Theism, Atheism, Non-Theism

[ding]

I do not believe it matters if gods exist or not and gods are certainly not necessary in order to live a righteous life.

Thoughts?

The practical benefits of faith and spirituality are so superior to the lack of benefits of materialism that betting on theism is rational and betting on materialism is irrational. It’s not about infinite rewards after death, it is about practical rewards on the journey to death.

Buddhism is hardly a materialist philosophy.

And you still haven't proven your case that a believer in gods is somehow possessing an advantage over a nonbeliever.

I never said Buddhism is a materialist philosophy. But if you do not believe you are more than just matter, your philosophy is a materialist philosophy.

Siddhārtha Gautama did not teach there was no God. He taught to die to self to see reality. Reality is God. And I didn't use the phrase non-believer. I used the phrase materialist which is a more descriptive term. And if you don't believe a person who is spiritual has a natural benefit over materialists then you don't understand Buddhism.

I never said that Buddhism teaches that there is no god.

I said belief in gods is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

And spirtuality is a state of mind. The spirit is a product of the mind and does not exist apart from the mind. The mind does not exists apart from the brain, the brain does not exist apart from the body.

So you are saying that Buddhism teaches that spirit is a product of mind? Sounds more like a materialist philosophy than a Buddhist philosophy.

Buddhism teaches nothing regarding eternal spirits, creators or personal deities or spirituality in general.

Enlightenment is the awakening of the intellect and the realizing that nothing is permanent not even your own concept of self.

I disagree. Samsara proves otherwise. Samsara proves that Buddhists do believe in eternal spirits. When the body dies the mind or spirit moves on and continues to move on eternally or until the body and mind or spirit reaches its spiritual awakening or enlightenment. Samsara also disproves that the body and mind or spirit are one as the body dies but the mind or spirit goes on to live again in a new body.

Depending on the actions performed in previous lives, rebirth could be as a human or animal or even ghosts, demi-gods, or gods. Being born as a human is seen by Buddhists as a rare opportunity to work towards escaping this cycle of samsara. The escape from samsara is called Nirvana or enlightenment.​

​

Once Nirvana is achieved, and the enlightened individual physically dies, Buddhists believe that they will no longer be reborn.​

​

The Buddha taught that when Nirvana is achieved, Buddhists are able to see the world as it really is. Nirvana means realising and accepting the Four Noble Truths and being awake to reality.​

​

Some Buddhists believe that enlightened individuals can choose to be reborn in order to help others become enlightened. Others believe that, when Nirvana is achieved, the cycle of samsara, all suffering and further existence for that individual itself ends.​

What does Buddhism teach about life after death? - Life after death - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - BBC Bitesize

Learn about samsara and nirvana and how Buddhists believe we can influence what happens to us when we die with BBC Bitesize GCSE Religious Studies.

www.bbc.co.uk

It doesn't matter if some Buddhists believed in eternal spirits. That belief is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

There is no enduring essence or self

The self is an idea, a mental construct. That is not only the Buddha’s experience, but the experience of each realized Buddhist man and woman from 2,500 years ago to the present day. That being the case, what is it that dies? There is no question that when this physical body is no longer capable of functioning, the energies within it, the atoms and molecules it is made up of, don’t die with it. They take on another form, another shape. You can call that another life, but as there is no permanent, unchanging substance, nothing passes from one moment to the next. Quite obviously, nothing permanent or unchanging can pass or transmigrate from one life to the next.

Dude, you don't even acknowledge right and wrong when the eight fold path is predicated on right and wrong. So why would you think you would understand what Buddha meant by enlightement?

The Buddha taught his disciples not to fear death. This has been interpreted by Buddhists as suggesting that if they live well, their rebirth will be good.​

​

After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​

What does Buddhism teach about life after death? - Life after death - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - BBC Bitesize

Learn about samsara and nirvana and how Buddhists believe we can influence what happens to us when we die with BBC Bitesize GCSE Religious Studies.

www.bbc.co.uk

You don't seem to realize that many practicing Buddhists do not subscribe to the whole rebirth thing as meaning anything more than the atoms in your body return to the earth to be used again.

You seem to think that Buddhism is full of absolutes like Christianity and it isn't.

So Buddha was lying about remembering his previous lives?

After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​

What does Buddhism teach about life after death? - Life after death - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - BBC Bitesize

Learn about samsara and nirvana and how Buddhists believe we can influence what happens to us when we die with BBC Bitesize GCSE Religious Studies.

www.bbc.co.uk

I don't know if he was lying. but the Buddha was just a man and not some god giving orders to people how to live.

And I do not have to believe in past lives as a requirement in order to engage in any Buddhist practices.

YOU have to believe what you are told to believe because YOU have to think that the god you worship is infallible.

But I don't always believe what I am told.

How do you reconcile (in your mind) Buddha's craziness with his genius? I mean here you are practicing something taught by a crazy person who thinks he lived past lives, right?

I don't have to reconcile anything. The Buddha was just a man and susceptible to to the fallibility of men. He is not and never claimed to be all powerful all knowing.

Does that fallibility negate the entire volume of his teachings?

And once again I'll explain to you that I have taken some of the Buddha's teachings along with some of the teachings of the classical Stoics along with some of the teachings of Aristotle and Socrates and even a little Thomas Aquinas among many others and incorporated them into my own philosophy.

As I have said there are may roads to any great city.

Sure you do. You are following the teachings of a mad man. That's crazy.

The fact that you believe that right and wrong can be whatever men define it as says you don't understand any of the teachings you have followed because no on on your list of teachers believed that. You are RATIONALIZING your beliefs and behaviors.

Once again I see you haven't been able to grasp that the translation of Pali words into English presents some problems of loss of nuance and meaning.

And as i said the Buddha was just a man and all men are fallible. He certainly was not considered to be a mad man by his peers and his belief in rebirth is actually quite understandable since those beliefs were very prevalent in his society and we are nothing but the products of our societies.

So you can keep trying for that Gotcha but you're not going to get it.

I already got it, bro.

According to your beliefs there is no absolute truth or logic. You have single handily reduced Buddhism to opinions that can be whatever anyone wants them to be. Instead of truths that are founded in reality. In fact you have single handily negated all of reality.

Buddhism is not a path of absolutes and it never has been.

And I have given you the actual definition of logic many times already.

And I have never denied reality. You on the other hand insist that everyone except your definitions, even the made up ones.

That would be an absolute statement in an of itself. So apparently only what you believe is true. Arguing there is no truth is arguing there is no reality.

So now you went from Buddhism to reality in general.

I have never denied reality and I have never denied truth. I just accept that there are no ideals and no absolutes. You don't

The eight fold path is based upon reality the last time I checked.

You deny reality when you fail to recognize that there are correct and incorrect ways of being. You deny reality when you deny there is truth that is independent of what men perceive.

I have never denied reality.

If you believe things can be anything man says they can be then you absolutely have denied reality. Just as if you believe there is not an correct and incorrect way of being.

All subjective things can be whatever a person wants them to be by definition.

That has nothing to do with the physical world.

Just because you believe there is only one "right" way to be and all the other ways are "wrong" doesn't mean you are correct.

Yes, subjective truth can be anything you want but it has no bearing on reality which is objective truth. If reality exists then objective truth exists because objective truth is reality.

Objective truth or reality defines right and wrong.

I never denied that things don't exist whether or not people exist. you keep saying I did but that's just you making shit up again.

And people define right and wrong.

because nature or the universe cannot be right or wrong they are just what they are.

Right and wrong is defined by logic. Logic is the art of reason. Reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. Reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Man may perceive logic, reason and reality to be one thing but reality is not defined by perception. Reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist. Therefore, reason and logic which explain the state of things as they actually exist is absolute because it is based upon reality and not an idealistic or notional idea of reality. People can't define right and wrong to be what ever they prefer. I may prefer that it is right to steal from you but reality tells me it's not.

right and wrong are defined by men.

Must we go over all the instances when it is NOT wrong to kill a person again?

Right and wrong are independent of man and are determined by logic which is also independent of man.

It is always wrong to kill and that would include animals as well.

And yet you kill animals every day and you would kill a person in self defense.

So it's not always wrong to kill people because our society accepts it in certain situations.

That's a wonderful argument YOU are making if you didn't believe it is wrong to kill animals.

I never said it was "wrong" to kill an animal in self defense. The fact is people do not have to kill animals for food and factory farming is flat out cruel.

So now you think people are no different than animals?

And you eat animals.

Why do you always try to define the rule by exception? Actually no. I don't really hear about those things. But for those extremely rare instances - that apparently you believe are common occurrences - are you saying their only option was to kill them? And if their only option isn't to kill them and they choose to scare them off instead of killing them, then doesn't that prove that they know that killing is wrong and should be avoided?

Yes, I eat meat. I don't rationalize that eating meat for my survival which requires an animal to be killed is good. But per your logic, you must.

If a bear is attacking you yeah you're only option is to kill it because it WILL kill you

But I don't kill animals for the reasons you do or have someone do for you which is the same thing.

The only reasons I would kill an animal are for defense from a wild or rabid one or for the mercy of a peaceful death instead of a painful one.

So you think killing animals is good because your desire to eat them is all that matters right?

And you have a problem with me saying killing a person in self defense is not wrong.

Yeah you do like to rationalize when killing is acceptable and it seems that it is acceptable to you for trivial reasons..

No. I could try to scare it away, I could use bear spray. I could try to wound it instead of killing it.

Why do you keep misstating what I have already said?

I don't rationalize that killing animals is good. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

You are the one who is rationalizing that killing animals is good. Not me.

Of course you do you choose to eat animals so you must enjoy eating them so you have to think that your enjoyment of eating animals justifies the killing if those animals.

I don't eat meat because of the suffering it causes.

I told you the only times I would ever kill an animal but you say you wouldn't kill a bear that was attacking you and yet you have no problem eating animals that you pay people to kill for you.

It seems you are the one with contradictory beliefs here.

So now I will ask you to quote the post where i ever said killing people or animals was "good"

It doesn't justify it. How many times do I need to keep telling you that.

I'm not rationalizing that I am doing wrong. I admit it.

YOU are the one who rationalizes you are a good person. Please keep telling me how important it is for us to hear what a good person you think you are.

Where did I ever claim to be a good person? I have plenty of faults just like every other person.

Why is it you get so defensive when I say I don't eat animals?

Your beliefs and logic are so convoluted that you can't see how you not eating animals BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE IT IS WRONG and you not accepting that I can choose to do wrong without rationalizing that what I am doing is right is proof that you believe everyone must do right and good. That or rationalize they are doing good. There's your proof that you think you are good. You expect everyone to be good. You won't even accept that people can choose to do bad. You keep telling me that I must believe I am doing good when I am doing bad.

I don't get defensive when you say you don't eat animals. I think it's great that you choose to see yourself as good for not eating animals and see others as bad for eating animals even if you deny you do it. I think you are behaving like a hypocrite who is afraid to admit he is behaving like a hypocrite. Mind you you are not behaving like a hypocrite for eating animals. You are behaving like a hypocrite for arguing you don't see yourself as good when you do see yourself as good. You are behaving like a hypocrite for saying you have flaws you don't rationalize but deny that others can have flaws that they don't rationalize.

I've told you exactly why I am a vegan and I didn't have to use subjective terms like "right" or "wrong"

I do not eat animals because the meat industry is the cause of the untold suffering and deaths of trillions of animals every single year.

THAT is my reason.

YOU must think your reason for eating animals is more important than their suffering and I have never said you were "wrong" have I?

Your choices are yours and yours alone and only you have to live with them.

Everything about you screams you think you do right and not wrong. You just proved it by explaining why you don't eat meat.

My reason for eating meat is that I am weak and selfish. But you think I am rationalizing instead of being honest. If I were rationalizing I would make myself look better than I am... you know... like you always do.

This is you pinning your value judgments on me.

You eat meat because you enjoy it. If you didn't enjoy it you wouldn't eat it.

You just don't want to admit that your pleasure is more important to you than the suffering of the animals you eat.

And like I said your reasons are your own and you have to live with them not me.

I'm not the one who sees himself as superior because he doesn't eat meat. That's you. So I'm not pinning any value judgement on anyone other than myself.

I do enjoy eating meat. No doubt about it. That is definitely why I eat it. But it's not the reason I don't eat meat. The reason I don't eat meat is because I am weak and selfish.

But I absolutely do admit that I am doing wrong, so I'm not sure how I am denying the suffering of animals. You on the other hand need to rationalize everything you do such that others will see you as good. That's not a value judgement. That's an observation.

I don't see myself as superior to anyone. I never said eating meat was wrong.

All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat. I still don't understand why that makes you so defensive.

I don't care if you eat meat or not because I don't have to live with your choices. You seem to have issues with it though.

I'm not defensive. I'm confused why you won't accept the fact that I admit eating meat is wrong but choose to do it because I like it and am too selfish and weak not to do it. I don't rationalize like you do.

When you continue to do something you believe is wrong and you give flimsy reasons that is rationalizing by definition.

If you said simply I eat meat because I enjoy it then you would not be rationalizing but you prefer to make excuses as to why you continue to do something you think is wrong.

If you truly believed it was wrong you would not do it for any reason.

No. It's not. It's called being honest. Your belief assumes that no one would ever continue doing things they believe are wrong. I am telling you that just isn't so. There is no requirement that I must do right things. The fact that you believe I must do right things shows just how much value you place on doing right things. The problem is that you are so convinced that you must do right things that when you do wrong things you rationalize that you didn't. I'm not going to do that. If I continue to choose to do wrong things I'm going to be honest about it.

Think of it this way... no one has to rationalize doing wrong things if they admit to doing wrong things. That's called reality.

I know people do things they think are wrong all the time.

It's a major reason for the cognitive dissonance that plagues humans.

Usually the people who preach the most are the worst offenders. And I never said you MUST do anything.

You keep telling me all these things I say and yet you never can quote a post where I actually said them.

And I've told you umpteen times already that I make the choices I make for my own reasons and I really don't care what choices you make because you're the one that has to live with them not me so if you can rationalize all the ways you violate your own moral and ethical codes and live with yourself that's all on you and has nothing to do with the choices I make in my life Just don't get all pissy if I question your obvious hypocrisy

So just to be clear... you think I am rationalizing when I admit that I am selfish and weak?

