Hard talks on religions

What you are saying is that you personally want there to be some form of afterlife (you appear to prefer a cyclic one to a sequential one). You believe that life is purposeless without one.

This is like saying that buying a car is purposeless unless the car never wears out. That’s demonstrably untrue. A car gets you from point A to point B faster and cheaper than walking. That you have to replace it every few years is not some insurmountable problem that renders the car useless. Far from it.

Similarly, my life has purpose and meaning even if I do not think I will in some form live forever. I derive great meaning for example from helping my clients solve their software design needs. From helping my disabled stepson live comfortably and well. From leaving various legacies for my children and grandchildren to build their lives and aspirations upon. From any number of things.

In fact, I actually find comfort in the notion that life is finite, and has a beginning, middle and an end. If you really divorce yourself from the learned helplessness that religion instills in you, that you need salvation and/or eternal life, you can see that eternality could easily, in any of several ways, become its own hell.

1 Like

Plants and other categories similar to plants grow and do reproduction with the energy of the Sun and according to the environmental conditions. May be some gene effect.

How, life do this with a consciousness, by merely a bio-chemical reaction? It is seemed to be impossible. Third factor involvement is available here to function the life.

@Udenidhammikag_1948, I encourage you to learn about biology. There are sources all over the internet that won’t cost you anything. Or, you can take classes if there is adult education available in your area.
Once you do that, I’m happy to revisit this discussion. Until then, with respect, I’m going to decline further conversation that includes this subject.

There are many stories made by the people and the followers of all religions. All are not true and correct facts cannot be rejected quoting what you are aware and without knowing the deep meaning of them through out thousand years. There are so many things, sciencetifically cannot be proved.

In Buddhism, as I am aware, deeply discuss about mind, consciousness, thoughts, karmic actions, Causes and Effects and deep meditation practices to realize some metaphor phenomenons that they say sciencetifically unmeasureble but deeply understand by experience. What is your opinion about this?

According to the status of mind and cause and effect actions, living beings are categorized to different levels of awareness. God’s mind is one of them and not special.

According to the status of our olfactory senses, living beings are categorized to different levels according to the smell of their farts. The smell of the farts of Eric the rainbow farting unicorn is on this scale and not special.

1 Like

What is your definition of correct?

Discussing religion is not like a mathematical equation that is either right or wrong. Even science acknowledges this, as it regards every one of its findings as subject to change.

This means that I don’t believe that there is any such thing as an absolute truth, so what do you mean by “correct?”

One more time then, biochemical reactions in organic life is an objective fact, you are trying to add unevidenced superstition, and you’re doing it by asking others to offer an alternative to your claim, which is a known informal logical fallacy, called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

Let me break it down, you have no evidence and irrational and therefore poorly reasoned argument.

What are we thinking pixies? I mean if we’re floating unevidenced claims, why not right? Try to understand you’re not offering a credible sound argument, you’re offering a risible fallacy, and everyone here can recognise it, the way you would smell a dead cat in your house.

Fuck me, no one needs to reject archaic unevidenced superstition, all they have to do is point and laugh.

A trivially true, but nonetheless spectacularly stupid claim. It’s also heading for another argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Now having an alternative explanation (scientific or otherwise) does not represent evidence or sound argument for any claim, this includes god claims.

It’s meaningless word salad, and ignores my question completely. What specifically (note the emboldened word), are you claiming is true, and why?(note the second emboldened word.

Meaningless word salad.

What objective evidence (if any) can you demonstrate that any deity exists, or is even possible? Each time you make an unevidenced claim about a deity, I will re-ask that question, if you continue to ignore it, your dishonesty will become manifest.

You can also scroll back to all the other responses to your spiel I offered, that you ignored. I’m off out for a while, so try and address them honestly.

As you are threatening, I will stop my posts. I realized that this is not a forum to submit some religion facts or to discuss the validity of them.

Noone is threatening. Just merely asking you to back up your assertions with evidence. And it all boils down to whether you can demonstrate if a deity exists, or is possible. Or if reincarnation is real or even possible. But if you can’t or won’t do that, we can discuss the smell of the farts from rainbow-farting unicorns instead? I assert they smell freshly made waffles sprinkled with honey. Prove me wrong.

