And you decide that all religions other than yours are false, so then freedom of religion is out the window???
So you sat quietly while a young girl was sexually assaulted.
How many Muslims would you consider friends or close friends?
More Needless Multiculturalism Problems From Immigrants
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
So you sat quietly while a young girl was sexually assaulted.
How many Muslims would you consider friends or close friends?
Oh really... so you've been talking to God and He told you which religion is "true"?
Did He also tell you which denomination of that religion?
In any case, Buddhism is more a philosophy than a religion. In many respects it's like calling the headquarters of the Fraser Institute a church to the religion of Plutocracy.
Last edited:
Is it not both?
Buddhism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For some money and material things are almost a religion as they can be fanatical in their acquiring these things.
Others, hate is also religious like in the fanatical belief that they take from their interpretation or others instruction of religious texts.
For others, it is telling people how they should think and act.
Ah, I see, the same people who advocate for other buildings and developments.
Evil they are, simply evil, before ya know it the next step will be affordable housing. Then what, time to throw up the walls.
I'd say 10,000 sq. feet. That way they can be a stable part of a community but not dominate it. Oh, you weren't being serious. Well then.
****scampers off****
Perhaps. But what does this have to do with the thread? If Buddhists want to waste their money in that manner they should be free to do so. I assume no public funding is involved unlike the building of temples for the the dominant religion in Canada, namely hockey arenas.
There's something called city councils and urban planning. Especially in a city with limited housing, how can we really justify the construction of a 200,000 square foot Buddhist temple?
If the Buddhists have so much money than why don't they just create an artificial island and put one there?
If the Buddhists have so much money than why don't they just create an artificial island and put one there?
How can you justify professional sports facilities? Olympic Games? Shopping Malls? Parking lots? GOlf courses? Parks?
Those things serve EVERYONE!!! A buddhist temple does nothing for a person like me. Its a waste of space! A HUGE waste of space!
What does it have to do with this thread? Well, Buddhists don't come from Bountiful, BC...
So... anyone not attending your church is wasting space with theirs, right?
If I think Christianity is truth and buddhism isn't, would I really consider church as a "waste of space"? Obviously not. And that goes for ANYONE'S opinion. If you think atheism is true, would you consider anything written by Richard Dawkins as a "waste of paper"?
Of course not.
So, you're saying that it's valid for Buddhists to say that your church is a waste of space.
I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of them who have been there a lot longer than you
Can't argue with that. Except the part about Richard Dawkins.
But what you can do is point out that because you hold this opinion, your contributions to this discussion are worthless without you proving your premise.
well, all debates at forums are worthless because nobody has proven any premises thus far, that i am aware of.
That's a deceptive question. They can say whatever they want. "Church is waste of space". They can scream it from the rooftops if they wish, just as I can say whatever I want about buddhism. That's just free speech, but to hold a philosophy as valid, I can't do that because only the truth is valid. And two contradictory set of beliefs can't be true at the same time.
An example would be a person suspected of a crime. All the physical evidence points to guilt, but do we believe or give any validity to the suspects outlandish story that makes no sense? Of course not, we throw it out - not true, therefore not valid.
You can't hold two contradictory set of beliefs as valid at the same time. Either Christianity or buddism is true, or neither, but never both, that would illogical.
That's true, but does it really mean anything? Clifford Olsen was on this earth before me too. Should I give him any validity to his deranged thinking?
Discussion is never worthless because hearts and minds can be changed. As for proving my premise, I don't have to prove anything because the evidence it right there in front of you. Besides, who here has ever proven their premise about God or religion? No one.