Sounds stupid when I put it that way, doesn't it?

 

[Blues Man]

I do not believe it matters if gods exist or not and gods are certainly not necessary in order to live a righteous life.

Thoughts?

The practical benefits of faith and spirituality are so superior to the lack of benefits of materialism that betting on theism is rational and betting on materialism is irrational. It’s not about infinite rewards after death, it is about practical rewards on the journey to death.

Buddhism is hardly a materialist philosophy.

And you still haven't proven your case that a believer in gods is somehow possessing an advantage over a nonbeliever.

I never said Buddhism is a materialist philosophy. But if you do not believe you are more than just matter, your philosophy is a materialist philosophy.

Siddhārtha Gautama did not teach there was no God. He taught to die to self to see reality. Reality is God. And I didn't use the phrase non-believer. I used the phrase materialist which is a more descriptive term. And if you don't believe a person who is spiritual has a natural benefit over materialists then you don't understand Buddhism.

I never said that Buddhism teaches that there is no god.

I said belief in gods is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

And spirtuality is a state of mind. The spirit is a product of the mind and does not exist apart from the mind. The mind does not exists apart from the brain, the brain does not exist apart from the body.

So you are saying that Buddhism teaches that spirit is a product of mind? Sounds more like a materialist philosophy than a Buddhist philosophy.

Buddhism teaches nothing regarding eternal spirits, creators or personal deities or spirituality in general.

Enlightenment is the awakening of the intellect and the realizing that nothing is permanent not even your own concept of self.

I disagree. Samsara proves otherwise. Samsara proves that Buddhists do believe in eternal spirits. When the body dies the mind or spirit moves on and continues to move on eternally or until the body and mind or spirit reaches its spiritual awakening or enlightenment. Samsara also disproves that the body and mind or spirit are one as the body dies but the mind or spirit goes on to live again in a new body.

Depending on the actions performed in previous lives, rebirth could be as a human or animal or even ghosts, demi-gods, or gods. Being born as a human is seen by Buddhists as a rare opportunity to work towards escaping this cycle of samsara. The escape from samsara is called Nirvana or enlightenment.​

​

Once Nirvana is achieved, and the enlightened individual physically dies, Buddhists believe that they will no longer be reborn.​

​

The Buddha taught that when Nirvana is achieved, Buddhists are able to see the world as it really is. Nirvana means realising and accepting the Four Noble Truths and being awake to reality.​

​

Some Buddhists believe that enlightened individuals can choose to be reborn in order to help others become enlightened. Others believe that, when Nirvana is achieved, the cycle of samsara, all suffering and further existence for that individual itself ends.​

What does Buddhism teach about life after death? - Life after death - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - BBC Bitesize

Learn about samsara and nirvana and how Buddhists believe we can influence what happens to us when we die with BBC Bitesize GCSE Religious Studies.

www.bbc.co.uk

It doesn't matter if some Buddhists believed in eternal spirits. That belief is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

There is no enduring essence or self

The self is an idea, a mental construct. That is not only the Buddha’s experience, but the experience of each realized Buddhist man and woman from 2,500 years ago to the present day. That being the case, what is it that dies? There is no question that when this physical body is no longer capable of functioning, the energies within it, the atoms and molecules it is made up of, don’t die with it. They take on another form, another shape. You can call that another life, but as there is no permanent, unchanging substance, nothing passes from one moment to the next. Quite obviously, nothing permanent or unchanging can pass or transmigrate from one life to the next.

Dude, you don't even acknowledge right and wrong when the eight fold path is predicated on right and wrong. So why would you think you would understand what Buddha meant by enlightement?

The Buddha taught his disciples not to fear death. This has been interpreted by Buddhists as suggesting that if they live well, their rebirth will be good.​

​

After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​

What does Buddhism teach about life after death? - Life after death - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - BBC Bitesize

Learn about samsara and nirvana and how Buddhists believe we can influence what happens to us when we die with BBC Bitesize GCSE Religious Studies.

www.bbc.co.uk

You don't seem to realize that many practicing Buddhists do not subscribe to the whole rebirth thing as meaning anything more than the atoms in your body return to the earth to be used again.

You seem to think that Buddhism is full of absolutes like Christianity and it isn't.

So Buddha was lying about remembering his previous lives?

After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​

What does Buddhism teach about life after death? - Life after death - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - BBC Bitesize

Learn about samsara and nirvana and how Buddhists believe we can influence what happens to us when we die with BBC Bitesize GCSE Religious Studies.

www.bbc.co.uk

I don't know if he was lying. but the Buddha was just a man and not some god giving orders to people how to live.

And I do not have to believe in past lives as a requirement in order to engage in any Buddhist practices.

YOU have to believe what you are told to believe because YOU have to think that the god you worship is infallible.

But I don't always believe what I am told.

How do you reconcile (in your mind) Buddha's craziness with his genius? I mean here you are practicing something taught by a crazy person who thinks he lived past lives, right?

I don't have to reconcile anything. The Buddha was just a man and susceptible to to the fallibility of men. He is not and never claimed to be all powerful all knowing.

Does that fallibility negate the entire volume of his teachings?

And once again I'll explain to you that I have taken some of the Buddha's teachings along with some of the teachings of the classical Stoics along with some of the teachings of Aristotle and Socrates and even a little Thomas Aquinas among many others and incorporated them into my own philosophy.

As I have said there are may roads to any great city.

Sure you do. You are following the teachings of a mad man. That's crazy.

The fact that you believe that right and wrong can be whatever men define it as says you don't understand any of the teachings you have followed because no on on your list of teachers believed that. You are RATIONALIZING your beliefs and behaviors.

Once again I see you haven't been able to grasp that the translation of Pali words into English presents some problems of loss of nuance and meaning.

And as i said the Buddha was just a man and all men are fallible. He certainly was not considered to be a mad man by his peers and his belief in rebirth is actually quite understandable since those beliefs were very prevalent in his society and we are nothing but the products of our societies.

So you can keep trying for that Gotcha but you're not going to get it.

I already got it, bro.

According to your beliefs there is no absolute truth or logic. You have single handily reduced Buddhism to opinions that can be whatever anyone wants them to be. Instead of truths that are founded in reality. In fact you have single handily negated all of reality.

Buddhism is not a path of absolutes and it never has been.

And I have given you the actual definition of logic many times already.

And I have never denied reality. You on the other hand insist that everyone except your definitions, even the made up ones.

That would be an absolute statement in an of itself. So apparently only what you believe is true. Arguing there is no truth is arguing there is no reality.

So now you went from Buddhism to reality in general.

I have never denied reality and I have never denied truth. I just accept that there are no ideals and no absolutes. You don't

The eight fold path is based upon reality the last time I checked.

You deny reality when you fail to recognize that there are correct and incorrect ways of being. You deny reality when you deny there is truth that is independent of what men perceive.

I have never denied reality.

If you believe things can be anything man says they can be then you absolutely have denied reality. Just as if you believe there is not an correct and incorrect way of being.

All subjective things can be whatever a person wants them to be by definition.

That has nothing to do with the physical world.

Just because you believe there is only one "right" way to be and all the other ways are "wrong" doesn't mean you are correct.

Yes, subjective truth can be anything you want but it has no bearing on reality which is objective truth. If reality exists then objective truth exists because objective truth is reality.

Objective truth or reality defines right and wrong.

I never denied that things don't exist whether or not people exist. you keep saying I did but that's just you making shit up again.

And people define right and wrong.

because nature or the universe cannot be right or wrong they are just what they are.

Right and wrong is defined by logic. Logic is the art of reason. Reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. Reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Man may perceive logic, reason and reality to be one thing but reality is not defined by perception. Reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist. Therefore, reason and logic which explain the state of things as they actually exist is absolute because it is based upon reality and not an idealistic or notional idea of reality. People can't define right and wrong to be what ever they prefer. I may prefer that it is right to steal from you but reality tells me it's not.

right and wrong are defined by men.

Must we go over all the instances when it is NOT wrong to kill a person again?

Right and wrong are independent of man and are determined by logic which is also independent of man.

It is always wrong to kill and that would include animals as well.

And yet you kill animals every day and you would kill a person in self defense.

So it's not always wrong to kill people because our society accepts it in certain situations.

That's a wonderful argument YOU are making if you didn't believe it is wrong to kill animals.

I never said it was "wrong" to kill an animal in self defense. The fact is people do not have to kill animals for food and factory farming is flat out cruel.

So now you think people are no different than animals?

And you eat animals.

Why do you always try to define the rule by exception? Actually no. I don't really hear about those things. But for those extremely rare instances - that apparently you believe are common occurrences - are you saying their only option was to kill them? And if their only option isn't to kill them and they choose to scare them off instead of killing them, then doesn't that prove that they know that killing is wrong and should be avoided?

Yes, I eat meat. I don't rationalize that eating meat for my survival which requires an animal to be killed is good. But per your logic, you must.

If a bear is attacking you yeah you're only option is to kill it because it WILL kill you

But I don't kill animals for the reasons you do or have someone do for you which is the same thing.

The only reasons I would kill an animal are for defense from a wild or rabid one or for the mercy of a peaceful death instead of a painful one.

So you think killing animals is good because your desire to eat them is all that matters right?

And you have a problem with me saying killing a person in self defense is not wrong.

Yeah you do like to rationalize when killing is acceptable and it seems that it is acceptable to you for trivial reasons..

No. I could try to scare it away, I could use bear spray. I could try to wound it instead of killing it.

Why do you keep misstating what I have already said?

I don't rationalize that killing animals is good. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

You are the one who is rationalizing that killing animals is good. Not me.

Of course you do you choose to eat animals so you must enjoy eating them so you have to think that your enjoyment of eating animals justifies the killing if those animals.

I don't eat meat because of the suffering it causes.

I told you the only times I would ever kill an animal but you say you wouldn't kill a bear that was attacking you and yet you have no problem eating animals that you pay people to kill for you.

It seems you are the one with contradictory beliefs here.

So now I will ask you to quote the post where i ever said killing people or animals was "good"

It doesn't justify it. How many times do I need to keep telling you that.

I'm not rationalizing that I am doing wrong. I admit it.

YOU are the one who rationalizes you are a good person. Please keep telling me how important it is for us to hear what a good person you think you are.

Where did I ever claim to be a good person? I have plenty of faults just like every other person.

Why is it you get so defensive when I say I don't eat animals?

Your beliefs and logic are so convoluted that you can't see how you not eating animals BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE IT IS WRONG and you not accepting that I can choose to do wrong without rationalizing that what I am doing is right is proof that you believe everyone must do right and good. That or rationalize they are doing good. There's your proof that you think you are good. You expect everyone to be good. You won't even accept that people can choose to do bad. You keep telling me that I must believe I am doing good when I am doing bad.

I don't get defensive when you say you don't eat animals. I think it's great that you choose to see yourself as good for not eating animals and see others as bad for eating animals even if you deny you do it. I think you are behaving like a hypocrite who is afraid to admit he is behaving like a hypocrite. Mind you you are not behaving like a hypocrite for eating animals. You are behaving like a hypocrite for arguing you don't see yourself as good when you do see yourself as good. You are behaving like a hypocrite for saying you have flaws you don't rationalize but deny that others can have flaws that they don't rationalize.

I've told you exactly why I am a vegan and I didn't have to use subjective terms like "right" or "wrong"

I do not eat animals because the meat industry is the cause of the untold suffering and deaths of trillions of animals every single year.

THAT is my reason.

YOU must think your reason for eating animals is more important than their suffering and I have never said you were "wrong" have I?

Your choices are yours and yours alone and only you have to live with them.

Everything about you screams you think you do right and not wrong. You just proved it by explaining why you don't eat meat.

My reason for eating meat is that I am weak and selfish. But you think I am rationalizing instead of being honest. If I were rationalizing I would make myself look better than I am... you know... like you always do.

This is you pinning your value judgments on me.

You eat meat because you enjoy it. If you didn't enjoy it you wouldn't eat it.

You just don't want to admit that your pleasure is more important to you than the suffering of the animals you eat.

And like I said your reasons are your own and you have to live with them not me.

I'm not the one who sees himself as superior because he doesn't eat meat. That's you. So I'm not pinning any value judgement on anyone other than myself.

I do enjoy eating meat. No doubt about it. That is definitely why I eat it. But it's not the reason I don't eat meat. The reason I don't eat meat is because I am weak and selfish.

But I absolutely do admit that I am doing wrong, so I'm not sure how I am denying the suffering of animals. You on the other hand need to rationalize everything you do such that others will see you as good. That's not a value judgement. That's an observation.

I don't see myself as superior to anyone. I never said eating meat was wrong.

All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat. I still don't understand why that makes you so defensive.

I don't care if you eat meat or not because I don't have to live with your choices. You seem to have issues with it though.

I'm not defensive. I'm confused why you won't accept the fact that I admit eating meat is wrong but choose to do it because I like it and am too selfish and weak not to do it. I don't rationalize like you do.

When you continue to do something you believe is wrong and you give flimsy reasons that is rationalizing by definition.

If you said simply I eat meat because I enjoy it then you would not be rationalizing but you prefer to make excuses as to why you continue to do something you think is wrong.

If you truly believed it was wrong you would not do it for any reason.

No. It's not. It's called being honest. Your belief assumes that no one would ever continue doing things they believe are wrong. I am telling you that just isn't so. There is no requirement that I must do right things. The fact that you believe I must do right things shows just how much value you place on doing right things. The problem is that you are so convinced that you must do right things that when you do wrong things you rationalize that you didn't. I'm not going to do that. If I continue to choose to do wrong things I'm going to be honest about it.

Think of it this way... no one has to rationalize doing wrong things if they admit to doing wrong things. That's called reality.

I know people do things they think are wrong all the time.

It's a major reason for the cognitive dissonance that plagues humans.

Usually the people who preach the most are the worst offenders. And I never said you MUST do anything.

You keep telling me all these things I say and yet you never can quote a post where I actually said them.

And I've told you umpteen times already that I make the choices I make for my own reasons and I really don't care what choices you make because you're the one that has to live with them not me so if you can rationalize all the ways you violate your own moral and ethical codes and live with yourself that's all on you and has nothing to do with the choices I make in my life Just don't get all pissy if I question your obvious hypocrisy

So just to be clear... you think I am rationalizing when I admit that I am selfish and weak?

