Debunking a Creator

[Simple_Jack]

Assumptions which are based on belief systems to an extent but not entirely.

 

Blind belief is not a factor in accepting the tenet systems of Dharmic religions.

[Simple_Jack]

What about a relative answer? That can be flawed as well.

 

Relative how or in what way? According to who's paradigm: East or West?

[ralis]

Relative how or in what way? According to who's paradigm: East or West?

 

Deleting the dichotomy of East and West is a place to start. That has no utility in this discussion. Too many here have posited the idea that Eastern philosophy is somehow superior.

[Simple_Jack]

Too many here have posited the idea that Eastern philosophy is somehow superior.

 

But it does have enduring traditions spanning back to times of antiquity; enduring yogic traditions which are not solely quantified on the 5 senses.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[adept]

Came across this quote:

 

'Krishna, who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes.'

 

More fuel for the fire.

[Aetherous]

Buddhists, Greeks et al have discussed these monumental questions to no specific conclusions. If these questions were absolutely proven, then discussions such as these would be necessary.

 

As far as pure reasoning, language places a limit on such discourse.

 

It's possible to show that Atheism is faulty through the rules of logic. Logic is kind of like math...if you do the equation correctly, you arrive at something that's absolutely true.

 

Last time I studied it was a couple of years ago, so I'm really rusty...but maybe just for fun in the next few days I will dust off the textbook and write up something on this. Maybe.

[Green Tiger]

I mostly agree here, ralis, except that I would categorize it as two camps reasoning from substantively differing sets of assumptions, with neither camp acknowledging their own assumptions or respecting the assumptions of the other.

 

Ad infinitum . . .

[Simple_Jack]

Came across this quote:

 

'Krishna, who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes.'

 

More fuel for the fire.

 

Not in monotheistic terms. Think of it in terms of Saguna Brahman.

[ralis]

But it does have enduring traditions spanning back to times of antiquity; enduring yogic traditions which are not solely quantified on the 5 senses.

 

Where is the dividing line that divides? Are we discussing geographical differences? Why not include Native Americans that wandered across the Siberian land bridge whose spirituality may have been influenced by Siberian Shamanism? Hebrew religions which date back to antiquity i.e, Mesopotamia?

[Simple_Jack]

Where is the dividing line that divides? Are we discussing geographical differences? Why not include Native Americans that wandered across the Siberian land bridge whose spirituality may have been influenced by Siberian Shamanism? Hebrew religions which date back to antiquity i.e, Mesopotamia?

 

All of these posit some sort of ontological reality. Which is why I asked how you defined relative and by what terms.

[Green Tiger]

It's possible to show that Atheism is faulty through the rules of logic. Logic is kind of like math...if you do the equation correctly, you arrive at something that's absolutely true.

 

Last time I studied it was a couple of years ago, so I'm really rusty...but maybe just for fun in the next few days I will dust off the textbook and write up something on this. Maybe.

 

 

To be honest, I respect a true atheist who asserts that there is no deity, and can come up with an argument for why they believe that. What annoys me is people who just haphazardly criticize those who do believe in a deity. Those people aren't atheists, they're assholes.

 

I don't think all logic is like math. Sure, math is a type of logic, but even if other types of logic follow the same sorts of patterns, numbers are not as malleable as ideas.

 

A lot of logical arguments concerning metaphysics use inductive reasoning, by which they use statements that are true to assert a conclusion which may be true or false. They are never iron clad or irrefutable.

 

 

EDITED: Because my ability to recall the different parts of logical reasoning and the terminology that applies to them is rusty as hell. I think inductive reasoning is the one I mean, but that might be erroneous.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Green Tiger

[RongzomFan]

 

To be honest, I respect a true atheist who asserts that there is no deity, and can come up with an argument for why they believe that. What annoys me is people who just haphazardly criticize those who do believe in a deity. Those people aren't atheists, they're assholes.

 

I believe in deities, but none of them are a Creator.

[ralis]

After nine pages, the same arguments arise that were posited thousands of years ago. Nothing has changed.

[Simple_Jack]

After nine pages, the same arguments arise that were posited thousands of years ago. Nothing has changed.

 

Which are all irrelevant to understanding our individual experiences of suffering.

[ralis]

Which are all irrelevant to understanding our individual experiences of suffering.

 

Please stay with the OP. The basic human need for wanting to know who we are, where do we come from, where are we going and what is the nature of existence are all questions at the root of human existence.

 

To be quite frank, I don't give a damn about all the Buddhist rants around suffering! Too much emphasis on one facet of life!

Edited December 5, 2013 by ralis

[Simple_Jack]

Please stay with the OP. The basic human need for wanting to know who we are, where do we come from, where are we going and what is the nature of existence are all questions at the root of human existence.

 

To be quite frank, I don't give a damn about all the Buddhist rants around suffering!

 

That's fine, but I think it would be more constructive if people worried more on how afflictions arise, how they endure, and how they cease, since these continue afflicted experience, which according to all Dharmic religions is responsible for furthering our perpetual confusion and migration through what is known as samsara (if you believe in that sort of thing.)

[adept]

To be quite frank, I don't give a damn about all the Buddhist rants around suffering!

 

Me neither.

I guess what I'm looking for is:

 

A valid path where I can enjoy life as best as possible whilst still believing in, and being mindful of a Supreme Creator. To give thanks and express my utmost gratitude to the Supreme Creator for having a life to do this. All this without man-made rules/regulations/restrictions.

Is there such a thing ?

[Brian]

 

Me neither.

I guess what I'm looking for is:

 

A valid path where I can enjoy life as best as possible whilst still believing in, and being mindful of a Supreme Creator. To give thanks and express my utmost gratitude to the Supreme Creator for having a life to do this. All this without man-made rules/regulations/restrictions.

Is there such a thing ?

Is it necessary to prove it to someone else's satisfaction?

[Jetsun]

That's fine, but I think it would be more constructive if people worried more on how afflictions arise, how they endure, and how they cease, since these continue afflicted experience, which according to all Dharmic religions is responsible for furthering our perpetual confusion and migration through what is known as samsara (if you believe in that sort of thing.)

 

Surrender to God is a legitimate way to transcend the ego and the suffering it perpetuates

[Simple_Jack]

Surrender to God is a legitimate way to transcend the ego and the suffering it perpetuates

 

Which is why the Indians have something called bhakti yoga, but jnana, karma and raja yoga should not be neglected.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

That's fine, but I think it would be more constructive if people were more preoccupied with how afflictions arise, how afflictions endure, and how afflictions cease, since these continue afflicted experience, which according to all Dharmic religions is responsible for furthering our perpetual confusion and migration through what is known as samsara (if you believe in that sort of thing.)

 

Bump.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[adept]

Is it necessary to prove it to someone else's satisfaction?

 

No, but it would make me feel better.

[adept]

http://youtu.be/-Ibc8sD5sgw

 

Amazing !

[RongzomFan]

Surrender to God is a legitimate way to transcend the ego and the suffering it perpetuates

 

Surrender to Amitabha hrih

[Jetsun]

Many of the famous Taoist teachers believe in God, like John Chang, Waysun Liao, Chunyi Lin and there are probably others. It seems like for these guys practice enhances their belief in God rather than diminish it, which probably goes back to what Manitou said earlier about studying the microcosm to understand the macrocosm and when you do that you understand where God exists within it all.