Dharmic Life compared to Atheistic Belief

[XenoFish]

Since the OP will not provide information on Dharma I'll do it.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/dharma-religious-concept

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hinduism/Karma-samsara-and-moksha#ref50479

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma

https://pluralism.org/the-dharma-the-teachings-of-the-buddha

From the last link.

1. Life involves suffering, duhkha.

The “illness” that the Buddha diagnosed as the human condition is duhkha, a term often rendered in English as “suffering” or “unsatisfactoriness.” The Buddha spoke of three types of duhkha. First, there is the ordinary suffering of mental and physical pain. Second, there is the suffering produced by change, the simple fact that all things—including happy feelings and blissful states—are impermanent, as is life itself. Third, there is suffering produced by the failure to recognize that no “I” stands alone, but everything and everyone, including what we call our “self,” is conditioned and interdependent.

2. Suffering is caused by desire and grasping.

The Buddha saw that the impulse to crave, desire, or grasp something one doesn’t have is the principal cause of suffering. Because of the impermanence and continuous change of all that we call “reality,” the attempt to hold on to it is as doomed to frustration as the attempt to stake out a piece of a river.

3. There is a way out of suffering.

This is the good news of the Dharma. It is possible to put an end to ego-centered desire, to put an end to duhkha and thus attain freedom from the perpetual sense of “unsatisfactoriness.”

4. The way is the “Noble Eightfold Path.”

To develop this freedom one must practice habits of ethical conduct, thought, and meditation that enable one to move along the path. These eight habits include:

Right understanding: Truly and deeply knowing, for example, that unwholesome acts and thoughts have consequences, as do wholesome acts and thoughts.

Right intention: Recognizing that actions are shaped by habits of anger and self-centeredness, or by habits of compassion, understanding, and love.

Right speech: Recognizing the moral implications of speech; truthfulness.

Right action: Observing the five precepts at the foundation of all morality: not killing, not stealing, not engaging in sexual misconduct, not lying, and not clouding the mind with intoxicants.

Right livelihood: Earning a living in ways that are consonant with the basic precepts.

Right effort: Cultivating this way of living with the attention, the patience, and the perseverance that it takes to cultivate a field.

Right mindfulness: Developing “presence of mind” through the moment-to-moment awareness of meditation practice, including mindfulness of breathing, mindfulness of walking, and mindfulness of bodily sensations.

Right concentration: Developing the ability to bring the dispersed and distracted mind and heart to a center, a focus, and to see clearly through that focused mind and heart.

[Crazy Horse]

45 minutes ago, rashore said:

Since you have only pointed out how wonderful your Dharmic system is , and how awful the Atheists system is... yeah, you are preaching your beliefs as great, and disparaging another as not. 

How about trying to disparage the Dharmic system, and point out the benefits of the Atheist system... can you do that? Or perhaps just not discuss Atheism in a negative manner at all? Or maybe discuss and not preach your belief system, and just leave other belief systems out of it? All you are doing so far is preaching on how great your beliefs are, and how terrible other beliefs- specifically Atheists- are for not being yours. As it is, sounds like the Dharmic life is a platform of spiritual elitism used to look down upon others not on your path. 

BTW, there are atheists in this forum, so by slagging their beliefs you are slagging them. Just like when people bash Christianity with the whole "I don't mind the Christians, it's their belief system I'm slagging", or bash Satanists with "from my other religion perspective which is right, they are (insert disparaging term here)" types of commentary. 

If you are going to keep on preaching it for your team, and bashing down the other side... that's not a debate or a discussion, that's just the sort of thing that gets threads shut down.

The sky is blue, and clouds are grey.

Is that preaching or just telling the truth?

If anyone thinks it is a lie, then please come and debate respectfully.

[Crazy Horse]

24 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

You aren't 'discussing' you are 'declaring', which is why it comes off as preaching.  I don't mind you bashing atheism as long as you can back it up.  If the only thing you can back it up with is your mere opinion, then it invites other mere opinions like, "Dharmic life is a security blanket needed by the emotionally immature who find their lives unsatisfying.", which make for an ugly (and short-lived) thread with no actual discussion.

There is nothing wrong with someone asserting this, its called debate, and am happy to discuss such things.

[rashore]

Good links Xeno... I'll kick in some Natural Law. 

I grew up in the land of cheese, beer, and Natural Law. The University of Lawnsomy isn't around really anymore, but it was interesting. 

