breaking god's rules about working on a particular day deserves death. Both of you seem to hold the opinion that the stick guy deserved what he got.

To me, this is exactly the same as a Muslim who refuses to condemn Mohammad - as a believer you are having the source of your morality challenged, and you cannot help but blindly agree to whatever your god is depicted to command, whether it be torture, mob lynching, incest, etc. It's either that, or admit that your god is not perfect, which is obviously unthinkable for you religious types.

Have you ever considered that your religion is closer to Islam than you thought it was? It definitely makes you more like a Muslim than an atheist.

[aceaxe2]

Don't worry about it , it just a joke for Buddhist as science said they still eat living things .

My opinion about Buddha , Jesus and other philosopher who promote peace to the world are a great men