You are not submitting facts. You are submitting unevidenced assertions.

2 Likes

I had joined a theist group to discuss some matters of their religion. They started to depend their God by saying that he created the universe and he was aware of every thing.

Then, I joined a Buddhist monastery group and they started to say about the super natural powers of the Buddha by quoting all the Buddhist texts and rejecting some scientific opinions.

And, now you totally reject some details I tried to bring forward for discussion quoting merely a life is a bio-chemical action.

You absolutely can reject something without being a Galaxy Brain and having studied that particular thing you’re rejecting in great depth. If you tell me that you are the king of England I can reject that truth claim without having a deep understanding of British history or politics, parliamentary systems, or a comprehensive knowledge of British place-names. I only have to know who the Brits affirm to be their king, and that you are not he.

This is something that believers constantly trot out – “you atheists can’t possibly understand the nuanced beliefs that we have and the deep teachings of our scriptures, ergo, you can’t reject our teaching”. Rubbish. Often I get that from Christians, who conveniently ignore that I actually DO understand their nuances – that I spent a year of my life I’ll never get back in one of their Bible Institutes, in fact – which explains why they have to claim that apostates such as myself were “never really one of them” in the first place.

Not everyone rolls over and agrees with you. Who could have predicted that?

Get over yourself.

1 Like

Religious theory isn’t factual. It’s anecdotal.

2 Likes

Well, prove to us that life isn’t merely bio-chemical reactions, and emerging properties from the system, and that there is some supernatural stuff behind it, and we can talk about that. Until then, all you are having are assertions and hypotheticals.

2 Likes

Too late in the night now. I hope to continue tomorrow.

But never too late for you to provide objective evidence for your statements right? :wink:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Brave Sir Robin ran away, he bravely ran away away.
When danger reared it’s ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Swiftly taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!

No one has threatened you in any way, what an absurd claim.

What you offered were not facts, it was unevidenced irrational superstition, you’re lying.

You don’t want to discuss their lack of validity, you just said so, here:

You find rational critical scrutiny “threatening”.

Did you imagine your irrational arguments, and unevidenced superstitious claims would have us all converting on the spot, seriously? Do you imagine we have not encountered and considered such claims and arguments many many times before, and over many years? Where does such arrogance come from i wonder.

That’s a lie, and anyone who wants to can see how dishonest this absurd claim is, by scrolling back through the discourse. One more time then, biochemical (it’s one word, stop hyphenating it) reactions in biological organisms is an objective fact, you are the one trying to add unevidenced superstition, and irrational arguments.

Hopefully with something beyond sophistry and repetition.

1 Like

Karma is a complex concept arising from Dharmic traditions, including Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism. In Sanskrit, karma simply means action. Taken within religious frames, it refers to the cause and effect between people’s actions and consequences, usually in cycles of death and rebirth.

Reincarnation is the belief that a single eternal soul is reborn multiple times in different physical forms, whether animal, human, or divine. Karma, the accumulation of an individual’s actions, will determine what form the soul will take on in the next life and process continues for many lifetimes until final extinction altogether (Buddhism) or unification with the original source (Hinduism).

The practice is widely considered discredited and unscientific by medical practitioners, and experts generally regard claims of recovered memories of past lives as fantasies or delusions or a type of confabulation. Neither there is objective evidence nor specific research methods that can discover the mystery of reincarnation. However, not everything can be known by the humans with their current mind and intelligence that are far limited to perceive such paranormal phenomenon.

Research on reincarnation

Research on reincarnation includes interviews with children who claim to remember past lives, and studies of the beliefs and experiences of people who believe in reincarnation.

Psychiatrist Ian Stevenson has Interviewed over 2,500 children who claimed to remember past lives and He has found in her research that many children started remembering past lives between the ages of three and seven.

Findings from studies are;

Children who claim to remember past lives may exhibit birthmarks or birth defects in the location of fatal wounds in the deceased.

Children who claim to remember past lives may also exhibit phobias related to death, and unlearned skills.

Edited by Mod to add: the above is a quote from the following Wikipedia page: