Buddhist monk prays so much, he left footprints in wood

[QUOTE="PernicioEnigma"][QUOTE="bobcheeseball"]Talk about dedication! Pretty admirable that he truly puts his life and soul into something he believes in.bobcheeseball

I'm sure it's useful to him...

Except religious people, living as they do, impact the world around them; which, should all religions be a lie, remains constant regardless.Theokhoth

I sit on my computer all day. So much that the paint on my left mouse button has decolored and has taken the shape of my finger . How come my actions don't get labelled as "dedication" :V

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Excuse my use of the term waste. It's not really about it being a waste of time (that's purely subjective). It's about living a lie. Irrespective of how beneficial a religious life may be for its followers, the fact that it's based on a potential lie makes it potentially vain.

BluRayHiDef

No, no, no. Why can't you see the difference? A secular lifestyle is not lived out based on an unconfirmed belief which defies all logic and science and is subsequently highly improbable. As I said, it's not about it being a waste,it's about it being based on a lie. It's about living your life entirely for a belief which may be false.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

My argument still stands, considering the probability that there is no soul to be enlightened.

BluRayHiDef

Replace soul with mind, the point still stands.. Furthermore if you really want to become fatalistic, then really everything is a waste of time.. Because we are a grain a sand in a vast desert.. When our spieces dies out, the universe will go on and it will not notice our passing what so ever. So in all honesty what exactly is a worth while life?

Excuse my use of the term waste. It's not really about it being a waste of time (that's purely subjective). It's about living a lie. Irrespective of how beneficial a religious life may be for its followers, the fact that it's based on a potential lie makes it potentially vain.

Why does that matter?

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] And as long as it's a "potential" lie, I don't think it really matters, as all lifestyIes are "potential" wastes of time, regardless of religion.Theokhoth

No, no, no. Why can't you see the difference? A secular lifestyle is not lived out based on an unconfirmed belief which defies all logic and science and is subsequently highly improbable. As I said, it's not about it being a waste,it's about it being based on a lie. It's about living your life entirely for a belief which may be false.

Atheism is the default condition. To be an atheist means to be without belief in god (a: without, theos: gods). It doesn't necessarily mean anti god/ religious, as most people mistake it to mean. Hence, a person who has gone their entire life without ever knowing the concept of a god or divinity would be an atheist, even though they don't have the knowledge regarding the concept in order to be against it. Atheists are not the claimants, hence they are not culpable of anything. On the other hand, being a theist requires one to be convinced that there is a god. Hence, being religious is not the default condition. Essentially, an atheist cannot be held to the same standard as a theist. An atheist lives life naturally (i.e. without belief in gods). We are all born as atheists.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

No, no, no. Why can't you see the difference? A secular lifestyle is not lived out based on an unconfirmed belief which defies all logic and science and is subsequently highly improbable. As I said, it's not about it being a waste,it's about it being based on a lie. It's about living your life entirely for a belief which may be false.

Atheism is the default condition. To be an atheist means to be without belief in god (a: without, theos: gods). It doesn't necessarily mean anti god/ religious, as most people mistake it to mean. Hence, a person who has gone their entire life without ever knowing the concept of a god or divinity would be an atheist, even though they don't have the knowledge regarding the concept in order to be against it. Atheists are not the claimants, hence they are not culpable of anything. On the other hand, being a theist requires one to be convinced that there is a god. Hence, being religious is not the default condition. Essentially, an atheist cannot be held to the same standard as a theist. An atheist lives life naturally (i.e. without belief in gods).

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] And atheism may be false as well. What's your point?herpderp9000

Atheism is the default condition. To be an atheist means to be without belief in god (a: without, theos: gods). It doesn't necessarily mean anti god/ religious, as most people mistake it to mean. Hence, a person who has gone their entire life without ever knowing the concept of a god or divinity would be an atheist, even though they don't have the knowledge regarding the concept in order to be against it. Atheists are not the claimants, hence they are not culpable of anything. On the other hand, being a theist requires one to be convinced that there is a god. Hence, being religious is not the default condition. Essentially, an atheist cannot be held to the same standard as a theist. An atheist lives life naturally (i.e. without belief in gods).

Babies don't believe God exists, so technically speaking, yes, they are atheists.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] And atheism may be false as well. What's your point?herpderp9000

Atheism is the default condition. To be an atheist means to be ;without belief in god (a: without, theos: gods). It doesn't necessarily mean anti god/ religious, as most people mistake it to mean. Hence, a person who has gone their entire life without ever knowing the concept of a god or divinity would be an atheist, even though they don't have the knowledge regarding the concept in order to be against it. Atheists are not the claimants, hence they are not culpable of anything. On the other hand, being a theist requires one to be convinced that there is a god. Hence, being religious is not the default condition. Essentially, an atheist cannot be held to the same standard as a theist. An atheist lives life naturally (i.e. without belief in gods).

Atheism is the default condition, as I said.

