Why do/don't you believe in god?

maestro_lungs

bambu wrote: »

LOL.....@maestro_lungs.....

you have been lurking in here long enough to "witness" the way I have cleared all of my opposition on this shit....

What happened to all you suckers in the anti-creationist thread????

maestro_lungs wrote: »

Feelings? Umm Why Would I Have Feelings? Neither of us are Scientist & Are Both Laymen at Best passing Off 2nd & Sometimes 3rd Hand Info about a Complex Subject. I Got a Good Grasp on The Theory of Evolution & It's History. I'm not what that Link is About or What You're Talking About K Strategy from R & Not sure what it Has to do With Evolution other than the Fact You Copied it from Page 41 of a Book that Talks about Evolution

Other Than That, The Other Shit You Copied About it is On Point!

As a matter of fact you have already relinquished any remnants of your opposition on the topic.....

We are now conversing about your "feelings".......

Whoa Whoa..I Never Been in No Anti Creationist Thread & I'm not Sure How Anybody Could Lose arguing Against Creationism.

It Damn Sure wasn't me...lol

We Are not Talking about my Feelings...I'd Have to Care More to do That! I'm not Even sure What Your Position Really is? It Don't Matter. But Do You Dispute Evolution or Accept it as Science Does? We Tried to Talk About Your Beliefs (Which is What This Thread was About I Thought) You Told me you Don't Do That & Stick to Thinks that Can be Proven or Disproved or something to that Extent!

The Only Reason We Are Even Conversing is Because I Thought @Jadedrighteousness was a Lil Off, But Not wrong when he Said Something About Men Evolving From Apes & Not Ape Like Creatures!

Now What am I Relinquishing? I Oppose you Trying to Link what is Called Social Darwinism With The Theory of Evolution.

bambu

maestro_lungs wrote: »

Whoa Whoa..I Never Been in No Anti Creationist Thread & I'm not Sure How Anybody Could Lose arguing Against Creationism.

It Damn Sure wasn't me...lol

We Are not Talking about my Feelings...I'd Have to Care More to do That! I'm not Even sure What Your Position Really is? It Don't Matter. But Do You Dispute Evolution or Accept it as Science Does? We Tried to Talk About Your Beliefs (Which is What This Thread was About I Thought) You Told me you Don't Do That & Stick to Thinks that Can be Proven or Disproved or something to that Extent!

The Only Reason We Are Even Conversing is Because I Thought @Jadedrighteousness was a Lil Off, But Not wrong when he Said Something About Men Evolving From Apes & Not Ape Like Creatures!

Now What am I Relinquishing? I Oppose you Trying to Link what is Called Social Darwinism With The Theory of Evolution.

@maestro_lungs....

Well you should go in there and "prove" evolution then.... feel free to do it in the eugenics thread also.....

I am sure your brethren would appreciate the help....

I gave you a chance to escape...

lil' nigga got too much heart......

maestro_lungs wrote: »

I Oppose you Trying to Link what is Called Social Darwinism With The Theory of Evolution.

SMH @ smart/dumb niggas in the 2012......

maestro_lungs

bambu wrote: »

maestro_lungs wrote: »

bambu wrote: »

LOL.....@maestro_lungs.....

you have been lurking in here long enough to "witness" the way I have cleared all of my opposition on this shit....

What happened to all you suckers in the anti-creationist thread????

maestro_lungs wrote: »

Feelings? Umm Why Would I Have Feelings? Neither of us are Scientist & Are Both Laymen at Best passing Off 2nd & Sometimes 3rd Hand Info about a Complex Subject. I Got a Good Grasp on The Theory of Evolution & It's History. I'm not what that Link is About or What You're Talking About K Strategy from R & Not sure what it Has to do With Evolution other than the Fact You Copied it from Page 41 of a Book that Talks about Evolution

Other Than That, The Other Shit You Copied About it is On Point!

As a matter of fact you have already relinquished any remnants of your opposition on the topic.....

We are now conversing about your "feelings".......

Whoa Whoa..I Never Been in No Anti Creationist Thread & I'm not Sure How Anybody Could Lose arguing Against Creationism.

It Damn Sure wasn't me...lol

We Are not Talking about my Feelings...I'd Have to Care More to do That! I'm not Even sure What Your Position Really is? It Don't Matter. But Do You Dispute Evolution or Accept it as Science Does? We Tried to Talk About Your Beliefs (Which is What This Thread was About I Thought) You Told me you Don't Do That & Stick to Thinks that Can be Proven or Disproved or something to that Extent!