Sounds stupid when I put it that way, doesn't it?

Yeah you are making up a reason that takes the accountability away.

You think you are not able to stop being weak or selfish so you keep doing what you say you know is wrong rather than making the effort to stop being weak and selfish

 

[ding]

you would kill a person in self defense

Probably but I wouldn't rationalize that it was good like you would. Which is proof that you rationalize seeing yourself as good whereas I don't rationalize seeing myself as good. I prefer seeing reality.

I never said killing in self defense was "good" YOU think I said that and you cannot find a quote of me saying that killing in self defense was "good".

What I said was I do not think killing in self defense was wrong. It's justifiable but that does not imply "good".

If it's not bad then what is it? Because you didn't like it when I referred to it as the lesser of two evils. That's probably becaue you don't have a well thought through worldview.

I said it's not wrong but it is justifiable.

That does not imply good or bad. Like I said life is nothing but a pallet of shades of gray and this is one of those gray areas.

I am not a pacifist and never claimed to be so yes I would kill a person who was trying to kill me and I would kill a person who was trying to kill my wife and I will not think it is wrong but I would not enjoy the taking of a life.

That's you rationalizing that you did the right thing. You can't help yourself.

To you killing is sometimes right. To me killing is always wrong. I don't need to rationalize it like you do.

OK now again quote me where I ever said killing anyone was right or good or whatever adjective you want to use.

I sincerely do not believe killing in self defense is wrong but that does not mean I think it is good and I would regret the taking of a life but I would have no guilt whatsoever.

The way I see it the person trying to kill me or my wife is responsible for his own death because he made the choice to attempt to kill.

You have literally rationalized killing as good and you can't deal with it. I don't have that dilemma. I can say all killing is wrong and then choose to do wrong. I don't need to justify my actions as good like you do.

You rail against this because deep down you know killing is wrong but since you would do it you use code words like just or justified to avoid saying killing is good but they mean effectively the same thing. We know this because you won't say all killing is bad. I will because it's true. If all killing isn't bad then some killing must be good. You can say some killing is justified but it still means that some killing isn't wrong which makes it right.

OK once again where have I ever said killing was good?

And you are the one that has said ALL killing is wrong not me. The only instance killing another human is not wrong is in self defense and now it is you defining the single exception as the rule.

And I'm not the one who lives in a world where the only 2 choices are right and wrong or good and bad. That's your thing and you can't even live up to your own moral code.

So once again it is not wrong to kill in self defense but it is not "good" either it's one of those gray areas you can't seem to comprehend

You imply that some killing is good when you argue that some killing is justified.

Now if you are really arguing that killing is bad and some killing is the lesser of two evils then you have come full circle to what I have been arguing all along.

 

[ding]

I do not believe it matters if gods exist or not and gods are certainly not necessary in order to live a righteous life.

Thoughts?

The practical benefits of faith and spirituality are so superior to the lack of benefits of materialism that betting on theism is rational and betting on materialism is irrational. It’s not about infinite rewards after death, it is about practical rewards on the journey to death.

Buddhism is hardly a materialist philosophy.

And you still haven't proven your case that a believer in gods is somehow possessing an advantage over a nonbeliever.

I never said Buddhism is a materialist philosophy. But if you do not believe you are more than just matter, your philosophy is a materialist philosophy.

Siddhārtha Gautama did not teach there was no God. He taught to die to self to see reality. Reality is God. And I didn't use the phrase non-believer. I used the phrase materialist which is a more descriptive term. And if you don't believe a person who is spiritual has a natural benefit over materialists then you don't understand Buddhism.

I never said that Buddhism teaches that there is no god.

I said belief in gods is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

And spirtuality is a state of mind. The spirit is a product of the mind and does not exist apart from the mind. The mind does not exists apart from the brain, the brain does not exist apart from the body.

So you are saying that Buddhism teaches that spirit is a product of mind? Sounds more like a materialist philosophy than a Buddhist philosophy.

Buddhism teaches nothing regarding eternal spirits, creators or personal deities or spirituality in general.

Enlightenment is the awakening of the intellect and the realizing that nothing is permanent not even your own concept of self.

I disagree. Samsara proves otherwise. Samsara proves that Buddhists do believe in eternal spirits. When the body dies the mind or spirit moves on and continues to move on eternally or until the body and mind or spirit reaches its spiritual awakening or enlightenment. Samsara also disproves that the body and mind or spirit are one as the body dies but the mind or spirit goes on to live again in a new body.

Depending on the actions performed in previous lives, rebirth could be as a human or animal or even ghosts, demi-gods, or gods. Being born as a human is seen by Buddhists as a rare opportunity to work towards escaping this cycle of samsara. The escape from samsara is called Nirvana or enlightenment.​

​

Once Nirvana is achieved, and the enlightened individual physically dies, Buddhists believe that they will no longer be reborn.​

​

The Buddha taught that when Nirvana is achieved, Buddhists are able to see the world as it really is. Nirvana means realising and accepting the Four Noble Truths and being awake to reality.​

​

Some Buddhists believe that enlightened individuals can choose to be reborn in order to help others become enlightened. Others believe that, when Nirvana is achieved, the cycle of samsara, all suffering and further existence for that individual itself ends.​

What does Buddhism teach about life after death? - Life after death - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - BBC Bitesize

Learn about samsara and nirvana and how Buddhists believe we can influence what happens to us when we die with BBC Bitesize GCSE Religious Studies.

www.bbc.co.uk

It doesn't matter if some Buddhists believed in eternal spirits. That belief is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

There is no enduring essence or self

The self is an idea, a mental construct. That is not only the Buddha’s experience, but the experience of each realized Buddhist man and woman from 2,500 years ago to the present day. That being the case, what is it that dies? There is no question that when this physical body is no longer capable of functioning, the energies within it, the atoms and molecules it is made up of, don’t die with it. They take on another form, another shape. You can call that another life, but as there is no permanent, unchanging substance, nothing passes from one moment to the next. Quite obviously, nothing permanent or unchanging can pass or transmigrate from one life to the next.

Dude, you don't even acknowledge right and wrong when the eight fold path is predicated on right and wrong. So why would you think you would understand what Buddha meant by enlightement?

The Buddha taught his disciples not to fear death. This has been interpreted by Buddhists as suggesting that if they live well, their rebirth will be good.​

​

After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​

What does Buddhism teach about life after death? - Life after death - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - BBC Bitesize

Learn about samsara and nirvana and how Buddhists believe we can influence what happens to us when we die with BBC Bitesize GCSE Religious Studies.

www.bbc.co.uk

You don't seem to realize that many practicing Buddhists do not subscribe to the whole rebirth thing as meaning anything more than the atoms in your body return to the earth to be used again.

You seem to think that Buddhism is full of absolutes like Christianity and it isn't.

So Buddha was lying about remembering his previous lives?

After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​

What does Buddhism teach about life after death? - Life after death - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - BBC Bitesize

Learn about samsara and nirvana and how Buddhists believe we can influence what happens to us when we die with BBC Bitesize GCSE Religious Studies.

www.bbc.co.uk

I don't know if he was lying. but the Buddha was just a man and not some god giving orders to people how to live.

And I do not have to believe in past lives as a requirement in order to engage in any Buddhist practices.

YOU have to believe what you are told to believe because YOU have to think that the god you worship is infallible.

But I don't always believe what I am told.

How do you reconcile (in your mind) Buddha's craziness with his genius? I mean here you are practicing something taught by a crazy person who thinks he lived past lives, right?

I don't have to reconcile anything. The Buddha was just a man and susceptible to to the fallibility of men. He is not and never claimed to be all powerful all knowing.

Does that fallibility negate the entire volume of his teachings?

And once again I'll explain to you that I have taken some of the Buddha's teachings along with some of the teachings of the classical Stoics along with some of the teachings of Aristotle and Socrates and even a little Thomas Aquinas among many others and incorporated them into my own philosophy.

As I have said there are may roads to any great city.

Sure you do. You are following the teachings of a mad man. That's crazy.

The fact that you believe that right and wrong can be whatever men define it as says you don't understand any of the teachings you have followed because no on on your list of teachers believed that. You are RATIONALIZING your beliefs and behaviors.

Once again I see you haven't been able to grasp that the translation of Pali words into English presents some problems of loss of nuance and meaning.

And as i said the Buddha was just a man and all men are fallible. He certainly was not considered to be a mad man by his peers and his belief in rebirth is actually quite understandable since those beliefs were very prevalent in his society and we are nothing but the products of our societies.

So you can keep trying for that Gotcha but you're not going to get it.

I already got it, bro.

According to your beliefs there is no absolute truth or logic. You have single handily reduced Buddhism to opinions that can be whatever anyone wants them to be. Instead of truths that are founded in reality. In fact you have single handily negated all of reality.

Buddhism is not a path of absolutes and it never has been.

And I have given you the actual definition of logic many times already.

And I have never denied reality. You on the other hand insist that everyone except your definitions, even the made up ones.

That would be an absolute statement in an of itself. So apparently only what you believe is true. Arguing there is no truth is arguing there is no reality.

So now you went from Buddhism to reality in general.

I have never denied reality and I have never denied truth. I just accept that there are no ideals and no absolutes. You don't

The eight fold path is based upon reality the last time I checked.

You deny reality when you fail to recognize that there are correct and incorrect ways of being. You deny reality when you deny there is truth that is independent of what men perceive.

I have never denied reality.

If you believe things can be anything man says they can be then you absolutely have denied reality. Just as if you believe there is not an correct and incorrect way of being.

All subjective things can be whatever a person wants them to be by definition.

That has nothing to do with the physical world.

Just because you believe there is only one "right" way to be and all the other ways are "wrong" doesn't mean you are correct.

Yes, subjective truth can be anything you want but it has no bearing on reality which is objective truth. If reality exists then objective truth exists because objective truth is reality.

Objective truth or reality defines right and wrong.

I never denied that things don't exist whether or not people exist. you keep saying I did but that's just you making shit up again.

And people define right and wrong.

because nature or the universe cannot be right or wrong they are just what they are.

Right and wrong is defined by logic. Logic is the art of reason. Reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. Reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Man may perceive logic, reason and reality to be one thing but reality is not defined by perception. Reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist. Therefore, reason and logic which explain the state of things as they actually exist is absolute because it is based upon reality and not an idealistic or notional idea of reality. People can't define right and wrong to be what ever they prefer. I may prefer that it is right to steal from you but reality tells me it's not.

right and wrong are defined by men.

Must we go over all the instances when it is NOT wrong to kill a person again?

Right and wrong are independent of man and are determined by logic which is also independent of man.

It is always wrong to kill and that would include animals as well.

And yet you kill animals every day and you would kill a person in self defense.

So it's not always wrong to kill people because our society accepts it in certain situations.

That's a wonderful argument YOU are making if you didn't believe it is wrong to kill animals.

I never said it was "wrong" to kill an animal in self defense. The fact is people do not have to kill animals for food and factory farming is flat out cruel.

So now you think people are no different than animals?

And you eat animals.

Why do you always try to define the rule by exception? Actually no. I don't really hear about those things. But for those extremely rare instances - that apparently you believe are common occurrences - are you saying their only option was to kill them? And if their only option isn't to kill them and they choose to scare them off instead of killing them, then doesn't that prove that they know that killing is wrong and should be avoided?

Yes, I eat meat. I don't rationalize that eating meat for my survival which requires an animal to be killed is good. But per your logic, you must.

If a bear is attacking you yeah you're only option is to kill it because it WILL kill you

But I don't kill animals for the reasons you do or have someone do for you which is the same thing.

The only reasons I would kill an animal are for defense from a wild or rabid one or for the mercy of a peaceful death instead of a painful one.

So you think killing animals is good because your desire to eat them is all that matters right?

And you have a problem with me saying killing a person in self defense is not wrong.

Yeah you do like to rationalize when killing is acceptable and it seems that it is acceptable to you for trivial reasons..

No. I could try to scare it away, I could use bear spray. I could try to wound it instead of killing it.

Why do you keep misstating what I have already said?

I don't rationalize that killing animals is good. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

You are the one who is rationalizing that killing animals is good. Not me.

Of course you do you choose to eat animals so you must enjoy eating them so you have to think that your enjoyment of eating animals justifies the killing if those animals.

I don't eat meat because of the suffering it causes.

I told you the only times I would ever kill an animal but you say you wouldn't kill a bear that was attacking you and yet you have no problem eating animals that you pay people to kill for you.

It seems you are the one with contradictory beliefs here.

So now I will ask you to quote the post where i ever said killing people or animals was "good"

It doesn't justify it. How many times do I need to keep telling you that.

I'm not rationalizing that I am doing wrong. I admit it.

YOU are the one who rationalizes you are a good person. Please keep telling me how important it is for us to hear what a good person you think you are.

Where did I ever claim to be a good person? I have plenty of faults just like every other person.

Why is it you get so defensive when I say I don't eat animals?

Your beliefs and logic are so convoluted that you can't see how you not eating animals BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE IT IS WRONG and you not accepting that I can choose to do wrong without rationalizing that what I am doing is right is proof that you believe everyone must do right and good. That or rationalize they are doing good. There's your proof that you think you are good. You expect everyone to be good. You won't even accept that people can choose to do bad. You keep telling me that I must believe I am doing good when I am doing bad.

I don't get defensive when you say you don't eat animals. I think it's great that you choose to see yourself as good for not eating animals and see others as bad for eating animals even if you deny you do it. I think you are behaving like a hypocrite who is afraid to admit he is behaving like a hypocrite. Mind you you are not behaving like a hypocrite for eating animals. You are behaving like a hypocrite for arguing you don't see yourself as good when you do see yourself as good. You are behaving like a hypocrite for saying you have flaws you don't rationalize but deny that others can have flaws that they don't rationalize.

I've told you exactly why I am a vegan and I didn't have to use subjective terms like "right" or "wrong"

I do not eat animals because the meat industry is the cause of the untold suffering and deaths of trillions of animals every single year.

THAT is my reason.

YOU must think your reason for eating animals is more important than their suffering and I have never said you were "wrong" have I?

Your choices are yours and yours alone and only you have to live with them.

Everything about you screams you think you do right and not wrong. You just proved it by explaining why you don't eat meat.