What in the heck is the University of Lawsonomy?: https://onmilwaukee.com/articles/lawson

4529 HIGHWAY 41 Architecture and History Inventory: https://www.wisconsinhistory.org/Records/Property/HI141603

REVIEW: NATURAL LAW: https://www.wisluthsem.org/review-natural-law/

And a bit more to philosophy, from Stanford: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-theories/

And another fun one, this from an Etihics book.. https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/ethics_text/chapter_7_deontological_theories_natural_law/Natural_Law_Theory.htm

Quote

Two types of Natural Law Theory:

Natural Law Theory can be held and applied to human conduct by both theists and atheists.  The atheist uses reason to discover the laws governing natural events and applies them to thinking about human action.  Actions in accord with such natural law are morally correct.  Those that go against such natural laws are morally wrong.  

For the theists there is a deity that created all of nature and created the laws as well and so obedience to those laws and the supplement to those laws provided by the deity is the morally correct thing to do.

For atheists there is still the belief that humans have reasoning ability and with it the laws of nature are discernable.  For atheists who accept this approach to act in keeping with the laws of nature is the morally correct thing to do. 

 

 

[Crazy Horse]

27 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Since the OP will not provide information on Dharma I'll do it.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/dharma-religious-concept

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hinduism/Karma-samsara-and-moksha#ref50479

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma

https://pluralism.org/the-dharma-the-teachings-of-the-buddha

From the last link.

1. Life involves suffering, duhkha.

The “illness” that the Buddha diagnosed as the human condition is duhkha, a term often rendered in English as “suffering” or “unsatisfactoriness.” The Buddha spoke of three types of duhkha. First, there is the ordinary suffering of mental and physical pain. Second, there is the suffering produced by change, the simple fact that all things—including happy feelings and blissful states—are impermanent, as is life itself. Third, there is suffering produced by the failure to recognize that no “I” stands alone, but everything and everyone, including what we call our “self,” is conditioned and interdependent.

2. Suffering is caused by desire and grasping.

The Buddha saw that the impulse to crave, desire, or grasp something one doesn’t have is the principal cause of suffering. Because of the impermanence and continuous change of all that we call “reality,” the attempt to hold on to it is as doomed to frustration as the attempt to stake out a piece of a river.

3. There is a way out of suffering.

This is the good news of the Dharma. It is possible to put an end to ego-centered desire, to put an end to duhkha and thus attain freedom from the perpetual sense of “unsatisfactoriness.”

4. The way is the “Noble Eightfold Path.”

To develop this freedom one must practice habits of ethical conduct, thought, and meditation that enable one to move along the path. These eight habits include:

Right understanding: Truly and deeply knowing, for example, that unwholesome acts and thoughts have consequences, as do wholesome acts and thoughts.

Right intention: Recognizing that actions are shaped by habits of anger and self-centeredness, or by habits of compassion, understanding, and love.

Right speech: Recognizing the moral implications of speech; truthfulness.

Right action: Observing the five precepts at the foundation of all morality: not killing, not stealing, not engaging in sexual misconduct, not lying, and not clouding the mind with intoxicants.

Right livelihood: Earning a living in ways that are consonant with the basic precepts.

Right effort: Cultivating this way of living with the attention, the patience, and the perseverance that it takes to cultivate a field.

Right mindfulness: Developing “presence of mind” through the moment-to-moment awareness of meditation practice, including mindfulness of breathing, mindfulness of walking, and mindfulness of bodily sensations.

Right concentration: Developing the ability to bring the dispersed and distracted mind and heart to a center, a focus, and to see clearly through that focused mind and heart.

Yes, very good, thank you.

Although, Buddhism is only one tradition of many through-out the ages that practices the Dharmic Way.

[+Liquid Gardens]

23 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

There is nothing wrong with someone asserting this, its called debate, and am happy to discuss such things.

Debate is not at all about mere assertions.  Billboards don't debate.

Pick one of you assertions to back up.  Why is believing in chance 'disempowering'?  Seems to me that if chance exists then believing in it is actually empowering, since recognizing the truth can be very empowering.

[XenoFish]

22 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

Yes, very good, thank you.

Although, Buddhism is only one tradition of many through-out the ages that practices the Dharmic Way.

Too bad you didn't bother to make your case and I had to do it for you. 

[jmccr8]

6 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

No belief in GOD or anything pertaining to religious or spiritual matters, is still a belief. It is a belief in chance over order. Of accident instead of self knowledge.

Dharma practitioners on the other hand, know that there is no such thing as chance, and are therefore more likely to gravitate to a self-reliant life. Blaming no one but themselves for any bumps in the road, and yet, with this attitude, even those bumps become great opportunities for learning and growth and even laughter and joy..

Hi Crazy Horse

Some people drink their coffee black, some with sugar, others with cream as well as those with cream and sugar are you going to beef about how others who drink coffee are inferior to you because the have a different preference? It's really not that different then believers or non-believers we all live in the same world with the same challenges and most of us on either side of the fence may not be fully social until we have had that first cup of coffee for the day.

jmccr8

[Crazy Horse]

11 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Debate is not at all about mere assertions.  Billboards don't debate.