The Only Reason We Are Even Conversing is Because I Thought @Jadedrighteousness was a Lil Off, But Not wrong when he Said Something About Men Evolving From Apes & Not Ape Like Creatures!

Now What am I Relinquishing? I Oppose you Trying to Link what is Called Social Darwinism With The Theory of Evolution.

@maestro_lungs....

Well you should go in there and "prove" evolution then.... feel free to do it in the eugenics thread also.....

I am sure you brethren would appreciate the help....

I gave you a chance to escape...

lil' nigga got too much heart......

maestro_lungs wrote: »

I Oppose you Trying to Link what is Called Social Darwinism With The Theory of Evolution.

SMH @ smart/dumb niggas in the 2012......

You Know I Didn't Understand Why They Called You Bimbo til Now, Besides it Being a Play on Your Name, I Feel Like I'm Talking to a Actual Bimbo!

I Think I Told You Why I Wouldn't waste my Time & Try to Prove Something That is Accepted Science Worldwide to a Bunch of Nobodies who Didn't Bother to Listen in School, Much Less Read a Book other Than Some Conspiracy or Pseudo Science Crap! It's Above my Pay grade & None are Qualified to Dispute a Accepted Science & Eugenics? Please! it may never achieve its stated goal of creating a smarter and stronger human population. For one, selective breeding squanders biological diversity. "It's widely acknowledged that a species that limits its gene pool leaves itself extremely vulnerable to any change from its ideal conditions

Also Anybody Who Needs my Help to Defeat some Goofy ass Creationist Theory that has been Thrown out of The Courts & Laughed outta Science. Needs Help that I Can't Provide.

He need a Library, Some More Schooling and some More Shit that he Gotta get on his own!

bambu

maestro_lungs wrote: »

bambu wrote: »

maestro_lungs wrote: »

bambu wrote: »

LOL.....@maestro_lungs.....

you have been lurking in here long enough to "witness" the way I have cleared all of my opposition on this shit....

What happened to all you suckers in the anti-creationist thread????

maestro_lungs wrote: »

Feelings? Umm Why Would I Have Feelings? Neither of us are Scientist & Are Both Laymen at Best passing Off 2nd & Sometimes 3rd Hand Info about a Complex Subject. I Got a Good Grasp on The Theory of Evolution & It's History. I'm not what that Link is About or What You're Talking About K Strategy from R & Not sure what it Has to do With Evolution other than the Fact You Copied it from Page 41 of a Book that Talks about Evolution

Other Than That, The Other Shit You Copied About it is On Point!

As a matter of fact you have already relinquished any remnants of your opposition on the topic.....

We are now conversing about your "feelings".......

Whoa Whoa..I Never Been in No Anti Creationist Thread & I'm not Sure How Anybody Could Lose arguing Against Creationism.

It Damn Sure wasn't me...lol

We Are not Talking about my Feelings...I'd Have to Care More to do That! I'm not Even sure What Your Position Really is? It Don't Matter. But Do You Dispute Evolution or Accept it as Science Does? We Tried to Talk About Your Beliefs (Which is What This Thread was About I Thought) You Told me you Don't Do That & Stick to Thinks that Can be Proven or Disproved or something to that Extent!

The Only Reason We Are Even Conversing is Because I Thought @Jadedrighteousness was a Lil Off, But Not wrong when he Said Something About Men Evolving From Apes & Not Ape Like Creatures!

Now What am I Relinquishing? I Oppose you Trying to Link what is Called Social Darwinism With The Theory of Evolution.

@maestro_lungs....

Well you should go in there and "prove" evolution then.... feel free to do it in the eugenics thread also.....

I am sure you brethren would appreciate the help....

I gave you a chance to escape...

lil' nigga got too much heart......

maestro_lungs wrote: »

I Oppose you Trying to Link what is Called Social Darwinism With The Theory of Evolution.

SMH @ smart/dumb niggas in the 2012......

You Know I Didn't Understand Why They Called You Bimbo til Now, Besides it Being a Play on Your Name, I now understand that niggas only use it after being properly sunned!

FIXED!!!!

maestro_lungs wrote: »

None are Qualified to Dispute a Accepted Science

WHITEWASH....

maestro_lungs

@Bambu Who in Here That Call You Bimbo Have You Really Made Your Son? C'mon Son (Ed Lover Voice) Gtfoh!