Article:

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of beliefin the existence of deities.In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simplythe absence of belief that any deities exist.Atheism is contrasted with theism,which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.Article

As commonly understood, atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. So an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, whereas a theist is someone who believes in God. Another meaning of "atheism" is simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God. …an atheist, in the broader sense of the term, is someone who disbelieves in every form of deity, not just the God of traditional Western theology2nd source of above article

Hence, as babies are born with a lack of belief in god, they are indeed atheists.

If the person was content in his life, I'm not seeing the waste.

GabuEx

[QUOTE="herpderp9000"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Atheism is the default condition. To be an atheist means to be without belief in god (a: without, theos: gods). It doesn't necessarily mean anti god/ religious, as most people mistake it to mean. Hence, a person who has gone their entire life without ever knowing the concept of a god or divinity would be an atheist, even though they don't have the knowledge regarding the concept in order to be against it. Atheists are not the claimants, hence they are not culpable of anything. On the other hand, being a theist requires one to be convinced that there is a god. Hence, being religious is not the default condition. Essentially, an atheist cannot be held to the same standard as a theist. An atheist lives life naturally (i.e. without belief in gods).

Babies don't believe God exists, so technically speaking, yes, they are atheists.

[QUOTE="herpderp9000"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Atheism is the default condition, as I said.

Article:

[quote="Article"]Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of beliefin the existence of deities.In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.BluRayHiDef

As commonly understood, atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. So an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, whereas a theist is someone who believes in God.2nd source of above article

Hence, as babies are born with a lack of belief in god, they are indeed atheists.

Rejection and position are 2 things that babies cannot do and have. Therefore, having never rejected the concept of god, they are not atheists.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="herpderp9000"] Wrong. It is not the default position. Atheists have thought about, and rejected the concept of god. Newborn babies are not atheists, because they have never been introduced to the concept of god.herpderp9000

Babies don't believe God exists, so technically speaking, yes, they are atheists.

An a-theist is one who is not a theist. There's nothing in there that implies a conscious decision.

(Not that this point would change anything, anyway.)

[QUOTE="herpderp9000"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Babies don't believe God exists, so technically speaking, yes, they are atheists.

GabuEx

An a-theist is one who is not a theist. There's nothing in there that implies a conscious decision.

For some reason, he just can't seem to understand that.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="herpderp9000"] Wrong. It is not the default position. Atheists have thought about, and rejected the concept of god. Newborn babies are not atheists, because they have never been introduced to the concept of god.herpderp9000

Babies don't believe God exists, so technically speaking, yes, they are atheists.

I love the way that you intentionally edited out the part of the second definition that refers to another meaning of the term.

Guess he's left his mark in lifeTreflis

Hmm if it makes him happy then good for him. And :lol: @ the people saying what he's doing is a waste of time, who are you to decide what's well-spent time and what's not? 6_volts

Time spent in devotion to a lie is indeed time wasted.

[QUOTE="herpderp9000"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Babies don't believe God exists, so technically speaking, yes, they are atheists.

An a-theist is one who is not a theist. There's nothing in there that implies a conscious decision.

(Not that this point would change anything, anyway.)

[QUOTE="6_volts"]Hmm if it makes him happy then good for him. And :lol: @ the people saying what he's doing is a waste of time, who are you to decide what's well-spent time and what's not? BluRayHiDef

Time spent in devotion to a lie is indeed time wasted.

[QUOTE="6_volts"]Hmm if it makes him happy then good for him. And :lol: @ the people saying what he's doing is a waste of time, who are you to decide what's well-spent time and what's not? BluRayHiDef

Time spent in devotion to a lie is indeed time wasted.

Discipline is part of life and a major part of Buddhism. Ever heard of Kung Fu?

[QUOTE="6_volts"]Hmm if it makes him happy then good for him. And :lol: @ the people saying what he's doing is a waste of time, who are you to decide what's well-spent time and what's not? BluRayHiDef

Time spent in devotion to a lie is indeed time wasted.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="herpderp9000"] No. Like I said, an atheist is one who DECIDES that god does not exist. Babies made no such decision.herpderp9000

An a-theist is one who is not a theist. There's nothing in there that implies a conscious decision.

(Not that this point would change anything, anyway.)

Bullocks. Your argument was weak. Whether an atheist is one who consciously refutes belief in god or is one who is unconsciously without belief in god, he/ she still adheres to the default position. Hence, living as an atheist could never be a life spent in vain because it is the natural disposition.

[QUOTE="6_volts"]Hmm if it makes him happy then good for him. And :lol: @ the people saying what he's doing is a waste of time, who are you to decide what's well-spent time and what's not? BluRayHiDef

Time spent in devotion to a lie is indeed time wasted.

As I explained earlier in this thread, Buddhism holds no belief in a god or afterlife. Deities are more like Jungian archetypes and, along with prayers, are used as tools for mental focus.

6_volts: I said it seemed like a waste of life to me, but that's just speaking for myself. Obviously this man got fulfillment in from it, so more power to him.