My reason for eating meat is that I am weak and selfish. But you think I am rationalizing instead of being honest. If I were rationalizing I would make myself look better than I am... you know... like you always do.

This is you pinning your value judgments on me.

You eat meat because you enjoy it. If you didn't enjoy it you wouldn't eat it.

You just don't want to admit that your pleasure is more important to you than the suffering of the animals you eat.

And like I said your reasons are your own and you have to live with them not me.

I'm not the one who sees himself as superior because he doesn't eat meat. That's you. So I'm not pinning any value judgement on anyone other than myself.

I do enjoy eating meat. No doubt about it. That is definitely why I eat it. But it's not the reason I don't eat meat. The reason I don't eat meat is because I am weak and selfish.

But I absolutely do admit that I am doing wrong, so I'm not sure how I am denying the suffering of animals. You on the other hand need to rationalize everything you do such that others will see you as good. That's not a value judgement. That's an observation.

I don't see myself as superior to anyone. I never said eating meat was wrong.

All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat. I still don't understand why that makes you so defensive.

I don't care if you eat meat or not because I don't have to live with your choices. You seem to have issues with it though.

I'm not defensive. I'm confused why you won't accept the fact that I admit eating meat is wrong but choose to do it because I like it and am too selfish and weak not to do it. I don't rationalize like you do.

When you continue to do something you believe is wrong and you give flimsy reasons that is rationalizing by definition.

If you said simply I eat meat because I enjoy it then you would not be rationalizing but you prefer to make excuses as to why you continue to do something you think is wrong.

If you truly believed it was wrong you would not do it for any reason.

No. It's not. It's called being honest. Your belief assumes that no one would ever continue doing things they believe are wrong. I am telling you that just isn't so. There is no requirement that I must do right things. The fact that you believe I must do right things shows just how much value you place on doing right things. The problem is that you are so convinced that you must do right things that when you do wrong things you rationalize that you didn't. I'm not going to do that. If I continue to choose to do wrong things I'm going to be honest about it.

Think of it this way... no one has to rationalize doing wrong things if they admit to doing wrong things. That's called reality.

I know people do things they think are wrong all the time.

It's a major reason for the cognitive dissonance that plagues humans.

Usually the people who preach the most are the worst offenders. And I never said you MUST do anything.

You keep telling me all these things I say and yet you never can quote a post where I actually said them.

And I've told you umpteen times already that I make the choices I make for my own reasons and I really don't care what choices you make because you're the one that has to live with them not me so if you can rationalize all the ways you violate your own moral and ethical codes and live with yourself that's all on you and has nothing to do with the choices I make in my life Just don't get all pissy if I question your obvious hypocrisy

So just to be clear... you think I am rationalizing when I admit that I am selfish and weak?

Sounds stupid when I put it that way, doesn't it?

Yeah you are making up a reason that takes the accountability away.

You think you are not able to stop being weak or selfish so you keep doing what you say you know is wrong rather than making the effort to stop being weak and selfish

So... I'm not selfish for eating meat?

 

[ding]

selfish: lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.

weak: of a low standard; performing or performed badly.

 

[ding]

Blues Man so when I say I am aware of the standard and choose to not meet the standard because I find eating meat pleasurable and I am selfish - which means I lack consideration for animals - and I am chiefly concerned with my own pleasure, you think that is me rationalizing?

 

[Blues Man]

you would kill a person in self defense

Probably but I wouldn't rationalize that it was good like you would. Which is proof that you rationalize seeing yourself as good whereas I don't rationalize seeing myself as good. I prefer seeing reality.

I never said killing in self defense was "good" YOU think I said that and you cannot find a quote of me saying that killing in self defense was "good".

What I said was I do not think killing in self defense was wrong. It's justifiable but that does not imply "good".

If it's not bad then what is it? Because you didn't like it when I referred to it as the lesser of two evils. That's probably becaue you don't have a well thought through worldview.

I said it's not wrong but it is justifiable.

That does not imply good or bad. Like I said life is nothing but a pallet of shades of gray and this is one of those gray areas.

I am not a pacifist and never claimed to be so yes I would kill a person who was trying to kill me and I would kill a person who was trying to kill my wife and I will not think it is wrong but I would not enjoy the taking of a life.

That's you rationalizing that you did the right thing. You can't help yourself.

To you killing is sometimes right. To me killing is always wrong. I don't need to rationalize it like you do.

OK now again quote me where I ever said killing anyone was right or good or whatever adjective you want to use.

I sincerely do not believe killing in self defense is wrong but that does not mean I think it is good and I would regret the taking of a life but I would have no guilt whatsoever.

The way I see it the person trying to kill me or my wife is responsible for his own death because he made the choice to attempt to kill.

You have literally rationalized killing as good and you can't deal with it. I don't have that dilemma. I can say all killing is wrong and then choose to do wrong. I don't need to justify my actions as good like you do.

You rail against this because deep down you know killing is wrong but since you would do it you use code words like just or justified to avoid saying killing is good but they mean effectively the same thing. We know this because you won't say all killing is bad. I will because it's true. If all killing isn't bad then some killing must be good. You can say some killing is justified but it still means that some killing isn't wrong which makes it right.

OK once again where have I ever said killing was good?

And you are the one that has said ALL killing is wrong not me. The only instance killing another human is not wrong is in self defense and now it is you defining the single exception as the rule.

And I'm not the one who lives in a world where the only 2 choices are right and wrong or good and bad. That's your thing and you can't even live up to your own moral code.

So once again it is not wrong to kill in self defense but it is not "good" either it's one of those gray areas you can't seem to comprehend

You imply that some killing is good when you argue that some killing is justified.

Now if you are really arguing that killing is bad and some killing is the lesser of two evils then you have come full circle to what I have been arguing all along.

No I am implying no such thing.

YOU are inferring incorrectly because you have to put everything in either the "good" pigeonhole or the "bad" pigeonhole.

Killing in self defense is neither "good" nor "bad" but it is acceptable or maybe I should say tolerable.

And I never used the term "lesser of 2 evils" that's your argument even though you couldn't tell me what the greater evil is that you do not choose when you kill in self defense.

 

[Blues Man]

I do not believe it matters if gods exist or not and gods are certainly not necessary in order to live a righteous life.

Thoughts?

The practical benefits of faith and spirituality are so superior to the lack of benefits of materialism that betting on theism is rational and betting on materialism is irrational. It’s not about infinite rewards after death, it is about practical rewards on the journey to death.

Buddhism is hardly a materialist philosophy.

And you still haven't proven your case that a believer in gods is somehow possessing an advantage over a nonbeliever.

I never said Buddhism is a materialist philosophy. But if you do not believe you are more than just matter, your philosophy is a materialist philosophy.

Siddhārtha Gautama did not teach there was no God. He taught to die to self to see reality. Reality is God. And I didn't use the phrase non-believer. I used the phrase materialist which is a more descriptive term. And if you don't believe a person who is spiritual has a natural benefit over materialists then you don't understand Buddhism.

I never said that Buddhism teaches that there is no god.

I said belief in gods is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

And spirtuality is a state of mind. The spirit is a product of the mind and does not exist apart from the mind. The mind does not exists apart from the brain, the brain does not exist apart from the body.

So you are saying that Buddhism teaches that spirit is a product of mind? Sounds more like a materialist philosophy than a Buddhist philosophy.

Buddhism teaches nothing regarding eternal spirits, creators or personal deities or spirituality in general.

Enlightenment is the awakening of the intellect and the realizing that nothing is permanent not even your own concept of self.

I disagree. Samsara proves otherwise. Samsara proves that Buddhists do believe in eternal spirits. When the body dies the mind or spirit moves on and continues to move on eternally or until the body and mind or spirit reaches its spiritual awakening or enlightenment. Samsara also disproves that the body and mind or spirit are one as the body dies but the mind or spirit goes on to live again in a new body.

Depending on the actions performed in previous lives, rebirth could be as a human or animal or even ghosts, demi-gods, or gods. Being born as a human is seen by Buddhists as a rare opportunity to work towards escaping this cycle of samsara. The escape from samsara is called Nirvana or enlightenment.​

​

Once Nirvana is achieved, and the enlightened individual physically dies, Buddhists believe that they will no longer be reborn.​

​

The Buddha taught that when Nirvana is achieved, Buddhists are able to see the world as it really is. Nirvana means realising and accepting the Four Noble Truths and being awake to reality.​

​

Some Buddhists believe that enlightened individuals can choose to be reborn in order to help others become enlightened. Others believe that, when Nirvana is achieved, the cycle of samsara, all suffering and further existence for that individual itself ends.​

What does Buddhism teach about life after death? - Life after death - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - BBC Bitesize

Learn about samsara and nirvana and how Buddhists believe we can influence what happens to us when we die with BBC Bitesize GCSE Religious Studies.

www.bbc.co.uk

It doesn't matter if some Buddhists believed in eternal spirits. That belief is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

There is no enduring essence or self

The self is an idea, a mental construct. That is not only the Buddha’s experience, but the experience of each realized Buddhist man and woman from 2,500 years ago to the present day. That being the case, what is it that dies? There is no question that when this physical body is no longer capable of functioning, the energies within it, the atoms and molecules it is made up of, don’t die with it. They take on another form, another shape. You can call that another life, but as there is no permanent, unchanging substance, nothing passes from one moment to the next. Quite obviously, nothing permanent or unchanging can pass or transmigrate from one life to the next.

Dude, you don't even acknowledge right and wrong when the eight fold path is predicated on right and wrong. So why would you think you would understand what Buddha meant by enlightement?

The Buddha taught his disciples not to fear death. This has been interpreted by Buddhists as suggesting that if they live well, their rebirth will be good.​

​

After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​

What does Buddhism teach about life after death? - Life after death - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - BBC Bitesize

Learn about samsara and nirvana and how Buddhists believe we can influence what happens to us when we die with BBC Bitesize GCSE Religious Studies.

www.bbc.co.uk

You don't seem to realize that many practicing Buddhists do not subscribe to the whole rebirth thing as meaning anything more than the atoms in your body return to the earth to be used again.

You seem to think that Buddhism is full of absolutes like Christianity and it isn't.

So Buddha was lying about remembering his previous lives?

After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​

What does Buddhism teach about life after death? - Life after death - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - BBC Bitesize

Learn about samsara and nirvana and how Buddhists believe we can influence what happens to us when we die with BBC Bitesize GCSE Religious Studies.

www.bbc.co.uk

I don't know if he was lying. but the Buddha was just a man and not some god giving orders to people how to live.

And I do not have to believe in past lives as a requirement in order to engage in any Buddhist practices.

YOU have to believe what you are told to believe because YOU have to think that the god you worship is infallible.

But I don't always believe what I am told.

How do you reconcile (in your mind) Buddha's craziness with his genius? I mean here you are practicing something taught by a crazy person who thinks he lived past lives, right?

I don't have to reconcile anything. The Buddha was just a man and susceptible to to the fallibility of men. He is not and never claimed to be all powerful all knowing.

Does that fallibility negate the entire volume of his teachings?

And once again I'll explain to you that I have taken some of the Buddha's teachings along with some of the teachings of the classical Stoics along with some of the teachings of Aristotle and Socrates and even a little Thomas Aquinas among many others and incorporated them into my own philosophy.

As I have said there are may roads to any great city.

Sure you do. You are following the teachings of a mad man. That's crazy.

The fact that you believe that right and wrong can be whatever men define it as says you don't understand any of the teachings you have followed because no on on your list of teachers believed that. You are RATIONALIZING your beliefs and behaviors.

Once again I see you haven't been able to grasp that the translation of Pali words into English presents some problems of loss of nuance and meaning.

And as i said the Buddha was just a man and all men are fallible. He certainly was not considered to be a mad man by his peers and his belief in rebirth is actually quite understandable since those beliefs were very prevalent in his society and we are nothing but the products of our societies.

So you can keep trying for that Gotcha but you're not going to get it.

I already got it, bro.

According to your beliefs there is no absolute truth or logic. You have single handily reduced Buddhism to opinions that can be whatever anyone wants them to be. Instead of truths that are founded in reality. In fact you have single handily negated all of reality.

Buddhism is not a path of absolutes and it never has been.

And I have given you the actual definition of logic many times already.

And I have never denied reality. You on the other hand insist that everyone except your definitions, even the made up ones.

That would be an absolute statement in an of itself. So apparently only what you believe is true. Arguing there is no truth is arguing there is no reality.

So now you went from Buddhism to reality in general.

I have never denied reality and I have never denied truth. I just accept that there are no ideals and no absolutes. You don't

The eight fold path is based upon reality the last time I checked.

You deny reality when you fail to recognize that there are correct and incorrect ways of being. You deny reality when you deny there is truth that is independent of what men perceive.

I have never denied reality.

If you believe things can be anything man says they can be then you absolutely have denied reality. Just as if you believe there is not an correct and incorrect way of being.

All subjective things can be whatever a person wants them to be by definition.

That has nothing to do with the physical world.

Just because you believe there is only one "right" way to be and all the other ways are "wrong" doesn't mean you are correct.

Yes, subjective truth can be anything you want but it has no bearing on reality which is objective truth. If reality exists then objective truth exists because objective truth is reality.

Objective truth or reality defines right and wrong.

I never denied that things don't exist whether or not people exist. you keep saying I did but that's just you making shit up again.

And people define right and wrong.

because nature or the universe cannot be right or wrong they are just what they are.

Right and wrong is defined by logic. Logic is the art of reason. Reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. Reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Man may perceive logic, reason and reality to be one thing but reality is not defined by perception. Reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist. Therefore, reason and logic which explain the state of things as they actually exist is absolute because it is based upon reality and not an idealistic or notional idea of reality. People can't define right and wrong to be what ever they prefer. I may prefer that it is right to steal from you but reality tells me it's not.

right and wrong are defined by men.

Must we go over all the instances when it is NOT wrong to kill a person again?

Right and wrong are independent of man and are determined by logic which is also independent of man.

It is always wrong to kill and that would include animals as well.

And yet you kill animals every day and you would kill a person in self defense.

So it's not always wrong to kill people because our society accepts it in certain situations.

That's a wonderful argument YOU are making if you didn't believe it is wrong to kill animals.

I never said it was "wrong" to kill an animal in self defense. The fact is people do not have to kill animals for food and factory farming is flat out cruel.