They Not Qualified, Especially When they Keep Referring to it as Darwin's Theory of Evolution like The Theory Hasn't Progressed since Then or Point out a Flaw or Something where Science Disagrees & Thinks That Disproves Evolution.

I Understand the Convo Might Actually Enlighten Some & Maybe Clear up Some Misconceptions, But I Don't Know Them Who Cares What They Think, Die Stupid Thinking That Evolution is Just a Theory (A Layman's Way of Saying a Educated Guess or Hunch). Why Should I Give a Fuck? I Ain't got Time for Those Dumb ass Convo's

bambu

@maestro_lungs....

Yeah @beenwize and @Jaded Righteousness....

However, I have been sunning niggas so long I think I got a grandson ~Big Pun~

Well, I dont see your point....

you ask for evidence and then flip it off as "Not sure what it Has to do With Evolution other than the Fact You Copied it from Page 41 of a Book that Talks about Evolution"

All of the evidence that I have been dropping is illustrated in the Maafa youtube....

I suggest you take 10 mins to watch it.....

The theory of evolution has progressed and can be illustrated in the book I posted that you feel "Other Than That, The Other Shit You Copied About it is On Point!".....

bambu wrote: »

@maestro_lungs....

Well you should go in there and "prove" evolution then.... feel free to do it in the eugenics thread also.....

I am sure your brethren would appreciate the help....

I gave you a chance to escape...

lil' nigga got too much heart......

maestro_lungs wrote: »

I Oppose you Trying to Link what is Called Social Darwinism With The Theory of Evolution.

SMH @ smart/dumb niggas in the 2012......

waterproof

Jaded Righteousness wrote: »

maestro_lungs wrote: »

To My Understanding, Buddhism is not about either believing or not believing in God or gods. Rather, the historical Buddha taught that believing in gods was not useful for those seeking to realize enlightenment. In other words, God is unnecessary in Buddhism. For this reason, Buddhism is more accurately called nontheistic than atheistic . The Buddha also plainly said that he was not a god, but "awakened.

Exactly. At least he tried

Buddha in his writings spoke on gods and meetings gods, if you was a student like u claimed u would of known this like I said when I get to my computer we going to blow this out the water

maestro_lungs

bambu wrote: »

Yeah @beenwize and @Jaded Righteousness....

However, I have been sunning niggas so long I think I got a grandson ~Big Pun~

Well, I dont see your point....

you ask for evidence and then flip it off as "Not sure what it Has to do With Evolution other than the Fact You Copied it from Page 41 of a Book that Talks about Evolution"

All of the evidence that I have been dropping is illustrated in the Maafa youtube....

I suggest you take 10 mins to watch it.....

The theory of evolution has progressed and can be illustrated in the book I posted that you feel "Other Than That, The Other Shit You Copied About it is On Point!".....

bambu wrote: »

@maestro_lungs....

Well you should go in there and "prove" evolution then.... feel free to do it in the eugenics thread also.....

I am sure your brethren would appreciate the help....

I gave you a chance to escape...

lil' nigga got too much heart......

maestro_lungs wrote: »

I Oppose you Trying to Link what is Called Social Darwinism With The Theory of Evolution.

SMH @ smart/dumb niggas in the 2012......

I'm Quite Sure They'd Disagree, Unless it Happened in a Exchange in a Thread I'm Unfamiliar with. I Have Yet to Witness This Alleged Sonning...lol

I Asked For Evidence? I Don't Think I Used That word & If I Did, I'm Sorry! There was No way I Could want Evidence, When I Clearly Stated We Are Both Laymen! My Standards for Evidence on This Matter are Much Higher Than You Could Provide in This Forum. I Think I said I Don't See the Link Between Evolution & Social Darwinism. I Understand that The Link has Tried to be Made in Books, But I Asked you & I Meant in Your Own Words, Not Some Guy Who wrote Book. Your Knowledge is What I Requested, When I Said YOUR TAKE on it. You Copied a Quote That said what I Was saying Except it had something about R & K Strategy & That Didn't Really Answer Anything, Cause I Never Actually Posed a Question!

You Posted, Sounds Familiar, Then You Posted all the Other Stuff. I Never said Prove or Show me Evidence of Nothing!

bambu

@maestro_lungs.....

Again you can only speak for your own knowledge level not mine......