[QUOTE="6_volts"]Hmm if it makes him happy then good for him. And :lol: @ the people saying what he's doing is a waste of time, who are you to decide what's well-spent time and what's not? BluRayHiDef

Time spent in devotion to a lie is indeed time wasted.

Excuse my use of the term waste. It's not really about it being a waste of time (that's purely subjective).

BluRayHiDef

Huh?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Seems like a waste of life to me, but whatever floats your boat.

BluRayHiDef

Considering the very probable chance that there is no divinity of any sort, it is very likely that this monk has definitely wasted his life.

What the hell....

That's pretty crazy, lol.

Yeah, I know some muslims who have burn marks on the other side of their prayer rugs from the body heat, and a huge indent in the carpet, as well as a black mark on their forhead.herpderp9000

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Time spent in devotion to a lie is indeed time wasted.

GabuEx

Excuse my use of the term waste. It's not really about it being a waste of time (that's purely subjective).

BluRayHiDef

Huh?

What's there to be confused about? I specifically said Excuse my use of the term waste. It was obscuring the actual point of my argument, which was that a life devoted to a lie is a life spent in vain (i.e. the truth is what matters). The idea of such a life being considered a waste was merely an after thought; what was really important was the matter of the truth versus a lie.

Yeah, I know some muslims who have burn marks on the other side of their prayer rugs from the body heat, and a huge indent in the carpet, as well as a black mark on their forhead.herpderp9000

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Excuse my use of the term waste. It's not really about it being a waste of time (that's purely subjective).

BluRayHiDef

Huh?

What's there to be confused about? I specifically said Excuse my user of the term waste. It was obscuring the actual point of my argument, which was that a life devoted to a lie is a life spent in vain (i.e. the truth is what matters). The idea of such a life being considered a waste was merely an after thought; what was really important was the matter of the truth versus a lie.

Its hardly a vain endeavour if he loved it. You're passing off a judgment on him as if he could not say the same about you. He believes he has found the truth and devotes his life to it.

[QUOTE="herpderp9000"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Babies don't believe God exists, so technically speaking, yes, they are atheists.

BluRayHiDef

I love the way that you intentionally edited out the part of the second definition that refers to another meaning of the term.

Eh, Oxford only defines it as "disbelief in the existence of God or gods," but arguing over the terminology doesn't really change the substance of the debate. Babies don't believe in a deity. End of story.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="herpderp9000"] No. Like I said, an atheist is one who DECIDES that god does not exist. Babies made no such decision.coolbeans90

I love the way that you intentionally edited out the part of the second definition that refers to another meaning of the term.

Eh, Oxford only defines it as "disbelief in the existence of God or gods," but arguing over the terminology doesn't really change the substance of the debate. Babies don't believe in a deity. End of story.

Yes, babies don't rely in a deity. Hence, they are atheist (i.e. without belief in god).

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

I love the way that you intentionally edited out the part of the second definition that refers to another meaning of the term.

BluRayHiDef

Eh, Oxford only defines it as "disbelief in the existence of God or gods," but arguing over the terminology doesn't really change the substance of the debate. Babies don't believe in a deity. End of story.

Yes, babies don't rely in a deity. Hence, they are atheist (i.e. without belief in god).

Whether or not they are "atheist" depends on the definition one uses...

What's there to be confused about? I specifically said Excuse my use of the term waste. It was obscuring the actual point of my argument, which was that a life devoted to a lie is a life spent in vain (i.e. the truth is what matters). The idea of such a life being considered a waste was merely an after thought; what was really important was the matter of the truth versus a lie.

BluRayHiDef

I still don't understand why this matters.

Lol people laughing at him, saying he wasted his life, he's a peaceful man lives in prosperity and probably has more life knowledge then any of us will ever learn. He's a symbol of what the world hopefully will one day be. I wish I had the ability to have such trust in humanity as he does.

And he hasn't made a damn change into this world. How sad.

Well at least he made 2 little foot prints into a wooden floor. I'll give props for that. That's something you don't see everyday. He shows a little thing or 2 about loving life for what it is.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="herpderp9000"] No. Like I said, an atheist is one who DECIDES that god does not exist. Babies made no such decision.coolbeans90

I love the way that you intentionally edited out the part of the second definition that refers to another meaning of the term.

Eh, Oxford only defines it as "disbelief in the existence of God or gods," but arguing over the terminology doesn't really change the substance of the debate. Babies don't believe in a deity. End of story.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Eh, Oxford only defines it as "disbelief in the existence of God or gods," but arguing over the terminology doesn't really change the substance of the debate. Babies don't believe in a deity. End of story.

coolbeans90

Yes, babies don't rely in a deity. Hence, they are atheist (i.e. without belief in god).

Whether or not they are "atheist" depends on the definition one uses...

Bullocks. That explanation applies to any word, which makes it void. Atheist by it's intrinsic definition means without belief in god (a: without, theos: gods). Period. As babies are without belief in god (whether consciously or subconsciously), they're atheists. All BABIES ARE ATHEISTS!