Quote:
Originally Posted by RickyMaveety
OK ... Tommy .... slow down and rewrite that whole post. You are not making any sense at all to me here. I realize that I would not understand it at all if you stated it in your native tongue, but honestly, I know your English is better than that.
There are many things that people have faith in that have nothing to do with religion. For example, I have faith that the Sun will come up tomorrow. I can't know it for a certainty until it happens, but I believe it to be true, my reasons for believing it are based on prior experience.
I happen to believe in reincarnation for much the same reasons, prior experience (having seen snatches of other lives ... and no, not everyone was Cleopatra in a prior lifetime, some of us were nobody in particular) and experiences of others (including scientific study). Those are my "reasons."
I understood you to say that you thought Buddhism was something other than a philosophy because "they" believed in "rebirth" without "reason." Please, tell me how I misunderstood your post, and please, take your time so I won't misunderstand the next one.
|
A scientific or atheistic viewpoint hold things for true if there are good reasons to hold them for true. There is evidence. Since there are no good reasons in this respect for holding rebirth for true then it is an example of why it is wrong to compare Buddhism with atheism in this respect. And it is an example of why it is more a religion than a philosophy since it holds things for true without proper reasons.
Know for certain has nothing to do with science. These kind of "know for certain" argument are what religious or postmodern people use to motivate there beliefs. But the argument is not valid or correct. And I am since a long time totally fed up with these kind of "know for certain" arguments and statements like "my truth is as good as your truth" so I probably got overly upset when I wrote my comment...