So, I'm a Buddhist now.

[Rip]

[Agent]

Despanan makes a lot of assumptions about what "best" means, and has a hard time providing evidence that isn't just an anecdote about him personally.

[Despanan]

[Despanan]

You guys seem to be misunderstanding Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and why I keep saying it's so universal.

You're thinking "He's showing me an XL T-Shirt and saying one size fits all! I wear mediums".

Whereas, because of the nature of Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo it's like I've shown you a T-Shirt that changes size to accommodate all wearers and said: "This kind of shirt fits everyone!" and you've said: "That's not possible, no shirt can do that!"

and while it's true that there are no shirts that can change size to accommodate everyone, ideas are not shirts and this particular one absolutely can for the reasons I've already explained.

[Agent]

You're nuts.

[Rip]

[Agent]

Buddhas don't exist. Why would we even accept that? It's ridiculous. And even if it did exist the Buddha state is not desirable.

[dexeron]

After missing out on (but still skimming through) a page and a half today because I was recording stuff, all I can say is this:

Not trying to pick on you specifically Desp, but you keep denying that you're talking about the supernatural, but then describe things that can only be understood to be, well, supernatural. Maybe the problem is that Buddhists use certain metaphors and shibboleths to describe concepts, but we're not Buddhists, and so we're expecting words to adhere to their generally accepted meanings. While metaphors about "rebirth" might be useful among Buddhists in their discussions among themselves, to anyone on the outside, when you talk about rebirth, only to later qualify it by saying "I'm just talking about the fact that my atoms will go on to become part of something else," we're left wondering "then why the hell did you call it reincarnation, and what the hell does a basic fact of physics have to do with spirituality in any way?"

That's just one example from earlier in the thread, but over and over again it keeps appearing like you're saying things and then insisting that what you've said doesn't actually mean what its definition says. It makes your statements come across as just a little bit inconsistent.

So, like, you're insisting that you don't believe in the supernatural, but then you say that "Buddhas appear." Why? Through what mechanism? Or things like us all being "connected" (and that one you've explained as meaning that we're all the product of our environment and influences - but again, I'm left asking "yeah, that's something we all hopefully figured out by Freshman year of college; why in the hell does that require some a religious metaphor to describe it, and - again - what does the description of a basic fact of life have to do with spirituality?) Or talking about evolution's "Intent." And I know you've said that you don't mean it's really supernatural, that ultimately you're just describing natural processes - but then why not just call them what everyone else calls them? Why keep slapping weird Buddhist or religious labels on things that have nothing to do with religion or spirituality? You talk about secularism as closing doors, but I don't understand why you have to put a scaffolding over a building that is already standing quite firmly on its own, as if without all of this window dressing, it might fall over?

I won't get into my disagreements with you re: secularism itself though, cause that will just turn into "my dad can beat up your dad," and since I'm a humanist I probably oughtn't to be doing that. ;)

[Despanan]

[Despanan]