Pick one of you assertions to back up.  Why is believing in chance 'disempowering'?  Seems to me that if chance exists then believing in it is actually empowering, since recognizing the truth can be very empowering.

If one believes in chance, then ultimately, one in not in control of ones life and destiny.

All dharma traditions teach the Law of Cause and Effect.

This one may know for oneself..

This is the truth (known and experienced) and this is very, very empowering.

[Crazy Horse]

8 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Crazy Horse

Some people drink their coffee black, some with sugar, others with cream as well as those with cream and sugar are you going to beef about how others who drink coffee are inferior to you because the have a different preference? It's really not that different then believers or non-believers we all live in the same world with the same challenges and most of us on either side of the fence may not be fully social until we have had that first cup of coffee for the day.

jmccr8

How one drinks their coffee has nothing to do with anything that has been spoken to, yet.

Unless you drink your coffee with arsenic, then one should realise the consequences of doing so.

[+Nuclear Wessel]

5 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

How one drinks their coffee has nothing to do with anything that has been spoken to, yet.

Unless you drink your coffee with arsenic, then one should realise the consequences of doing so.

[jmccr8]

9 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

How one drinks their coffee has nothing to do with anything that has been spoken to, yet.

Unless you drink your coffee with arsenic, then one should realise the consequences of doing so.

Hi Cazy Horse

I know you spent 1/10 of a millisecond before answering me, maybe take a moment to gather your thoughts and meditate on it then come back.

jmccr8

[Crazy Horse]

2 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

And which point was that?

Jay asked if I was going to beef about how folks drank their coffee, personally, one may drink their coffee anyway one wants to, but if your coffee is laced with poison, one should know.

That was my point.

[+Nuclear Wessel]

Just now, Crazy Horse said:

And which point was that?

Jay can explain it to you. I feel like you're being deliberately obtuse.

[Crazy Horse]

Just now, Nuclear Wessel said:

Jay can explain it to you. I feel like you're being deliberately obtuse.

So a genuine question, after being accused of missing the point, is now considered obtuse?

I wait for Jays explanation.

 

[+Nuclear Wessel]

1 minute ago, Crazy Horse said:

So a genuine question, after being accused of missing the point, is now considered obtuse?

Yes.

For the record, I also don't think it was "genuine". You strike me as somebody who wants to argue for the sake of it.

Edited February 20, 2021 by Nuclear Wessel

[Crazy Horse]

31 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Cazy Horse

I know you spent 1/10 of a millisecond before answering me, maybe take a moment to gather your thoughts and meditate on it then come back.

jmccr8

So what was your point?

 

[+Nuclear Wessel]

1 minute ago, Crazy Horse said:

So what was your point?

 

*ahem*

Quote

gather your thoughts and meditate on it then come back.

 

[jmccr8]

Just now, Crazy Horse said:

So what was your point?

 

Hi Crazy Horse

People do different things and like different things or just see things differently and coffee and religion both fall into that category and yet coffee drinkers are not demeaning or preaching the religion of black, black with sugar, with cream, or both they just drink their coffee and enjoy it together.

jmccr8

[Crazy Horse]

9 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Crazy Horse

People do different things and like different things or just see things differently and coffee and religion both fall into that category and yet coffee drinkers are not demeaning or preaching the religion of black, black with sugar, with cream, or both they just drink their coffee and enjoy it together.

jmccr8

Theist Coffee Drinker - "You have arsenic in your drink."

Atheistic Coffee Drinker - "Stop demeaning me, and stop preaching."

[jmccr8]

39 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

Theist Coffee Drinker - "You have arsenic in your drink."

Atheistic Coffee Drinker - "Stop demeaning me, and stop preaching."

Hi Crazy Horse

I think I will be mindful and wait till I am not in such a generously humorous mood as I am feeling quite playful.

jmccr8

[XenoFish]

3 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

How one drinks their coffee has nothing to do with anything that has been spoken to, yet.

Unless you drink your coffee with arsenic, then one should realise the consequences of doing so.

Metaphor. It's a metaphor....

[+Hammerclaw]

[Golden Duck]

4 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

All dharma traditions teach the Law of Cause and Effect.

Yet they still gamble.

[Golden Duck]

4 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Crazy Horse

People do different things and like different things or just see things differently and coffee and religion both fall into that category and yet coffee drinkers are not demeaning or preaching the religion of black, black with sugar, with cream, or both they just drink their coffee and enjoy it together.

jmccr8

Have you ever told someone drink instant?