So now you think people are no different than animals?

And you eat animals.

Why do you always try to define the rule by exception? Actually no. I don't really hear about those things. But for those extremely rare instances - that apparently you believe are common occurrences - are you saying their only option was to kill them? And if their only option isn't to kill them and they choose to scare them off instead of killing them, then doesn't that prove that they know that killing is wrong and should be avoided?

Yes, I eat meat. I don't rationalize that eating meat for my survival which requires an animal to be killed is good. But per your logic, you must.

If a bear is attacking you yeah you're only option is to kill it because it WILL kill you

But I don't kill animals for the reasons you do or have someone do for you which is the same thing.

The only reasons I would kill an animal are for defense from a wild or rabid one or for the mercy of a peaceful death instead of a painful one.

So you think killing animals is good because your desire to eat them is all that matters right?

And you have a problem with me saying killing a person in self defense is not wrong.

Yeah you do like to rationalize when killing is acceptable and it seems that it is acceptable to you for trivial reasons..

No. I could try to scare it away, I could use bear spray. I could try to wound it instead of killing it.

Why do you keep misstating what I have already said?

I don't rationalize that killing animals is good. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

You are the one who is rationalizing that killing animals is good. Not me.

Of course you do you choose to eat animals so you must enjoy eating them so you have to think that your enjoyment of eating animals justifies the killing if those animals.

I don't eat meat because of the suffering it causes.

I told you the only times I would ever kill an animal but you say you wouldn't kill a bear that was attacking you and yet you have no problem eating animals that you pay people to kill for you.

It seems you are the one with contradictory beliefs here.

So now I will ask you to quote the post where i ever said killing people or animals was "good"

It doesn't justify it. How many times do I need to keep telling you that.

I'm not rationalizing that I am doing wrong. I admit it.

YOU are the one who rationalizes you are a good person. Please keep telling me how important it is for us to hear what a good person you think you are.

Where did I ever claim to be a good person? I have plenty of faults just like every other person.

Why is it you get so defensive when I say I don't eat animals?

Your beliefs and logic are so convoluted that you can't see how you not eating animals BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE IT IS WRONG and you not accepting that I can choose to do wrong without rationalizing that what I am doing is right is proof that you believe everyone must do right and good. That or rationalize they are doing good. There's your proof that you think you are good. You expect everyone to be good. You won't even accept that people can choose to do bad. You keep telling me that I must believe I am doing good when I am doing bad.

I don't get defensive when you say you don't eat animals. I think it's great that you choose to see yourself as good for not eating animals and see others as bad for eating animals even if you deny you do it. I think you are behaving like a hypocrite who is afraid to admit he is behaving like a hypocrite. Mind you you are not behaving like a hypocrite for eating animals. You are behaving like a hypocrite for arguing you don't see yourself as good when you do see yourself as good. You are behaving like a hypocrite for saying you have flaws you don't rationalize but deny that others can have flaws that they don't rationalize.

I've told you exactly why I am a vegan and I didn't have to use subjective terms like "right" or "wrong"

I do not eat animals because the meat industry is the cause of the untold suffering and deaths of trillions of animals every single year.

THAT is my reason.

YOU must think your reason for eating animals is more important than their suffering and I have never said you were "wrong" have I?

Your choices are yours and yours alone and only you have to live with them.

Everything about you screams you think you do right and not wrong. You just proved it by explaining why you don't eat meat.

My reason for eating meat is that I am weak and selfish. But you think I am rationalizing instead of being honest. If I were rationalizing I would make myself look better than I am... you know... like you always do.

This is you pinning your value judgments on me.

You eat meat because you enjoy it. If you didn't enjoy it you wouldn't eat it.

You just don't want to admit that your pleasure is more important to you than the suffering of the animals you eat.

And like I said your reasons are your own and you have to live with them not me.

I'm not the one who sees himself as superior because he doesn't eat meat. That's you. So I'm not pinning any value judgement on anyone other than myself.

I do enjoy eating meat. No doubt about it. That is definitely why I eat it. But it's not the reason I don't eat meat. The reason I don't eat meat is because I am weak and selfish.

But I absolutely do admit that I am doing wrong, so I'm not sure how I am denying the suffering of animals. You on the other hand need to rationalize everything you do such that others will see you as good. That's not a value judgement. That's an observation.

I don't see myself as superior to anyone. I never said eating meat was wrong.

All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat. I still don't understand why that makes you so defensive.

I don't care if you eat meat or not because I don't have to live with your choices. You seem to have issues with it though.

I'm not defensive. I'm confused why you won't accept the fact that I admit eating meat is wrong but choose to do it because I like it and am too selfish and weak not to do it. I don't rationalize like you do.

When you continue to do something you believe is wrong and you give flimsy reasons that is rationalizing by definition.

If you said simply I eat meat because I enjoy it then you would not be rationalizing but you prefer to make excuses as to why you continue to do something you think is wrong.

If you truly believed it was wrong you would not do it for any reason.

No. It's not. It's called being honest. Your belief assumes that no one would ever continue doing things they believe are wrong. I am telling you that just isn't so. There is no requirement that I must do right things. The fact that you believe I must do right things shows just how much value you place on doing right things. The problem is that you are so convinced that you must do right things that when you do wrong things you rationalize that you didn't. I'm not going to do that. If I continue to choose to do wrong things I'm going to be honest about it.

Think of it this way... no one has to rationalize doing wrong things if they admit to doing wrong things. That's called reality.

I know people do things they think are wrong all the time.

It's a major reason for the cognitive dissonance that plagues humans.

Usually the people who preach the most are the worst offenders. And I never said you MUST do anything.

You keep telling me all these things I say and yet you never can quote a post where I actually said them.

And I've told you umpteen times already that I make the choices I make for my own reasons and I really don't care what choices you make because you're the one that has to live with them not me so if you can rationalize all the ways you violate your own moral and ethical codes and live with yourself that's all on you and has nothing to do with the choices I make in my life Just don't get all pissy if I question your obvious hypocrisy

So just to be clear... you think I am rationalizing when I admit that I am selfish and weak?

Sounds stupid when I put it that way, doesn't it?

Yeah you are making up a reason that takes the accountability away.

You think you are not able to stop being weak or selfish so you keep doing what you say you know is wrong rather than making the effort to stop being weak and selfish

So... I'm not selfish for eating meat?

I don't make those judgements.

But you seem comfortable calling yourself weak and selfish and are content to do nothing about it

 

[ding]

Blues Man rationalizing is when you say killing is bad but some killing is justified.

 

[ding]

you would kill a person in self defense

Probably but I wouldn't rationalize that it was good like you would. Which is proof that you rationalize seeing yourself as good whereas I don't rationalize seeing myself as good. I prefer seeing reality.

I never said killing in self defense was "good" YOU think I said that and you cannot find a quote of me saying that killing in self defense was "good".

What I said was I do not think killing in self defense was wrong. It's justifiable but that does not imply "good".

If it's not bad then what is it? Because you didn't like it when I referred to it as the lesser of two evils. That's probably becaue you don't have a well thought through worldview.

I said it's not wrong but it is justifiable.

That does not imply good or bad. Like I said life is nothing but a pallet of shades of gray and this is one of those gray areas.

I am not a pacifist and never claimed to be so yes I would kill a person who was trying to kill me and I would kill a person who was trying to kill my wife and I will not think it is wrong but I would not enjoy the taking of a life.

That's you rationalizing that you did the right thing. You can't help yourself.

To you killing is sometimes right. To me killing is always wrong. I don't need to rationalize it like you do.

OK now again quote me where I ever said killing anyone was right or good or whatever adjective you want to use.

I sincerely do not believe killing in self defense is wrong but that does not mean I think it is good and I would regret the taking of a life but I would have no guilt whatsoever.

The way I see it the person trying to kill me or my wife is responsible for his own death because he made the choice to attempt to kill.

You have literally rationalized killing as good and you can't deal with it. I don't have that dilemma. I can say all killing is wrong and then choose to do wrong. I don't need to justify my actions as good like you do.

You rail against this because deep down you know killing is wrong but since you would do it you use code words like just or justified to avoid saying killing is good but they mean effectively the same thing. We know this because you won't say all killing is bad. I will because it's true. If all killing isn't bad then some killing must be good. You can say some killing is justified but it still means that some killing isn't wrong which makes it right.

OK once again where have I ever said killing was good?

And you are the one that has said ALL killing is wrong not me. The only instance killing another human is not wrong is in self defense and now it is you defining the single exception as the rule.

And I'm not the one who lives in a world where the only 2 choices are right and wrong or good and bad. That's your thing and you can't even live up to your own moral code.

So once again it is not wrong to kill in self defense but it is not "good" either it's one of those gray areas you can't seem to comprehend

You imply that some killing is good when you argue that some killing is justified.

Now if you are really arguing that killing is bad and some killing is the lesser of two evils then you have come full circle to what I have been arguing all along.

No I am implying no such thing.

YOU are inferring incorrectly because you have to put everything in either the "good" pigeonhole or the "bad" pigeonhole.

Killing in self defense is neither "good" nor "bad" but it is acceptable or maybe I should say tolerable.

And I never used the term "lesser of 2 evils" that's your argument even though you couldn't tell me what the greater evil is that you do not choose when you kill in self defense.

You are just changing words; good, justifiable, acceptable. But it means the same thing because you are rationalizing that what you did wasn't wrong. I on the other hand make no such rationalization because I admit that what I am doing is wrong.

 

[Blues Man]

Blues Man so when I say I am aware of the standard and choose to not meet the standard because I find eating meat pleasurable and I am selfish - which means I lack consideration for animals - and I am chiefly concerned with my own pleasure, you think that is me rationalizing?

Yup.

Because you say these things and it's merely lip service or you are trying to god me into a contradiction.

Like I said you say you are weak and selfish and you are accepting those as excuses for your own behavior because you believe those things cannot be changed. So what are the reasons you choose to be weak and selfish?

 

[ding]

I do not believe it matters if gods exist or not and gods are certainly not necessary in order to live a righteous life.

Thoughts?

The practical benefits of faith and spirituality are so superior to the lack of benefits of materialism that betting on theism is rational and betting on materialism is irrational. It’s not about infinite rewards after death, it is about practical rewards on the journey to death.

Buddhism is hardly a materialist philosophy.

And you still haven't proven your case that a believer in gods is somehow possessing an advantage over a nonbeliever.

I never said Buddhism is a materialist philosophy. But if you do not believe you are more than just matter, your philosophy is a materialist philosophy.

Siddhārtha Gautama did not teach there was no God. He taught to die to self to see reality. Reality is God. And I didn't use the phrase non-believer. I used the phrase materialist which is a more descriptive term. And if you don't believe a person who is spiritual has a natural benefit over materialists then you don't understand Buddhism.

I never said that Buddhism teaches that there is no god.

I said belief in gods is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

And spirtuality is a state of mind. The spirit is a product of the mind and does not exist apart from the mind. The mind does not exists apart from the brain, the brain does not exist apart from the body.

So you are saying that Buddhism teaches that spirit is a product of mind? Sounds more like a materialist philosophy than a Buddhist philosophy.

Buddhism teaches nothing regarding eternal spirits, creators or personal deities or spirituality in general.

Enlightenment is the awakening of the intellect and the realizing that nothing is permanent not even your own concept of self.

I disagree. Samsara proves otherwise. Samsara proves that Buddhists do believe in eternal spirits. When the body dies the mind or spirit moves on and continues to move on eternally or until the body and mind or spirit reaches its spiritual awakening or enlightenment. Samsara also disproves that the body and mind or spirit are one as the body dies but the mind or spirit goes on to live again in a new body.

Depending on the actions performed in previous lives, rebirth could be as a human or animal or even ghosts, demi-gods, or gods. Being born as a human is seen by Buddhists as a rare opportunity to work towards escaping this cycle of samsara. The escape from samsara is called Nirvana or enlightenment.​

​

Once Nirvana is achieved, and the enlightened individual physically dies, Buddhists believe that they will no longer be reborn.​

​

The Buddha taught that when Nirvana is achieved, Buddhists are able to see the world as it really is. Nirvana means realising and accepting the Four Noble Truths and being awake to reality.​

​

Some Buddhists believe that enlightened individuals can choose to be reborn in order to help others become enlightened. Others believe that, when Nirvana is achieved, the cycle of samsara, all suffering and further existence for that individual itself ends.​

What does Buddhism teach about life after death? - Life after death - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - BBC Bitesize

Learn about samsara and nirvana and how Buddhists believe we can influence what happens to us when we die with BBC Bitesize GCSE Religious Studies.

www.bbc.co.uk

It doesn't matter if some Buddhists believed in eternal spirits. That belief is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

There is no enduring essence or self

The self is an idea, a mental construct. That is not only the Buddha’s experience, but the experience of each realized Buddhist man and woman from 2,500 years ago to the present day. That being the case, what is it that dies? There is no question that when this physical body is no longer capable of functioning, the energies within it, the atoms and molecules it is made up of, don’t die with it. They take on another form, another shape. You can call that another life, but as there is no permanent, unchanging substance, nothing passes from one moment to the next. Quite obviously, nothing permanent or unchanging can pass or transmigrate from one life to the next.

Dude, you don't even acknowledge right and wrong when the eight fold path is predicated on right and wrong. So why would you think you would understand what Buddha meant by enlightement?

The Buddha taught his disciples not to fear death. This has been interpreted by Buddhists as suggesting that if they live well, their rebirth will be good.​

​

After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​

What does Buddhism teach about life after death? - Life after death - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - BBC Bitesize

Learn about samsara and nirvana and how Buddhists believe we can influence what happens to us when we die with BBC Bitesize GCSE Religious Studies.

www.bbc.co.uk

You don't seem to realize that many practicing Buddhists do not subscribe to the whole rebirth thing as meaning anything more than the atoms in your body return to the earth to be used again.

You seem to think that Buddhism is full of absolutes like Christianity and it isn't.

So Buddha was lying about remembering his previous lives?

After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​

What does Buddhism teach about life after death? - Life after death - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - BBC Bitesize

Learn about samsara and nirvana and how Buddhists believe we can influence what happens to us when we die with BBC Bitesize GCSE Religious Studies.

www.bbc.co.uk

I don't know if he was lying. but the Buddha was just a man and not some god giving orders to people how to live.

