Ignoring the entirety of the idea of it being from reddit how does this image make you feel?

Reminder that Buddhism and Catholicism are essentially the same: deliberately anti-Christian Atheism.

>Everyone is born without believe is God
How can they be so wrong and so arogant about it.

>Except no religion, in all of history, has ever taught decent morals OR GIVEN CIVILIZATION ANYTHING OF MEASURABLE VALUE.
The philistinism is staggering, yet completely unsurprising, considering it’s reddit.
I checked out r/poetry today, first post I see is someone asking what are some contemporary “movements”, and the only response at the time was this absolute redditor championing “Hip Hop” and Kendrick as essentially the leading poets of the age. You can tell by this assertion that he is neither racist nor elitist. But seriously, there is no more grating misconception than the illiterate thinking supahotfire rhymes over phat beats are worthy participants in the poetic tradition.

Attached: 282D5A2A-D6C7-45E4-BD7D-D662F3DFE12B.jpg (670x1000, 138K)

It's complete bullshit. It would make the need to escape Samsara pointless.

good observation, I'm going to go tell them what you think

Yeah. Have you noticed how Christianity only exists in places where it has been preached? It's not like the Chinese in the time of Paul knew anything about Jesus Christ because of a divine intuition or something. If the world forgot about Christianity tomorrow and all the Christian books were burned there would be no more Christianity.

>this absolute redditor championing “Hip Hop” and Kendrick as essentially the leading poets of the age
LMAO

Attached: 658FB976-17DF-4788-8087-5F425EE07FBA.jpg (1240x1203, 99K)

You are saying nothing you know that right?

doesnt take the buddist scheme seriously as a spangly energy net to attract and trap souls. its 'an everything is everything bro' post in a shitpile of words.

Let me walk you through it
>You: people believe in god when they are babies ie they have a divine intuition to believe in god
>Me: no they don't, if people had this divine intuition we would see cultures who haven't been taught Christianity develop Christianity on their own. They didn't, so your claim is wrong.

Yea you are gona be hard pressed to find an atheist culture there. In the wild or what not. Believe in God is completely natural and you have to teach it out of people.
Christianity is a few steps down the line.

Your a retard for getting off on the idea of arguing with retards. That’s a loss for you. But why does it feel like a win? Here comes the sad part: you need to feel smart. But listen to me user, you’re not dumb, you’re intelligent and capable but the way you’re going about it is not right. You’re cheating yourself from the real victory over ignorance. Stop these petty ways and humble yourself. Take an ace to your own thoughts and make them better. Tell us what you think. Because deep down, I k ow your so much more than a stupid faggot who doesn’t know what the fuck their talking about. Good luck

that's not buddhism, that's californianism

>There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned.
accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.03.irel.html
no supernatural mechanisms at all brehs

This
People larping as Buddhists is getting tiresome

Yeah, makes me feel like a toddler being talked down to
I guess they just like that on reddit, being a comfy babby wrapped up safe from the world. Understandable, it's shit out there

>implying

I prefer the metaphor of transmitting fire from one candle to another, but it's alright.

if he spent 5 minutes researching what anatta actually means, or transmigration, he wouldn't have this problem. modern buddhism is actually really dangerous for this crypto-materialism

>making up fancy theology to nihilism milennia before existentialism
even though i loathe buddhism and consider it a scam theres something impressive to that fact

it's the semi-ironic youtuber way of speaking, possibly with sung phrases and words and usage of jazz hands.

don't ask me what it actually means, but annihilationism (ucchedavāda) is a heresy in buddhism
>accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.nypo.html
>37. "So teaching, so proclaiming, O monks, I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans: 'A nihilist[38] is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'[39]
>"As I am not as I do not teach, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans thus: 'A nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'
>"What I teach now as before, O monks, is suffering and the cessation of suffering.

well im a westerner (culturally and spiritually) so my understanding of philosophical concepts differs from dharmic religions
apparently in a way that im willing to generalize non-theism in this fashion

Bhikkhu Nanananda used this analogy in his Concept and Reality.
You took this analogy too far.
This potentially BTFO's many 'take muh scriptures verbatim' anons.

>He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an EXISTING individual.

not sure what's your point

In Buddhism individual exists only conventionally, so of course annihilationism is wrong.

It's a pile of anachronistic nonsense.

>eddy
>a circular movement of water causing a small whirlpool.

ohh wow, how the fuck have I not read/heard this word up till now. I keept thinking of ed, ed and eddy the whole time I read this shit.

who's following conventions?

Wrong because it starts and develops from a false premise

youtube.com/watch?v=5WKqO16mkGE

Attached: closed individualism.png (1400x788, 88K)

The part about energy was brutal. Reeks of materialism - "we're all just the universe observing itself, man"
also the affirmation of an objective universe which produced a being isn't great either:
>“It is in this very fathom- long physical frame with its
perceptions and mind, that, I declare lies the world, the
arising of the world, the cessation of the world, and the path
leading to the cessation of the world”
- Rohitassa Sutta , S.I.61

Buddha doesn't assign an individual soul to transmigration because it'd be like assigning an independent essence to fire, which only exists/burns as long as there is fuel, dependent on fuel, not independent. Fire (becoming) burns because there is fuel (grasping). When the fire goes out (comparable to Nirvana) due to the exhaustion of the fuel, you know both that it has gone out because the conditions necessary for it to burn (attachment/grasping) are no longer there, and that it is absurd to say where the fire has gone: only that it has been extinguished, stopped the process of burning.

