Being a Buddhist, I assume you do not believe in a God/gods and the existence of soul.
You assume correctly.
How do you, however, explain the plethora of gods and pantheon of gods that have existed in historical Buddhism? I can go into more details if you want me to. So were those gods/goddesses just humans with no supernatural powers that have been incorporated into the Buddhist religious literature? In order to attract followers of Hinduism? Or could be that when Hindus converted to Buddhism, they brought with them the incarnation and other baggage into Buddhist literature? Ashoka for example is one such king whose dominion resulted in many "conversions."
'Historical Buddhism' covers an immense amound of ground, very little of which is remotely relevant to this thread. There is certainly some element of truth in "they brought with them the incarnation and other baggage into Buddhist literature", as it later would be for Tibetans, Chinese and others but 'literature' and the biliefs of individuals should not be confused with 'Buddhism', at least as far as there is one 'Buddhism'. The most important references to gods, particularly in the Tibetan tradition are principally metaphorical.
There is, though, one fundamental distinction between all and any gods and other supernatural beings that appear somewhere in the Buddhist tradition and the Abrahamic God,
they are subject to exactly the same laws of cause and effect as we are. For the purposes of this debate it actually makes little difference if they are 'real' or not (just as with invisible unicorns!) unless you or I can
prove they do not!
Could be. But if he/she is looking for an easy way out, it would be atheism and not buddhism. Buddhists have a strict code by which they live their life. They cant enjoy their physical desires because they believe it will only lead to suffering. It is sort of a rebellion against nature itself. Nature dictates that human body needs xyz amount of food to properly function. These guys are not as extreme as Jains but if Buddhists had it their way, they would practice extreme renunciation too because desire for food leads to suffering.
Not really. It is not enjoyment of physical pleasure that leads to suffering but clinging on to that enjoyment, hence desiring it and actively seeking more of it. In the same way clinging on to anything, all things being impermanent, must ultimately cause suffering, including attachment to an illusory
permanent soul, 'self' or ego.
I fail to see why eating the right amount of food should be considered a 'rebellion against nature' while, presumably, gorging to excess is not! Buddhists generally do 'have it their way', there being nothing to stop them, and few see a need for the extreme austerity you suggest. The 'Middle Way' is just that.
I argue that even seeking nirvana is a desire. This desire itself is a path to suffering. Seeking and working to extinguish karmic energies is just another desire, very much like the desire to attain mukti.
You 'argue' it?! Every Buddhist knows it. It is indeed a significant and obvious trap, but it is one that Buddhists have always been perfectly well aware of. Such a desire is necessary as a motivator for 'right' action on the initial path to liberation but the Buddhist recognises it for the tool or prop that it is. Eventually it, too, must be discarded; a common metaphor being a row boat you use to get to the other shore. Once there, you have no further use for it so you let it just drift away, or burn it. Not that that is as easy as it sounds!
Hence, suffering is inevitable. A buddhist deludes himself into believing that he can overcome suffering by killing his karmic energies.
As the above will make clear, those conclusions are unjustified.
All of which is totally off topic, of course.