Actually, This is what you said....

maestro_lungs wrote: »

Now Please Point out The Differences in Races other than the Color of our skins!

maestro_lungs wrote: »

I Oppose you Trying to Link what is Called Social Darwinism With The Theory of Evolution.

The link that you claim is "non-existent" is proven wrong in the Maafa 21 video and the book that I posted......


Believe what you must. However don't try to oppose my argument and then claim that "books" and research are not a proper means of rebuttal.....

You sound stupid nigga.....

maestro_lungs

bambu wrote: »

@maestro_lungs.....

Again you can only speak for your own knowledge level not mine......

Actually, This is what you said....

maestro_lungs wrote: »

Now Please Point out The Differences in Races other than the Color of our skins!

maestro_lungs wrote: »

I Oppose you Trying to Link what is Called Social Darwinism With The Theory of Evolution.

The link that you claim is "non-existent" is proven wrong in the Maafa 21 video and the book that I posted......


Believe what you must. However don't try to oppose my argument and then claim that "books" and research are not a proper means of rebuttal.....

You sound stupid nigga.....

Asking You to Point out Differences is Me Asking You, Not asking You to go Find a Book & Call that Evidence!

I Said I Oppose You Linking Evolution & Darwinism, Cause It's Not Your Idea. It's Something You Read From somebody & Trying to Pass it off as Fact!

Books & Research are a Proper Means of Rebuttal, But Not The Only Means. Not To Launch a Ad Homin Attack, But Who The Fuck is This Guy? I'm watch the Video Later I Guess, But Who is He & Why is His View Even Credible to You?

bambu

@maestro_lungs....

That's kind of how historians get down......

A question is asked and we typically cite some sort of documents, preferably primary.....

Although we also use physical evidence associated with anthropology....

I have no clue who the "guy" in the video is or why he should be seen as "credible"......

I assume that he is merely a co-host presenting the research of historians, and scientists....

Please come back or visit the Eugenics thread after you have constructed some sort of argument......*****My son*****

Oceanic

waterproof wrote: »

Jaded Righteousness wrote: »

maestro_lungs wrote: »

To My Understanding, Buddhism is not about either believing or not believing in God or gods. Rather, the historical Buddha taught that believing in gods was not useful for those seeking to realize enlightenment. In other words, God is unnecessary in Buddhism. For this reason, Buddhism is more accurately called nontheistic than atheistic . The Buddha also plainly said that he was not a god, but "awakened.

Exactly. At least he tried

Buddha in his writings spoke on gods and meetings gods, if you was a student like u claimed u would of known this like I said when I get to my computer we going to blow this out the water

the gods you speak of are not supreme creator gods. They are devas, beings with higher powers than humans, but can be referred to as "gods" in the sense that their power can be vastly superior to ours. However, they are not eternal spirits. Me, personally, I believe they were aliens (aliens are described in other ancient cultures as well. The Hermetic philosophy says also that there exists beings greater than mankind) but Buddhism explains that they are born and die like humans and are not all powerful. The Buddha educated them and they were students of the Buddha. I know all of that, playboy, you ain't saying nothin new.

The Buddha said there is no such thing as a creator god and even the idea of such would conflict with his teaching of Anatta and the law of cause and effect. In Buddhism, the universe (or better word would be metaverse imo) is eternal, a constant state of expanding and contracting (big bang, big crunch) so it is an eternal chain of cause and effect.

The Buddha's teachings are an oral tradition, written down by monks who remembered his words. Since its inception, there have been additions (Zen Buddhism/Chinese Buddhism for example, which includes ideas from other religions, philosophies, and spiritualities) and misunderstandings. You have to read the suttas to get a clearer understanding of the underlying message (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipitaka) What is required of a Buddhist is the understanding of the Four Noble Truths, The Eightfold Path; Anatta, Impermenence, The Five Aggregates, Karma, and to a lesser degree Rebirth, etc. etc... all teachings the schools agree on and are certain that the Buddha actually taught. The Dalai Lama is an atheist and will tell you up front there is no creator god. Buddhism does not require that you believe in a god anyway so I dont know where you're attempting to go with this..

Oceanic

maestro_lungs wrote: »

I'm Quite Sure They'd Disagree

you would be right. Don't waste your time on Bimbo. When backed into a corner, he just repeats himself, calls you names, and flags all of your posts

bambu

bambu wrote: »

LOL....

@Jaded Righteousness....