And I do not have to believe in past lives as a requirement in order to engage in any Buddhist practices.

YOU have to believe what you are told to believe because YOU have to think that the god you worship is infallible.

But I don't always believe what I am told.

How do you reconcile (in your mind) Buddha's craziness with his genius? I mean here you are practicing something taught by a crazy person who thinks he lived past lives, right?

I don't have to reconcile anything. The Buddha was just a man and susceptible to to the fallibility of men. He is not and never claimed to be all powerful all knowing.

Does that fallibility negate the entire volume of his teachings?

And once again I'll explain to you that I have taken some of the Buddha's teachings along with some of the teachings of the classical Stoics along with some of the teachings of Aristotle and Socrates and even a little Thomas Aquinas among many others and incorporated them into my own philosophy.

As I have said there are may roads to any great city.

Sure you do. You are following the teachings of a mad man. That's crazy.

The fact that you believe that right and wrong can be whatever men define it as says you don't understand any of the teachings you have followed because no on on your list of teachers believed that. You are RATIONALIZING your beliefs and behaviors.

Once again I see you haven't been able to grasp that the translation of Pali words into English presents some problems of loss of nuance and meaning.

And as i said the Buddha was just a man and all men are fallible. He certainly was not considered to be a mad man by his peers and his belief in rebirth is actually quite understandable since those beliefs were very prevalent in his society and we are nothing but the products of our societies.

So you can keep trying for that Gotcha but you're not going to get it.

I already got it, bro.

According to your beliefs there is no absolute truth or logic. You have single handily reduced Buddhism to opinions that can be whatever anyone wants them to be. Instead of truths that are founded in reality. In fact you have single handily negated all of reality.

Buddhism is not a path of absolutes and it never has been.

And I have given you the actual definition of logic many times already.

And I have never denied reality. You on the other hand insist that everyone except your definitions, even the made up ones.

That would be an absolute statement in an of itself. So apparently only what you believe is true. Arguing there is no truth is arguing there is no reality.

So now you went from Buddhism to reality in general.

I have never denied reality and I have never denied truth. I just accept that there are no ideals and no absolutes. You don't

The eight fold path is based upon reality the last time I checked.

You deny reality when you fail to recognize that there are correct and incorrect ways of being. You deny reality when you deny there is truth that is independent of what men perceive.

I have never denied reality.

If you believe things can be anything man says they can be then you absolutely have denied reality. Just as if you believe there is not an correct and incorrect way of being.

All subjective things can be whatever a person wants them to be by definition.

That has nothing to do with the physical world.

Just because you believe there is only one "right" way to be and all the other ways are "wrong" doesn't mean you are correct.

Yes, subjective truth can be anything you want but it has no bearing on reality which is objective truth. If reality exists then objective truth exists because objective truth is reality.

Objective truth or reality defines right and wrong.

I never denied that things don't exist whether or not people exist. you keep saying I did but that's just you making shit up again.

And people define right and wrong.

because nature or the universe cannot be right or wrong they are just what they are.

Right and wrong is defined by logic. Logic is the art of reason. Reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. Reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Man may perceive logic, reason and reality to be one thing but reality is not defined by perception. Reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist. Therefore, reason and logic which explain the state of things as they actually exist is absolute because it is based upon reality and not an idealistic or notional idea of reality. People can't define right and wrong to be what ever they prefer. I may prefer that it is right to steal from you but reality tells me it's not.

right and wrong are defined by men.

Must we go over all the instances when it is NOT wrong to kill a person again?

Right and wrong are independent of man and are determined by logic which is also independent of man.

It is always wrong to kill and that would include animals as well.

And yet you kill animals every day and you would kill a person in self defense.

So it's not always wrong to kill people because our society accepts it in certain situations.

That's a wonderful argument YOU are making if you didn't believe it is wrong to kill animals.

I never said it was "wrong" to kill an animal in self defense. The fact is people do not have to kill animals for food and factory farming is flat out cruel.

So now you think people are no different than animals?

And you eat animals.

Why do you always try to define the rule by exception? Actually no. I don't really hear about those things. But for those extremely rare instances - that apparently you believe are common occurrences - are you saying their only option was to kill them? And if their only option isn't to kill them and they choose to scare them off instead of killing them, then doesn't that prove that they know that killing is wrong and should be avoided?

Yes, I eat meat. I don't rationalize that eating meat for my survival which requires an animal to be killed is good. But per your logic, you must.

If a bear is attacking you yeah you're only option is to kill it because it WILL kill you

But I don't kill animals for the reasons you do or have someone do for you which is the same thing.

The only reasons I would kill an animal are for defense from a wild or rabid one or for the mercy of a peaceful death instead of a painful one.

So you think killing animals is good because your desire to eat them is all that matters right?

And you have a problem with me saying killing a person in self defense is not wrong.

Yeah you do like to rationalize when killing is acceptable and it seems that it is acceptable to you for trivial reasons..

No. I could try to scare it away, I could use bear spray. I could try to wound it instead of killing it.

Why do you keep misstating what I have already said?

I don't rationalize that killing animals is good. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

You are the one who is rationalizing that killing animals is good. Not me.

Of course you do you choose to eat animals so you must enjoy eating them so you have to think that your enjoyment of eating animals justifies the killing if those animals.

I don't eat meat because of the suffering it causes.

I told you the only times I would ever kill an animal but you say you wouldn't kill a bear that was attacking you and yet you have no problem eating animals that you pay people to kill for you.

It seems you are the one with contradictory beliefs here.

So now I will ask you to quote the post where i ever said killing people or animals was "good"

It doesn't justify it. How many times do I need to keep telling you that.

I'm not rationalizing that I am doing wrong. I admit it.

YOU are the one who rationalizes you are a good person. Please keep telling me how important it is for us to hear what a good person you think you are.

Where did I ever claim to be a good person? I have plenty of faults just like every other person.

Why is it you get so defensive when I say I don't eat animals?

Your beliefs and logic are so convoluted that you can't see how you not eating animals BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE IT IS WRONG and you not accepting that I can choose to do wrong without rationalizing that what I am doing is right is proof that you believe everyone must do right and good. That or rationalize they are doing good. There's your proof that you think you are good. You expect everyone to be good. You won't even accept that people can choose to do bad. You keep telling me that I must believe I am doing good when I am doing bad.

I don't get defensive when you say you don't eat animals. I think it's great that you choose to see yourself as good for not eating animals and see others as bad for eating animals even if you deny you do it. I think you are behaving like a hypocrite who is afraid to admit he is behaving like a hypocrite. Mind you you are not behaving like a hypocrite for eating animals. You are behaving like a hypocrite for arguing you don't see yourself as good when you do see yourself as good. You are behaving like a hypocrite for saying you have flaws you don't rationalize but deny that others can have flaws that they don't rationalize.

I've told you exactly why I am a vegan and I didn't have to use subjective terms like "right" or "wrong"

I do not eat animals because the meat industry is the cause of the untold suffering and deaths of trillions of animals every single year.

THAT is my reason.

YOU must think your reason for eating animals is more important than their suffering and I have never said you were "wrong" have I?

Your choices are yours and yours alone and only you have to live with them.

Everything about you screams you think you do right and not wrong. You just proved it by explaining why you don't eat meat.

My reason for eating meat is that I am weak and selfish. But you think I am rationalizing instead of being honest. If I were rationalizing I would make myself look better than I am... you know... like you always do.

This is you pinning your value judgments on me.

You eat meat because you enjoy it. If you didn't enjoy it you wouldn't eat it.

You just don't want to admit that your pleasure is more important to you than the suffering of the animals you eat.

And like I said your reasons are your own and you have to live with them not me.

I'm not the one who sees himself as superior because he doesn't eat meat. That's you. So I'm not pinning any value judgement on anyone other than myself.

I do enjoy eating meat. No doubt about it. That is definitely why I eat it. But it's not the reason I don't eat meat. The reason I don't eat meat is because I am weak and selfish.

But I absolutely do admit that I am doing wrong, so I'm not sure how I am denying the suffering of animals. You on the other hand need to rationalize everything you do such that others will see you as good. That's not a value judgement. That's an observation.

I don't see myself as superior to anyone. I never said eating meat was wrong.

All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat. I still don't understand why that makes you so defensive.

I don't care if you eat meat or not because I don't have to live with your choices. You seem to have issues with it though.

I'm not defensive. I'm confused why you won't accept the fact that I admit eating meat is wrong but choose to do it because I like it and am too selfish and weak not to do it. I don't rationalize like you do.

When you continue to do something you believe is wrong and you give flimsy reasons that is rationalizing by definition.

If you said simply I eat meat because I enjoy it then you would not be rationalizing but you prefer to make excuses as to why you continue to do something you think is wrong.

If you truly believed it was wrong you would not do it for any reason.

No. It's not. It's called being honest. Your belief assumes that no one would ever continue doing things they believe are wrong. I am telling you that just isn't so. There is no requirement that I must do right things. The fact that you believe I must do right things shows just how much value you place on doing right things. The problem is that you are so convinced that you must do right things that when you do wrong things you rationalize that you didn't. I'm not going to do that. If I continue to choose to do wrong things I'm going to be honest about it.

Think of it this way... no one has to rationalize doing wrong things if they admit to doing wrong things. That's called reality.

I know people do things they think are wrong all the time.

It's a major reason for the cognitive dissonance that plagues humans.

Usually the people who preach the most are the worst offenders. And I never said you MUST do anything.

You keep telling me all these things I say and yet you never can quote a post where I actually said them.

And I've told you umpteen times already that I make the choices I make for my own reasons and I really don't care what choices you make because you're the one that has to live with them not me so if you can rationalize all the ways you violate your own moral and ethical codes and live with yourself that's all on you and has nothing to do with the choices I make in my life Just don't get all pissy if I question your obvious hypocrisy

So just to be clear... you think I am rationalizing when I admit that I am selfish and weak?

Sounds stupid when I put it that way, doesn't it?

Yeah you are making up a reason that takes the accountability away.

You think you are not able to stop being weak or selfish so you keep doing what you say you know is wrong rather than making the effort to stop being weak and selfish

So... I'm not selfish for eating meat?

I don't make those judgements.

But you seem comfortable calling yourself weak and selfish and are content to do nothing about it

That's dishonest of you. Of course it is selfish of me to eat meat.

 

[Blues Man]

Blues Man rationalizing is when you say killing is bad but some killing is justified.

No I have always said killing in self defense isn't wrong and it isn't "good" either.

You just can't comprehend that

 

[Blues Man]

I do not believe it matters if gods exist or not and gods are certainly not necessary in order to live a righteous life.

Thoughts?

The practical benefits of faith and spirituality are so superior to the lack of benefits of materialism that betting on theism is rational and betting on materialism is irrational. It’s not about infinite rewards after death, it is about practical rewards on the journey to death.

Buddhism is hardly a materialist philosophy.

And you still haven't proven your case that a believer in gods is somehow possessing an advantage over a nonbeliever.

I never said Buddhism is a materialist philosophy. But if you do not believe you are more than just matter, your philosophy is a materialist philosophy.

Siddhārtha Gautama did not teach there was no God. He taught to die to self to see reality. Reality is God. And I didn't use the phrase non-believer. I used the phrase materialist which is a more descriptive term. And if you don't believe a person who is spiritual has a natural benefit over materialists then you don't understand Buddhism.

I never said that Buddhism teaches that there is no god.

I said belief in gods is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

And spirtuality is a state of mind. The spirit is a product of the mind and does not exist apart from the mind. The mind does not exists apart from the brain, the brain does not exist apart from the body.

So you are saying that Buddhism teaches that spirit is a product of mind? Sounds more like a materialist philosophy than a Buddhist philosophy.

Buddhism teaches nothing regarding eternal spirits, creators or personal deities or spirituality in general.

Enlightenment is the awakening of the intellect and the realizing that nothing is permanent not even your own concept of self.

I disagree. Samsara proves otherwise. Samsara proves that Buddhists do believe in eternal spirits. When the body dies the mind or spirit moves on and continues to move on eternally or until the body and mind or spirit reaches its spiritual awakening or enlightenment. Samsara also disproves that the body and mind or spirit are one as the body dies but the mind or spirit goes on to live again in a new body.

Depending on the actions performed in previous lives, rebirth could be as a human or animal or even ghosts, demi-gods, or gods. Being born as a human is seen by Buddhists as a rare opportunity to work towards escaping this cycle of samsara. The escape from samsara is called Nirvana or enlightenment.​

​

Once Nirvana is achieved, and the enlightened individual physically dies, Buddhists believe that they will no longer be reborn.​

​

The Buddha taught that when Nirvana is achieved, Buddhists are able to see the world as it really is. Nirvana means realising and accepting the Four Noble Truths and being awake to reality.​

​

Some Buddhists believe that enlightened individuals can choose to be reborn in order to help others become enlightened. Others believe that, when Nirvana is achieved, the cycle of samsara, all suffering and further existence for that individual itself ends.​

What does Buddhism teach about life after death? - Life after death - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - BBC Bitesize

Learn about samsara and nirvana and how Buddhists believe we can influence what happens to us when we die with BBC Bitesize GCSE Religious Studies.

www.bbc.co.uk

It doesn't matter if some Buddhists believed in eternal spirits. That belief is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

There is no enduring essence or self

The self is an idea, a mental construct. That is not only the Buddha’s experience, but the experience of each realized Buddhist man and woman from 2,500 years ago to the present day. That being the case, what is it that dies? There is no question that when this physical body is no longer capable of functioning, the energies within it, the atoms and molecules it is made up of, don’t die with it. They take on another form, another shape. You can call that another life, but as there is no permanent, unchanging substance, nothing passes from one moment to the next. Quite obviously, nothing permanent or unchanging can pass or transmigrate from one life to the next.

Dude, you don't even acknowledge right and wrong when the eight fold path is predicated on right and wrong. So why would you think you would understand what Buddha meant by enlightement?

The Buddha taught his disciples not to fear death. This has been interpreted by Buddhists as suggesting that if they live well, their rebirth will be good.​

​

After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​

What does Buddhism teach about life after death? - Life after death - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - BBC Bitesize

Learn about samsara and nirvana and how Buddhists believe we can influence what happens to us when we die with BBC Bitesize GCSE Religious Studies.

www.bbc.co.uk

You don't seem to realize that many practicing Buddhists do not subscribe to the whole rebirth thing as meaning anything more than the atoms in your body return to the earth to be used again.

