In short, it asserts that ideas about Karma, reincarnation and all those other core concepts of buddhism is wrong.
Except those aren't core concepts. Only the Four Noble Truths are; from my research, that's the only teaching of the Buddha that all Buddhist schools agree he taught; anything else is disputed.
I'm just reinforcing my statement that religion does make claims about how the universe works simply by claiming there's a creator. I never said that's the only thing religion does, and so I wanted to respond in a way that got back to my original statement.
I never said there was a creator; I said I'm a theist. Not all God-concepts are Creator-based, you know.
I don't believe there ever was a "creation"; I believe that all the absolute core components that ultimately make up the universe have always existed in some form or another, and are able to interact without the need for a puppeteer.
I know that, but that's not something I've tried to refute. I have only responded to the claim that a religion "is true for me, but other things can be true for other people", wich is a fallacious statement. By claiming something is true you're claiming the contrary to be wrong, because you can't have two contradicting truths. That's the point I'm trying to bring forward.
But you can have two conflicting perceptions and opinions.
Sure, you have a problem when you put forth a perception or opinion as fact. Yes, many religions do that... in fact, many people do that.
According to
Buddhism and
Buddhism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (and a quick check of the references in the wiki-article) reincarnation is a concept of buddhism, although various branches have their interpretation about how it works and what it really means of course.
...Wiki isn't the best source for in-depth information on religions; in fact, when it comes to Eastern religions, there's a lot of misinformation and confusion running around. Your best source of accurate information concerning Eastern religions is still books.
If I may recommend a book, go read "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula. It's short and simple; it can be finished in a couple hours.
I'm not interested in what the followers believe, nor am I interested in the watered-down Western Pop-Buddhism (which often gets confused for the real thing.) I'm interested in what the Buddha himself said.
But even if every buddhist actually did believe it was only a manifestation of the extreme desire to live, it's not compatible with materialism (how could the emotion called "desire" manifest itself into something physical and distinguishable?), and therefore buddhism would still claim it's wrong and materialism would claim buddhism's wrong.
Like I said, the Buddha taught that if you find an aspect of his teachings to be false, discard that particular teaching.
Find one piece of fruit on a tree that's bad, do you discard the whole tree or just that one fruit? (Hope you don't mind metaphors.)
Uh, yeah, but there's a lot less "Karma" being thrown around when it's being discussed at a university faculty and alot more "chaos theory", "determinism" and "predictability". None of wich is comparable with the idea of Karma, because with a materialistic base, it doesn't matter if your actions are good or bad you've still got no idea about how your life is going to be affected by it unless your omniscient.
Well, this isn't a discussion about what Karma is, and people disagree with what it means and whether or not it's about morality, so let's just drop the concept. It really has little to do with the discussion at hand.
Wich is, according to materialism, impossible to attain unless your neurological systems are messed up. You cimply can't rid yourself of greed, hate, delusion or even love, and you have no control over it either, the brain's chemistry has.
I think you're underestimating the power we have over our desires. It's all about discipline.
And you just basically said that people who have self-mastery and discipline have a neurological disorder, which is more than a bit offensive, besides being untrue. It's BETTER to be as disciplined and controlled as possible, not worse, and many people have managed to do it. It's easier if you start as a kid, and once you reach a certain age, it becomes impossible.
Besides, who said the goal is to get rid of those things? The goal is to bring them under control, which experience, and common sense, tells me is perfectly possible. It's hard, yes, but hard and impossible aren't the same things.
Sorry, but what you just said sounds too defeatist and cold for me.
No, I'm not, I just think I've not been clear. I'm talking about the materialistic belief, that there is nothing else but the material world and that anything super natural cannot exist because nothing can be beyond nature in a materialistic world. Everything, really everything, can be figured out as long as you've got an infinite ammount of time to study it or become omniscient.
...I think we're having some miscommunication, here. I don't disagree that nothing can exist beyond nature, and I don't think many Buddhists do, either.
I'm not quite as sure as you are that the hundreds of millions of practicing buddhists really have no supernatural elements in their belief.
Did I say that?
Are you under the impression that all Buddhists believe the same thing? 'Cause that's not true. Some believe that the Buddha was a God, some believe that, while he was enlightened, he was still a man like everybody else. Some believe that only monks can perfect the Eightfold Path, others believe that anybody can do it. Some Buddhists are also Vaishnavas, who believe that the Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu.
Unless you're talking about the Four Noble Truths, you can't really cite a belief that the hundreds of millions of practicing Buddhists agree on. Yes, many do have supernatural elements to them; many don't.
And it still makes alot of assumptions. Could you please show me Buddhas research that made him draw those conclusions, the people who peer reviewed his research and the attempts to falsify it otherwise?
Is scientific and peer-reviewed research the ONLY POSSIBLE way to learn something?
From what my research has shown, he learned it through experience, contemplation, and logic. I still haven't grasped what the Eightfold Path is talking about, but that's where contemplation comes in. (Then again, I'm not per se a "Buddhist." ^_^)
), He told an angel to tell the prophet to tell his friends to write what He expects of us, it should be obvious to us that that story is true...