Jaded Righteousness wrote: »

You asked for evidence of animals in transitional stages between classes and not only did I show you the tiktaalik fossil but being an overachiever, I mentioned the mudskipper which is between fish and amphibians, and the platypus which has features of different classes.

bambu wrote: »

D-Jack wrote: »

@Gold_Certificate

A wise analogy to compare this to how niggas trying to disprove Evolution will be nice.

Actually the thread was structured for anti-creationists to "speak your clout".......

So, these niggas is trying to prove evolution.....

Take a stab at the DNA evidence rather than pseudo scientific terminology surrounding the duck-billed platypus.....

"the mystery of the origin of the information needed to build the first living organism"



Until such a first life exists Darwinian evolution cannot commence.

Repeating questions or statements that you continue to run from sissy overachiever......

Oceanic

See what I mean, Maestro. Even though I answered his question in the hermetics thread and embarrassed him, he acts like he didn't see it. Now he just follows me around like a scorned woman, LOL'ing and flagging my posts and cosigning anyone who disagrees with me on any matter.

waterproof

Jaded Righteousness wrote: »

waterproof wrote: »

Jaded Righteousness wrote: »

maestro_lungs wrote: »

To My Understanding, Buddhism is not about either believing or not believing in God or gods. Rather, the historical Buddha taught that believing in gods was not useful for those seeking to realize enlightenment. In other words, God is unnecessary in Buddhism. For this reason, Buddhism is more accurately called nontheistic than atheistic . The Buddha also plainly said that he was not a god, but "awakened.

Exactly. At least he tried

Buddha in his writings spoke on gods and meetings gods, if you was a student like u claimed u would of known this like I said when I get to my computer we going to blow this out the water

the gods you speak of are not supreme creator gods. They are devas, beings with higher powers than humans, but can be referred to as "gods" in the sense that their power can be vastly superior to ours. However, they are not eternal spirits. Me, personally, I believe they were aliens (aliens are described in other ancient cultures as well. The Hermetic philosophy says also that there exists beings greater than mankind) but Buddhism explains that they are born and die like humans and are not all powerful. The Buddha educated them and they were students of the Buddha. I know all of that, playboy, you ain't saying nothin new.

The Buddha said there is no such thing as a creator god and even the idea of such would conflict with his teaching of Anatta and the law of cause and effect. In Buddhism, the universe (or better word would be metaverse imo) is eternal, a constant state of expanding and contracting (big bang, big crunch) so it is an eternal chain of cause and effect.

The Buddha's teachings are an oral tradition, written down by monks who remembered his words. Since its inception, there have been additions (Zen Buddhism/Chinese Buddhism for example, which includes ideas from other religions, philosophies, and spiritualities) What is required of a Buddhist is the understanding of the Four Noble Truths, The Eightfold Path; Anatta, Impermenence, The Five Aggregates, Karma, and to a lesser degree Rebirth, etc. etc... all teachings the schools agree on and are certain that the Buddha actually taught. The Dalai Lama is an atheist and will tell you up front there is no creator god.

Man cut the bullshit out, deva are gods and in buddha writing he said using psychic powers he confronted the brahma gods, there is 3 realms where they go, and they don't die they reincarnate.


ye are elohim but ye will die like men

Oceanic

waterproof wrote: »

Jaded Righteousness wrote: »

waterproof wrote: »

Jaded Righteousness wrote: »

maestro_lungs wrote: »

To My Understanding, Buddhism is not about either believing or not believing in God or gods. Rather, the historical Buddha taught that believing in gods was not useful for those seeking to realize enlightenment. In other words, God is unnecessary in Buddhism. For this reason, Buddhism is more accurately called nontheistic than atheistic . The Buddha also plainly said that he was not a god, but "awakened.

Exactly. At least he tried

Buddha in his writings spoke on gods and meetings gods, if you was a student like u claimed u would of known this like I said when I get to my computer we going to blow this out the water

the gods you speak of are not supreme creator gods. They are devas, beings with higher powers than humans, but can be referred to as "gods" in the sense that their power can be vastly superior to ours. However, they are not eternal spirits. Me, personally, I believe they were aliens (aliens are described in other ancient cultures as well. The Hermetic philosophy says also that there exists beings greater than mankind) but Buddhism explains that they are born and die like humans and are not all powerful. The Buddha educated them and they were students of the Buddha. I know all of that, playboy, you ain't saying nothin new.

The Buddha said there is no such thing as a creator god and even the idea of such would conflict with his teaching of Anatta and the law of cause and effect. In Buddhism, the universe (or better word would be metaverse imo) is eternal, a constant state of expanding and contracting (big bang, big crunch) so it is an eternal chain of cause and effect.

The Buddha's teachings are an oral tradition, written down by monks who remembered his words. Since its inception, there have been additions (Zen Buddhism/Chinese Buddhism for example, which includes ideas from other religions, philosophies, and spiritualities) What is required of a Buddhist is the understanding of the Four Noble Truths, The Eightfold Path; Anatta, Impermenence, The Five Aggregates, Karma, and to a lesser degree Rebirth, etc. etc... all teachings the schools agree on and are certain that the Buddha actually taught. The Dalai Lama is an atheist and will tell you up front there is no creator god.

Man cut the bullshit out, deva are gods and in buddha writing he said using psychic powers he confronted the brahma gods, there is 3 realms where they go, and they don't die they reincarnate.


ye are elohim but ye will die like men

Yeah in Buddhism all beings reincarnate and humans have the possibility of being born in the realm of samsara so where are you going?? Devas are gods but not the same sense as Christian or Abrahamic religions "God". They are born and die, suffer and follow the path just like humans. They are referred to as gods because of their abilities. Brahmas are the name for them, but again, Buddhism and Hinduism are not the same in their idea of Brahma. Brahma means highest. Brahma as a term has various meanings in Indian tradition. Brahma, Brahmins, Brahmas, Brahmans all have different meanings.

I'm cutting the bullshit out by explaining this to you so hopefully you wont go out and speak wrongly about Buddhist tradition.

If Buddhism is true and Devas are indeed real (The Buddha taught to question him and his teaching), the ancients would refer to them as "gods" or the equivalent of "gods" because thats the term that was available. Like I said, I personally believe they were aliens; beings from another time and/or place but that's me. If you want to believe they are eternal spirits, which the Buddha taught against, that's fine with me but Buddhism doesn't require that you do. Buddhism doesn't require that you know every detail about the Devas or even believe they existed as mortal beings; I don't know who or what they were for certain but again, it doesn't matter -- that's not the core of the Buddha's teaching.

bambu

Jaded Righteousness wrote: »

See what I mean, Maestro. Even though I answered his question in the hermetics thread and embarrassed him, he acts like he didn't see it. Now he just follows me around like a scorned woman, LOL'ing and flagging my posts and cosigning anyone who disagrees with me on any matter.

LOL...

You prolly wont get any GOATS or dickriding out of that nigga anytime soon....

bambu wrote: »

@maestro_lungs.....

Again you can only speak for your own knowledge level not mine......

Actually, This is what you said....

maestro_lungs wrote: »

Now Please Point out The Differences in Races other than the Color of our skins!

maestro_lungs wrote: »

I Oppose you Trying to Link what is Called Social Darwinism With The Theory of Evolution.

The link that you claim is "non-existent" is proven wrong in the Maafa 21 video and the book that I posted......


Believe what you must. However don't try to oppose my argument and then claim that "books" and research are not a proper means of rebuttal.....

You sound stupid nigga.....

judahxulu

Jaded Righteousness wrote: »

waterproof wrote: »

Jaded Righteousness wrote: »

waterproof wrote: »

Jaded Righteousness wrote: »

maestro_lungs wrote: »

To My Understanding, Buddhism is not about either believing or not believing in God or gods. Rather, the historical Buddha taught that believing in gods was not useful for those seeking to realize enlightenment. In other words, God is unnecessary in Buddhism. For this reason, Buddhism is more accurately called nontheistic than atheistic . The Buddha also plainly said that he was not a god, but "awakened.

Exactly. At least he tried

Buddha in his writings spoke on gods and meetings gods, if you was a student like u claimed u would of known this like I said when I get to my computer we going to blow this out the water

the gods you speak of are not supreme creator gods. They are devas, beings with higher powers than humans, but can be referred to as "gods" in the sense that their power can be vastly superior to ours. However, they are not eternal spirits. Me, personally, I believe they were aliens (aliens are described in other ancient cultures as well. The Hermetic philosophy says also that there exists beings greater than mankind) but Buddhism explains that they are born and die like humans and are not all powerful. The Buddha educated them and they were students of the Buddha. I know all of that, playboy, you ain't saying nothin new.

The Buddha said there is no such thing as a creator god and even the idea of such would conflict with his teaching of Anatta and the law of cause and effect. In Buddhism, the universe (or better word would be metaverse imo) is eternal, a constant state of expanding and contracting (big bang, big crunch) so it is an eternal chain of cause and effect.