>1990
zoomers were a mistake

>Bhikkhu Nanananda used this analogy in his Concept and Reality.
The whirlpool analogy he used is to explain Nibbāna, not rebirth. It is to say that nothing is really "destroyed" with the realization of Nibbāna (when the whirlpool stops spinning), the ability to make a distinction about the whirlpool as a "here" or "there" (a being) is gone but the whirlpool clearly wasn't "destroyed" it was just the ocean where there is in reality no "here or there".

what's the point of individual attainment if it doesn't reduce the amount of global fire? it just consumes a flame somewhere but the forest keeps burning

>Failures of humanity
>Mother Theresa

>Ed

Attached: Ed_edd_n_eddy_ed_by_ali_srn-dbhcjtc-1-.png (1600x2264, 434K)

>were all born without knowing anything
Leibniz would like to have a talk.
>waah your religion has bad morals! See, look at how many of it's morals go against mine!
...
>"religion has never made anything of value!"
>says this while upholding christian morals

Not him, but imagine getting destroyed so hard you have to type this lol. Defend your point, retard.

We are in the wild in an atheist culture lol. People on Yea Forums really need to take a class on rhetoric or something, because this is starting to get boring bullying you all day.

That’s Edd, not Ed

>religion wuz bad because uhhhhh hitler
these people claim themselves to be intellectuals

quality but stale bait

Redditors are retarded, but only brainlets think that religion is good.

>say nothing again
bravo

Religion aren't bad on their own, but religions that instill weakness and subservience.(i.e. christianity)

*are

The term "atheism" doesn't mean anything, mainly because its counterpart -"theism" - is poorly defined. The word "god" or "theism" can be used to refer both to the Old Testament desert god who spoke to Moses in a burning bush and wrestled with Israel and to some abstract notion of a "higher power", which effectively renders it meaningless. And the word's duplicity has been latched onto by religious people so that they can make dishonest arguments such as you're making now.
So, no, while you won't find many atheist cultures in history, and most cultures would fall under what we call "theism", the cultures that we do find are in no way a "few steps down the line from Christianity". In fact the gods we find among these cultures are utterly antithetical to the Christian god.

weakness and subservience are already there. majority of humans are cattle that need to be controlled, regardless of religion
just look at reddit for a microcosm of this. atheists but controlled by orange up-arrows and social acceptance

people arent born with or without belief in god, default position is whatever kids parents and society believe, these kids just use atheism as a cover for anti-authority rebeliousness, which is expressed agaisnt the mode of authority that they subjectively feel harmed them the most - in these fellows case thats religion
in reality religion is an integral part of life, unavoidable social institution and a part of general experience of living in human society, belief in god or lack thereof is just a part of it
one day hopefully they will outgrow this retardation

>There is no credible or verifiable evidence to support the existence of any gods

READ
DESCARTES
AND HAVE SEX

Modern atheism has become somewhat of a religion itself. I know what the word means and didn't refer to the term on it's own, but the group of individuals who chose to call themselves atheists.

They all do. From what I've gathered from reading into all of the major religions is, humility is a key virtue and arguably the most important one. They each have slightly different interpretations on what humility is, but it's definitely not weakness.

so yea you are trying to escape the notion that people naturally believe in God good one.
You cant confuse the to arguments in one, the belief in God and the development of Christian beliefs. You start with the fist and the you can move to the next.

Edd is the one with the beanie. They call him "Double D."

>read Descartes

you call that shit he put out a credible or verifiable proof?

>have sex

go fuck yourself.

>weakness and subservience
take it like this - during the advent of agriculture hunter gatherers were due to their lifestyle healthier and stronger, had more social rights, lived longer and likely happier, but were defeated utterly by agriculturalists because agricultural society could provide welfare for masses of people and sustain systems hutner gatherer society could never dream of
so early agriculturalist religion would have been more prone to humility, subservience of individual and yet stronger and defeated the seemingly stronger hunter gatherer pantheon - this is reflected in ancient myths (titans which were defeated by olympians)

>people naturally believe in God
Using god in this way is inherently dishonest. The word has no clear-cut definition. Right now I'm not even sure how you're using it. You capitalised 'G' so I assume you're referring to the Christian god but you just as well could be referring to any one of the myriad of religious "gods" or even a "bare theistic" god like the one William Lane Craig defends. The word simply is devoid of all explanatory value if it can simultaneously refer to Thor and to Yahweh and to the "higher power" your hippy friends are always touting about.

I reject the assertion therefore that people naturally believe in "God." What would be more accurate to say is that pre-enlightenment cultures generally believed in various religions that were specific to their countries. So, no, an ancient Egyptian who believed in the sperm god Sobek and the death god Osiris was not a "few steps down the line from Christianity." He was utterly opposed to Christianity, even more so than an atheist is.

I just love how Reddit BTFO Yea Forums again and again and no one can refute a single point.

I think it all started when the /trad/ general was started.
Since then no one can talk about base assumptions w/o someone getting offended.
I mean just look at these replies.

If the language is annoying then it's a bad post. Posts like yours encourage people who can only write in an annoying voice to continue doing so. Fewer people should be literate.