Isn't Buddhism more of a way of life instead of an actual religion?
It is not. We follow we the ways of life and the teachings of Buddha. His teachings are recorded in a book, just like the Bible. Except this one makes sense.
No, Methodist is especially the one I got a problem against. The churches are a business first, teaching the word of God comes second.
It is not. We follow we the ways of life and the teachings of Buddha. His teachings are recorded in a book, just like the Bible. Except this one makes sense.
Alright alright, I was just saying that you can practice a lot of the different aspects of Buddhism without actually being Buddhists.
Alright alright, I was just saying that you can practice a lot of the different aspects of Buddhism without actually being Buddhists.
Well... you can.. but it means even more if you were involved in the religion. for example, I follow the Christianity's code: "love your friends and love your enemies more". Hardly anyone does that anymore, but it kinda means something if you do.
Agnosticism can be subdivided into several subcategories. Recently suggested variations include:
Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "ermanent agnosticism" the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you." Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism" the view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is evidence we can find something out." Apathetic agnosticism (also called Pragmatic agnosticism) the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.[citation needed] Agnostic atheism the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, and do not believe in any.[12] Agnostic theism (also called "spiritual agnosticism" the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence. Søren Kierkegaard believed that knowledge of any deity is impossible, and because of that people who want to be theists must believe: "If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe." (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs.) Ignosticism the view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition isn't coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable. A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or a nontheist until a better definition of theism is put forth.
There are also such subcategories for atheists.
Strong atheism or Gnostic atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept as true the proposition "gods do not exist".
Weak atheism refers to any other type of non-theism.
Historically, the terms positive and negative atheism have been used for this distinction, where "ositive" atheism refers to the specific belief that gods do not exist, and "negative" atheism refers merely to an absence of belief in gods. Because of flexibility in the term "god", it is understood that a person could be a strong atheist in terms of certain portrayals of gods, while remaining a weak atheist in terms of others.
Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" (i.e., those who have not thought about the existence of deities, let alone decided against it, are de facto atheists).
Explicit atheism is defined as "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it" (those who have thought about the existence of deities and have purposely decided against it)
By these definitions I would classify myself as an explicit weak atheist or an explicit negative atheist.
I have researched or have been immersed in numerous belief systems and have yet to see any real proof for it. Now I don't claim to be an expert on them but just to name some of the ones I have been exposed to either in person or through others.
Catholicism Baptist Cristian Judaism Mormon Buddhism Wiccan Satanism Urantian Islam Scientology Voodoo Several Native American beliefs (I'm unfamiliar with there names or what belief goes to which group.)
So far, I appear to be the only active Muslim Armor Gamor on this part of the Forums. Damn proud of it, though. It gives you a great viewpoint with which to look at from the world in school, though, since the teacher's always teach you from the Christian way of looking at the world and try to divert you to see it in other ways once you get to college.
But Yeah, I believe in Islam -- Its sorta sad to see how unreligious armorgames is :P
By the way - For Buddhism -- Its a pretty tough religion to follow, many that do are sometimes half and halfing it with the duties of life. You've got to remember that the priests and monks are hardcore -- the real symbol of the religion is that Life is Suffering, and to end Suffering you end all desires.
Because when you want something and you don't get it, you suffer. Therefore Life + Suffering = (Because of) Desires Life - Desires = Suffering Time + Life - Desires = Nirvana
The belief that man is strong but not permanent is also a key factor to most of them, that see even monumental giant structures of our time as nothing but a speck of dust that will merely crumble in days to come.
Because when you want something and you don't get it, you suffer. Therefore Life + Suffering = (Because of) Desires Life - Desires = Suffering Time + Life - Desires = Nirvana
Surely life without desire is just total apathy? Just a thought.