The Buddha's teachings are an oral tradition, written down by monks who remembered his words. Since its inception, there have been additions (Zen Buddhism/Chinese Buddhism for example, which includes ideas from other religions, philosophies, and spiritualities) What is required of a Buddhist is the understanding of the Four Noble Truths, The Eightfold Path; Anatta, Impermenence, The Five Aggregates, Karma, and to a lesser degree Rebirth, etc. etc... all teachings the schools agree on and are certain that the Buddha actually taught. The Dalai Lama is an atheist and will tell you up front there is no creator god.

Man cut the bullshit out, deva are gods and in buddha writing he said using psychic powers he confronted the brahma gods, there is 3 realms where they go, and they don't die they reincarnate.


ye are elohim but ye will die like men

Yeah in Buddhism all beings reincarnate and humans have the possibility of being born in the realm of samsara so where are you going?? Devas are gods but not the same sense as Christian or Abrahamic religions "God". They are born and die, suffer and follow the path just like humans. They are referred to as gods because of their abilities. Brahmas are the name for them, but again, Buddhism and Hinduism are not the same in their idea of Brahma. Brahma means highest. Brahma as a term has various meanings in Indian tradition. Brahma, Brahmins, Brahmas, Brahmans all have different meanings.

I'm cutting the bullshit out by explaining this to you so hopefully you wont go out and speak wrongly about Buddhist tradition.

If Buddhism is true and Devas are indeed real (The Buddha taught to question him and his teaching), the ancients would refer to them as "gods" or the equivalent of "gods" because thats the term that was available. Like I said, I personally believe they were aliens; beings from another time and/or place but that's me. If you want to believe they are eternal spirits, which the Buddha taught against, that's fine with me but Buddhism doesn't require that you do. Buddhism doesn't require that you know every detail about the Devas or even believe they existed as mortal beings; I don't know who or what they were for certain but again, it doesn't matter -- that's not the core of the Buddha's teaching.

so wheres the science at in speculating devas may be real and may be? the dalai lama dont believe in a christian god but that niggas not atheist. he himself is supposed to be a god of some sort. either way he just dont reject the unseen. u a closeted deist buddhist..

Oceanic

The Buddha speaks about Devas but again, they are not central to Budhhist religion. The Dalai Lama has written books on the subject and I can quote them if you would like to go that route. Nothing is closeted about my beliefs.

Oceanic

The core of Buddhism is The 4 Noble Truths and The Eightfold Path. You will find Buddhists who vary in beliefs surrounding the core. My beliefs are my own, influenced by the teachings of the Buddha. I never said the Dalai Lama rejects the unseen. For one, he believes In rebirth. He rejects the idea of a creator god, The Buddha did, and so do most Buddhists.

Oceanic

What do you mean where is the science in speculating? The Buddha mentioned Devas but I've never seen one to my knowledge. The only conclusion I have would be that they are aliens, based on their description but they may have been a tribe on Earth. Either way, it doesn't matter. The point is they suffer like humans and are born and die like humans so either way whether they are aliens, another species or whatever, they are not eternal spirits like the god of classical theism. With or without them, Buddhism does not change.

RodrigueZz

Whoever came up with religion is a fucking genius x 1,000.

They have convinced millions of people to believe that something is true without any evidence, and even moreso, they have trained them to reject evidence that discredits what they have been told.

Faith is often defined as a belief in something without proof. People who claim to have faith in religion are willingly deciding to believe in lies. AND THEY PAY MONEY FOR IT!

got damn, the minute i get a time machine i'm creating my own religion. Something gangsta as fuck

waterproof

@jadedrighteousness Buddha teaches to become one

Jaded Righteousness wrote: »

What do you mean where is the science in speculating? The Buddha mentioned Devas but I've never seen one to my knowledge. The only conclusion I have would be that they are aliens, based on their description but they may have been a tribe on Earth. Either way, it doesn't matter. The point is they suffer like humans and are born and die like humans so either way whether they are aliens, another species or whatever, they are not eternal spirits like the god of classical theism. With or without them, Buddhism does not change.

you do not know what you speak, human spirits are eternal they never die......who's teaching this guy

Oceanic

@waterproof The Buddha taught that there is no self or soul and that everyone will die at some point. Fact. If you want me to quote suttas, I can and will