You seem to think that Buddhism is full of absolutes like Christianity and it isn't.

So Buddha was lying about remembering his previous lives?

After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​

What does Buddhism teach about life after death? - Life after death - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - BBC Bitesize

Learn about samsara and nirvana and how Buddhists believe we can influence what happens to us when we die with BBC Bitesize GCSE Religious Studies.

www.bbc.co.uk

I don't know if he was lying. but the Buddha was just a man and not some god giving orders to people how to live.

And I do not have to believe in past lives as a requirement in order to engage in any Buddhist practices.

YOU have to believe what you are told to believe because YOU have to think that the god you worship is infallible.

But I don't always believe what I am told.

How do you reconcile (in your mind) Buddha's craziness with his genius? I mean here you are practicing something taught by a crazy person who thinks he lived past lives, right?

I don't have to reconcile anything. The Buddha was just a man and susceptible to to the fallibility of men. He is not and never claimed to be all powerful all knowing.

Does that fallibility negate the entire volume of his teachings?

And once again I'll explain to you that I have taken some of the Buddha's teachings along with some of the teachings of the classical Stoics along with some of the teachings of Aristotle and Socrates and even a little Thomas Aquinas among many others and incorporated them into my own philosophy.

As I have said there are may roads to any great city.

Sure you do. You are following the teachings of a mad man. That's crazy.

The fact that you believe that right and wrong can be whatever men define it as says you don't understand any of the teachings you have followed because no on on your list of teachers believed that. You are RATIONALIZING your beliefs and behaviors.

Once again I see you haven't been able to grasp that the translation of Pali words into English presents some problems of loss of nuance and meaning.

And as i said the Buddha was just a man and all men are fallible. He certainly was not considered to be a mad man by his peers and his belief in rebirth is actually quite understandable since those beliefs were very prevalent in his society and we are nothing but the products of our societies.

So you can keep trying for that Gotcha but you're not going to get it.

I already got it, bro.

According to your beliefs there is no absolute truth or logic. You have single handily reduced Buddhism to opinions that can be whatever anyone wants them to be. Instead of truths that are founded in reality. In fact you have single handily negated all of reality.

Buddhism is not a path of absolutes and it never has been.

And I have given you the actual definition of logic many times already.

And I have never denied reality. You on the other hand insist that everyone except your definitions, even the made up ones.

That would be an absolute statement in an of itself. So apparently only what you believe is true. Arguing there is no truth is arguing there is no reality.

So now you went from Buddhism to reality in general.

I have never denied reality and I have never denied truth. I just accept that there are no ideals and no absolutes. You don't

The eight fold path is based upon reality the last time I checked.

You deny reality when you fail to recognize that there are correct and incorrect ways of being. You deny reality when you deny there is truth that is independent of what men perceive.

I have never denied reality.

If you believe things can be anything man says they can be then you absolutely have denied reality. Just as if you believe there is not an correct and incorrect way of being.

All subjective things can be whatever a person wants them to be by definition.

That has nothing to do with the physical world.

Just because you believe there is only one "right" way to be and all the other ways are "wrong" doesn't mean you are correct.

Yes, subjective truth can be anything you want but it has no bearing on reality which is objective truth. If reality exists then objective truth exists because objective truth is reality.

Objective truth or reality defines right and wrong.

I never denied that things don't exist whether or not people exist. you keep saying I did but that's just you making shit up again.

And people define right and wrong.

because nature or the universe cannot be right or wrong they are just what they are.

Right and wrong is defined by logic. Logic is the art of reason. Reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. Reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Man may perceive logic, reason and reality to be one thing but reality is not defined by perception. Reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist. Therefore, reason and logic which explain the state of things as they actually exist is absolute because it is based upon reality and not an idealistic or notional idea of reality. People can't define right and wrong to be what ever they prefer. I may prefer that it is right to steal from you but reality tells me it's not.

right and wrong are defined by men.

Must we go over all the instances when it is NOT wrong to kill a person again?

Right and wrong are independent of man and are determined by logic which is also independent of man.

It is always wrong to kill and that would include animals as well.

And yet you kill animals every day and you would kill a person in self defense.

So it's not always wrong to kill people because our society accepts it in certain situations.

That's a wonderful argument YOU are making if you didn't believe it is wrong to kill animals.

I never said it was "wrong" to kill an animal in self defense. The fact is people do not have to kill animals for food and factory farming is flat out cruel.

So now you think people are no different than animals?

And you eat animals.

Why do you always try to define the rule by exception? Actually no. I don't really hear about those things. But for those extremely rare instances - that apparently you believe are common occurrences - are you saying their only option was to kill them? And if their only option isn't to kill them and they choose to scare them off instead of killing them, then doesn't that prove that they know that killing is wrong and should be avoided?

Yes, I eat meat. I don't rationalize that eating meat for my survival which requires an animal to be killed is good. But per your logic, you must.

If a bear is attacking you yeah you're only option is to kill it because it WILL kill you

But I don't kill animals for the reasons you do or have someone do for you which is the same thing.

The only reasons I would kill an animal are for defense from a wild or rabid one or for the mercy of a peaceful death instead of a painful one.

So you think killing animals is good because your desire to eat them is all that matters right?

And you have a problem with me saying killing a person in self defense is not wrong.

Yeah you do like to rationalize when killing is acceptable and it seems that it is acceptable to you for trivial reasons..

No. I could try to scare it away, I could use bear spray. I could try to wound it instead of killing it.

Why do you keep misstating what I have already said?

I don't rationalize that killing animals is good. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

You are the one who is rationalizing that killing animals is good. Not me.

Of course you do you choose to eat animals so you must enjoy eating them so you have to think that your enjoyment of eating animals justifies the killing if those animals.

I don't eat meat because of the suffering it causes.

I told you the only times I would ever kill an animal but you say you wouldn't kill a bear that was attacking you and yet you have no problem eating animals that you pay people to kill for you.

It seems you are the one with contradictory beliefs here.

So now I will ask you to quote the post where i ever said killing people or animals was "good"

It doesn't justify it. How many times do I need to keep telling you that.

I'm not rationalizing that I am doing wrong. I admit it.

YOU are the one who rationalizes you are a good person. Please keep telling me how important it is for us to hear what a good person you think you are.

Where did I ever claim to be a good person? I have plenty of faults just like every other person.

Why is it you get so defensive when I say I don't eat animals?

Your beliefs and logic are so convoluted that you can't see how you not eating animals BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE IT IS WRONG and you not accepting that I can choose to do wrong without rationalizing that what I am doing is right is proof that you believe everyone must do right and good. That or rationalize they are doing good. There's your proof that you think you are good. You expect everyone to be good. You won't even accept that people can choose to do bad. You keep telling me that I must believe I am doing good when I am doing bad.

I don't get defensive when you say you don't eat animals. I think it's great that you choose to see yourself as good for not eating animals and see others as bad for eating animals even if you deny you do it. I think you are behaving like a hypocrite who is afraid to admit he is behaving like a hypocrite. Mind you you are not behaving like a hypocrite for eating animals. You are behaving like a hypocrite for arguing you don't see yourself as good when you do see yourself as good. You are behaving like a hypocrite for saying you have flaws you don't rationalize but deny that others can have flaws that they don't rationalize.

I've told you exactly why I am a vegan and I didn't have to use subjective terms like "right" or "wrong"

I do not eat animals because the meat industry is the cause of the untold suffering and deaths of trillions of animals every single year.

THAT is my reason.

YOU must think your reason for eating animals is more important than their suffering and I have never said you were "wrong" have I?

Your choices are yours and yours alone and only you have to live with them.

Everything about you screams you think you do right and not wrong. You just proved it by explaining why you don't eat meat.

My reason for eating meat is that I am weak and selfish. But you think I am rationalizing instead of being honest. If I were rationalizing I would make myself look better than I am... you know... like you always do.

This is you pinning your value judgments on me.

You eat meat because you enjoy it. If you didn't enjoy it you wouldn't eat it.

You just don't want to admit that your pleasure is more important to you than the suffering of the animals you eat.

And like I said your reasons are your own and you have to live with them not me.

I'm not the one who sees himself as superior because he doesn't eat meat. That's you. So I'm not pinning any value judgement on anyone other than myself.

I do enjoy eating meat. No doubt about it. That is definitely why I eat it. But it's not the reason I don't eat meat. The reason I don't eat meat is because I am weak and selfish.

But I absolutely do admit that I am doing wrong, so I'm not sure how I am denying the suffering of animals. You on the other hand need to rationalize everything you do such that others will see you as good. That's not a value judgement. That's an observation.

I don't see myself as superior to anyone. I never said eating meat was wrong.

All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat. I still don't understand why that makes you so defensive.

I don't care if you eat meat or not because I don't have to live with your choices. You seem to have issues with it though.

I'm not defensive. I'm confused why you won't accept the fact that I admit eating meat is wrong but choose to do it because I like it and am too selfish and weak not to do it. I don't rationalize like you do.

When you continue to do something you believe is wrong and you give flimsy reasons that is rationalizing by definition.

If you said simply I eat meat because I enjoy it then you would not be rationalizing but you prefer to make excuses as to why you continue to do something you think is wrong.

If you truly believed it was wrong you would not do it for any reason.

No. It's not. It's called being honest. Your belief assumes that no one would ever continue doing things they believe are wrong. I am telling you that just isn't so. There is no requirement that I must do right things. The fact that you believe I must do right things shows just how much value you place on doing right things. The problem is that you are so convinced that you must do right things that when you do wrong things you rationalize that you didn't. I'm not going to do that. If I continue to choose to do wrong things I'm going to be honest about it.

Think of it this way... no one has to rationalize doing wrong things if they admit to doing wrong things. That's called reality.

I know people do things they think are wrong all the time.

It's a major reason for the cognitive dissonance that plagues humans.

Usually the people who preach the most are the worst offenders. And I never said you MUST do anything.

You keep telling me all these things I say and yet you never can quote a post where I actually said them.

And I've told you umpteen times already that I make the choices I make for my own reasons and I really don't care what choices you make because you're the one that has to live with them not me so if you can rationalize all the ways you violate your own moral and ethical codes and live with yourself that's all on you and has nothing to do with the choices I make in my life Just don't get all pissy if I question your obvious hypocrisy

So just to be clear... you think I am rationalizing when I admit that I am selfish and weak?

Sounds stupid when I put it that way, doesn't it?

Yeah you are making up a reason that takes the accountability away.

You think you are not able to stop being weak or selfish so you keep doing what you say you know is wrong rather than making the effort to stop being weak and selfish

So... I'm not selfish for eating meat?

I don't make those judgements.

But you seem comfortable calling yourself weak and selfish and are content to do nothing about it

That's dishonest of you. Of course it is selfish of me to eat meat.

SO what are your reasons for choosing to be selfish?

And why are you content to do nothing about it?

 

[ding]

Blues Man so when I say I am aware of the standard and choose to not meet the standard because I find eating meat pleasurable and I am selfish - which means I lack consideration for animals - and I am chiefly concerned with my own pleasure, you think that is me rationalizing?

Yup.

Because you say these things and it's merely lip service or you are trying to god me into a contradiction.

Like I said you say you are weak and selfish and you are accepting those as excuses for your own behavior because you believe those things cannot be changed. So what are the reasons you choose to be weak and selfish?

Not sure how admitting I do wrong things will curry favor with God, but it's nice to know you think I am strong and selfless.

I don't choose to be weak and selfish. I choose pleasure.

 

[ding]

Blues Man rationalizing is when you say killing is bad but some killing is justified.

No I have always said killing in self defense isn't wrong and it isn't "good" either.

You just can't comprehend that

Actually I can because I have said that some killing is the lesser of two evils which you objected to but sure seem to be arguing for.

 

[ding]

Blues Man why do you choose to be dishonest?

 

[ding]

I do not believe it matters if gods exist or not and gods are certainly not necessary in order to live a righteous life.

Thoughts?

The practical benefits of faith and spirituality are so superior to the lack of benefits of materialism that betting on theism is rational and betting on materialism is irrational. It’s not about infinite rewards after death, it is about practical rewards on the journey to death.

Buddhism is hardly a materialist philosophy.

And you still haven't proven your case that a believer in gods is somehow possessing an advantage over a nonbeliever.

I never said Buddhism is a materialist philosophy. But if you do not believe you are more than just matter, your philosophy is a materialist philosophy.

Siddhārtha Gautama did not teach there was no God. He taught to die to self to see reality. Reality is God. And I didn't use the phrase non-believer. I used the phrase materialist which is a more descriptive term. And if you don't believe a person who is spiritual has a natural benefit over materialists then you don't understand Buddhism.

I never said that Buddhism teaches that there is no god.

I said belief in gods is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

And spirtuality is a state of mind. The spirit is a product of the mind and does not exist apart from the mind. The mind does not exists apart from the brain, the brain does not exist apart from the body.

So you are saying that Buddhism teaches that spirit is a product of mind? Sounds more like a materialist philosophy than a Buddhist philosophy.

Buddhism teaches nothing regarding eternal spirits, creators or personal deities or spirituality in general.

Enlightenment is the awakening of the intellect and the realizing that nothing is permanent not even your own concept of self.

I disagree. Samsara proves otherwise. Samsara proves that Buddhists do believe in eternal spirits. When the body dies the mind or spirit moves on and continues to move on eternally or until the body and mind or spirit reaches its spiritual awakening or enlightenment. Samsara also disproves that the body and mind or spirit are one as the body dies but the mind or spirit goes on to live again in a new body.

Depending on the actions performed in previous lives, rebirth could be as a human or animal or even ghosts, demi-gods, or gods. Being born as a human is seen by Buddhists as a rare opportunity to work towards escaping this cycle of samsara. The escape from samsara is called Nirvana or enlightenment.​

​

Once Nirvana is achieved, and the enlightened individual physically dies, Buddhists believe that they will no longer be reborn.​

​

The Buddha taught that when Nirvana is achieved, Buddhists are able to see the world as it really is. Nirvana means realising and accepting the Four Noble Truths and being awake to reality.​

​

Some Buddhists believe that enlightened individuals can choose to be reborn in order to help others become enlightened. Others believe that, when Nirvana is achieved, the cycle of samsara, all suffering and further existence for that individual itself ends.​

What does Buddhism teach about life after death? - Life after death - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - BBC Bitesize

Learn about samsara and nirvana and how Buddhists believe we can influence what happens to us when we die with BBC Bitesize GCSE Religious Studies.

www.bbc.co.uk

It doesn't matter if some Buddhists believed in eternal spirits. That belief is not required to walk the Eight Fold Path.

There is no enduring essence or self

The self is an idea, a mental construct. That is not only the Buddha’s experience, but the experience of each realized Buddhist man and woman from 2,500 years ago to the present day. That being the case, what is it that dies? There is no question that when this physical body is no longer capable of functioning, the energies within it, the atoms and molecules it is made up of, don’t die with it. They take on another form, another shape. You can call that another life, but as there is no permanent, unchanging substance, nothing passes from one moment to the next. Quite obviously, nothing permanent or unchanging can pass or transmigrate from one life to the next.

Dude, you don't even acknowledge right and wrong when the eight fold path is predicated on right and wrong. So why would you think you would understand what Buddha meant by enlightement?

The Buddha taught his disciples not to fear death. This has been interpreted by Buddhists as suggesting that if they live well, their rebirth will be good.​

​

After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​

What does Buddhism teach about life after death? - Life after death - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - BBC Bitesize

Learn about samsara and nirvana and how Buddhists believe we can influence what happens to us when we die with BBC Bitesize GCSE Religious Studies.

www.bbc.co.uk

You don't seem to realize that many practicing Buddhists do not subscribe to the whole rebirth thing as meaning anything more than the atoms in your body return to the earth to be used again.

You seem to think that Buddhism is full of absolutes like Christianity and it isn't.

So Buddha was lying about remembering his previous lives?

After his enlightenment, the Buddha could remember his previous lives. Some of these previous lives are recorded in the Buddhist scripture, the Jakata.​

What does Buddhism teach about life after death? - Life after death - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - BBC Bitesize

Learn about samsara and nirvana and how Buddhists believe we can influence what happens to us when we die with BBC Bitesize GCSE Religious Studies.

www.bbc.co.uk

I don't know if he was lying. but the Buddha was just a man and not some god giving orders to people how to live.

And I do not have to believe in past lives as a requirement in order to engage in any Buddhist practices.

YOU have to believe what you are told to believe because YOU have to think that the god you worship is infallible.

But I don't always believe what I am told.

How do you reconcile (in your mind) Buddha's craziness with his genius? I mean here you are practicing something taught by a crazy person who thinks he lived past lives, right?

I don't have to reconcile anything. The Buddha was just a man and susceptible to to the fallibility of men. He is not and never claimed to be all powerful all knowing.

Does that fallibility negate the entire volume of his teachings?

And once again I'll explain to you that I have taken some of the Buddha's teachings along with some of the teachings of the classical Stoics along with some of the teachings of Aristotle and Socrates and even a little Thomas Aquinas among many others and incorporated them into my own philosophy.

As I have said there are may roads to any great city.

Sure you do. You are following the teachings of a mad man. That's crazy.

The fact that you believe that right and wrong can be whatever men define it as says you don't understand any of the teachings you have followed because no on on your list of teachers believed that. You are RATIONALIZING your beliefs and behaviors.

Once again I see you haven't been able to grasp that the translation of Pali words into English presents some problems of loss of nuance and meaning.

And as i said the Buddha was just a man and all men are fallible. He certainly was not considered to be a mad man by his peers and his belief in rebirth is actually quite understandable since those beliefs were very prevalent in his society and we are nothing but the products of our societies.

So you can keep trying for that Gotcha but you're not going to get it.

I already got it, bro.

According to your beliefs there is no absolute truth or logic. You have single handily reduced Buddhism to opinions that can be whatever anyone wants them to be. Instead of truths that are founded in reality. In fact you have single handily negated all of reality.

Buddhism is not a path of absolutes and it never has been.

And I have given you the actual definition of logic many times already.

And I have never denied reality. You on the other hand insist that everyone except your definitions, even the made up ones.

That would be an absolute statement in an of itself. So apparently only what you believe is true. Arguing there is no truth is arguing there is no reality.

So now you went from Buddhism to reality in general.

I have never denied reality and I have never denied truth. I just accept that there are no ideals and no absolutes. You don't

The eight fold path is based upon reality the last time I checked.

You deny reality when you fail to recognize that there are correct and incorrect ways of being. You deny reality when you deny there is truth that is independent of what men perceive.

I have never denied reality.

If you believe things can be anything man says they can be then you absolutely have denied reality. Just as if you believe there is not an correct and incorrect way of being.

All subjective things can be whatever a person wants them to be by definition.

That has nothing to do with the physical world.

Just because you believe there is only one "right" way to be and all the other ways are "wrong" doesn't mean you are correct.

Yes, subjective truth can be anything you want but it has no bearing on reality which is objective truth. If reality exists then objective truth exists because objective truth is reality.

Objective truth or reality defines right and wrong.

I never denied that things don't exist whether or not people exist. you keep saying I did but that's just you making shit up again.

And people define right and wrong.

because nature or the universe cannot be right or wrong they are just what they are.

Right and wrong is defined by logic. Logic is the art of reason. Reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. Reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Man may perceive logic, reason and reality to be one thing but reality is not defined by perception. Reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist. Therefore, reason and logic which explain the state of things as they actually exist is absolute because it is based upon reality and not an idealistic or notional idea of reality. People can't define right and wrong to be what ever they prefer. I may prefer that it is right to steal from you but reality tells me it's not.

right and wrong are defined by men.

Must we go over all the instances when it is NOT wrong to kill a person again?

Right and wrong are independent of man and are determined by logic which is also independent of man.

It is always wrong to kill and that would include animals as well.

And yet you kill animals every day and you would kill a person in self defense.

So it's not always wrong to kill people because our society accepts it in certain situations.

That's a wonderful argument YOU are making if you didn't believe it is wrong to kill animals.

I never said it was "wrong" to kill an animal in self defense. The fact is people do not have to kill animals for food and factory farming is flat out cruel.

So now you think people are no different than animals?

And you eat animals.

Why do you always try to define the rule by exception? Actually no. I don't really hear about those things. But for those extremely rare instances - that apparently you believe are common occurrences - are you saying their only option was to kill them? And if their only option isn't to kill them and they choose to scare them off instead of killing them, then doesn't that prove that they know that killing is wrong and should be avoided?

Yes, I eat meat. I don't rationalize that eating meat for my survival which requires an animal to be killed is good. But per your logic, you must.

If a bear is attacking you yeah you're only option is to kill it because it WILL kill you

But I don't kill animals for the reasons you do or have someone do for you which is the same thing.

The only reasons I would kill an animal are for defense from a wild or rabid one or for the mercy of a peaceful death instead of a painful one.

So you think killing animals is good because your desire to eat them is all that matters right?

And you have a problem with me saying killing a person in self defense is not wrong.

Yeah you do like to rationalize when killing is acceptable and it seems that it is acceptable to you for trivial reasons..

No. I could try to scare it away, I could use bear spray. I could try to wound it instead of killing it.

Why do you keep misstating what I have already said?

I don't rationalize that killing animals is good. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

You are the one who is rationalizing that killing animals is good. Not me.

Of course you do you choose to eat animals so you must enjoy eating them so you have to think that your enjoyment of eating animals justifies the killing if those animals.

I don't eat meat because of the suffering it causes.

I told you the only times I would ever kill an animal but you say you wouldn't kill a bear that was attacking you and yet you have no problem eating animals that you pay people to kill for you.

It seems you are the one with contradictory beliefs here.

So now I will ask you to quote the post where i ever said killing people or animals was "good"

It doesn't justify it. How many times do I need to keep telling you that.

I'm not rationalizing that I am doing wrong. I admit it.

YOU are the one who rationalizes you are a good person. Please keep telling me how important it is for us to hear what a good person you think you are.

Where did I ever claim to be a good person? I have plenty of faults just like every other person.

Why is it you get so defensive when I say I don't eat animals?

Your beliefs and logic are so convoluted that you can't see how you not eating animals BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE IT IS WRONG and you not accepting that I can choose to do wrong without rationalizing that what I am doing is right is proof that you believe everyone must do right and good. That or rationalize they are doing good. There's your proof that you think you are good. You expect everyone to be good. You won't even accept that people can choose to do bad. You keep telling me that I must believe I am doing good when I am doing bad.

I don't get defensive when you say you don't eat animals. I think it's great that you choose to see yourself as good for not eating animals and see others as bad for eating animals even if you deny you do it. I think you are behaving like a hypocrite who is afraid to admit he is behaving like a hypocrite. Mind you you are not behaving like a hypocrite for eating animals. You are behaving like a hypocrite for arguing you don't see yourself as good when you do see yourself as good. You are behaving like a hypocrite for saying you have flaws you don't rationalize but deny that others can have flaws that they don't rationalize.

I've told you exactly why I am a vegan and I didn't have to use subjective terms like "right" or "wrong"

I do not eat animals because the meat industry is the cause of the untold suffering and deaths of trillions of animals every single year.

THAT is my reason.

YOU must think your reason for eating animals is more important than their suffering and I have never said you were "wrong" have I?

Your choices are yours and yours alone and only you have to live with them.

Everything about you screams you think you do right and not wrong. You just proved it by explaining why you don't eat meat.

My reason for eating meat is that I am weak and selfish. But you think I am rationalizing instead of being honest. If I were rationalizing I would make myself look better than I am... you know... like you always do.

This is you pinning your value judgments on me.

You eat meat because you enjoy it. If you didn't enjoy it you wouldn't eat it.

You just don't want to admit that your pleasure is more important to you than the suffering of the animals you eat.

And like I said your reasons are your own and you have to live with them not me.

I'm not the one who sees himself as superior because he doesn't eat meat. That's you. So I'm not pinning any value judgement on anyone other than myself.

I do enjoy eating meat. No doubt about it. That is definitely why I eat it. But it's not the reason I don't eat meat. The reason I don't eat meat is because I am weak and selfish.

But I absolutely do admit that I am doing wrong, so I'm not sure how I am denying the suffering of animals. You on the other hand need to rationalize everything you do such that others will see you as good. That's not a value judgement. That's an observation.

I don't see myself as superior to anyone. I never said eating meat was wrong.

All I ever did was give you my reason for not eating meat. I still don't understand why that makes you so defensive.

I don't care if you eat meat or not because I don't have to live with your choices. You seem to have issues with it though.

I'm not defensive. I'm confused why you won't accept the fact that I admit eating meat is wrong but choose to do it because I like it and am too selfish and weak not to do it. I don't rationalize like you do.

When you continue to do something you believe is wrong and you give flimsy reasons that is rationalizing by definition.

If you said simply I eat meat because I enjoy it then you would not be rationalizing but you prefer to make excuses as to why you continue to do something you think is wrong.

If you truly believed it was wrong you would not do it for any reason.

No. It's not. It's called being honest. Your belief assumes that no one would ever continue doing things they believe are wrong. I am telling you that just isn't so. There is no requirement that I must do right things. The fact that you believe I must do right things shows just how much value you place on doing right things. The problem is that you are so convinced that you must do right things that when you do wrong things you rationalize that you didn't. I'm not going to do that. If I continue to choose to do wrong things I'm going to be honest about it.

Think of it this way... no one has to rationalize doing wrong things if they admit to doing wrong things. That's called reality.

I know people do things they think are wrong all the time.

It's a major reason for the cognitive dissonance that plagues humans.

Usually the people who preach the most are the worst offenders. And I never said you MUST do anything.

You keep telling me all these things I say and yet you never can quote a post where I actually said them.

And I've told you umpteen times already that I make the choices I make for my own reasons and I really don't care what choices you make because you're the one that has to live with them not me so if you can rationalize all the ways you violate your own moral and ethical codes and live with yourself that's all on you and has nothing to do with the choices I make in my life Just don't get all pissy if I question your obvious hypocrisy

So just to be clear... you think I am rationalizing when I admit that I am selfish and weak?

Sounds stupid when I put it that way, doesn't it?

Yeah you are making up a reason that takes the accountability away.

You think you are not able to stop being weak or selfish so you keep doing what you say you know is wrong rather than making the effort to stop being weak and selfish

So... I'm not selfish for eating meat?

I don't make those judgements.

But you seem comfortable calling yourself weak and selfish and are content to do nothing about it

That's dishonest of you. Of course it is selfish of me to eat meat.

SO what are your reasons for choosing to be selfish?

And why are you content to do nothing about it?

Pleasure.

Because I am weak.

 

[Blues Man]

Blues Man so when I say I am aware of the standard and choose to not meet the standard because I find eating meat pleasurable and I am selfish - which means I lack consideration for animals - and I am chiefly concerned with my own pleasure, you think that is me rationalizing?

Yup.

Because you say these things and it's merely lip service or you are trying to god me into a contradiction.

Like I said you say you are weak and selfish and you are accepting those as excuses for your own behavior because you believe those things cannot be changed. So what are the reasons you choose to be weak and selfish?

Not sure how admitting I do wrong things will curry favor with God, but it's nice to know you think I am strong and selfless.

I don't choose to be weak and selfish. I choose pleasure.

I never said anything about gods.

And of course you are choosing to be weak and selfish because you don't care that being weak and selfish makes you live a life that is not in agreement with the values you say are so importatnt to you

 

[ding]

Blues Man so when I say I am aware of the standard and choose to not meet the standard because I find eating meat pleasurable and I am selfish - which means I lack consideration for animals - and I am chiefly concerned with my own pleasure, you think that is me rationalizing?

Yup.

Because you say these things and it's merely lip service or you are trying to god me into a contradiction.

Like I said you say you are weak and selfish and you are accepting those as excuses for your own behavior because you believe those things cannot be changed. So what are the reasons you choose to be weak and selfish?

Not sure how admitting I do wrong things will curry favor with God, but it's nice to know you think I am strong and selfless.

I don't choose to be weak and selfish. I choose pleasure.

I never said anything about gods.

And of course you are choosing to be weak and selfish because you don't care that being weak and selfish makes you live a life that is not in agreement with the values you say are so importatnt to you

Again... I am choosing pleasure because I am selfish and weak.