Debunking a Creator

[RongzomFan]

Even you are a man of peace, if you are at a war, you fight.

 

Thats typical Muslim apologetics for the genocide of the Banu Qurayza ordered by Muhammed.

[Simple_Jack]

Do you not find it hypocritical then to speak about Nafs in others when you cannot even see the part you have assumed in this discussion?

 

CT, just as Buddhists are biased against 'impossible ways of existing' and the eternalist doctrines which posit an uncaused [first] cause, agent, perceiver, etc.: eternalists are biased against anyone or any doctrine which are at odds with these parameters. Therefore, we are all hypocrites in some way.

 

Say it along with me Brian, gatito, ralis, turtle shell, adept and everyone else: I'M A HYPOCRITE!!!

Edited December 10, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[Aetherous]

CT, just as Buddhists are biased against 'impossible ways of existing' and the eternalist doctrines which posit an uncaused [first] cause, agent, perceiver, etc.: eternalists are biased against anyone or any doctrine which are at odds with these parameters. Therefore, we are all hypocrites in some way.

 

Say it along with me Brian, gatito, ralis, turtle shell, adept and everyone else: I'M A HYPOCRITE!!!

 

Insulting yourself does not give you free rein to insult others, simply because you disagree with them. I've reported you. To be a hypocrite requires acting contrary to your argument, or having two conflicting arguments at once.

[Simple_Jack]

 

Insulting yourself does not give you free rein to insult others, simply because you disagree with them. I've reported you. To be a hypocrite requires acting contrary to your argument, or having two conflicting arguments at once.

 

To be a hypocrite is to exclude the Vedas, the Torah, the Bible, the Koran from the logical fallacies and double standards that have been presented by gatito, ralis, Brian, etc.

[Aetherous]

To be a hypocrite is to exclude the Vedas, the Torah, the Bible, the Koran from the logical fallacies and double standards that have been presented by gatito, ralis, Brian, etc.

 

I don't understand.

[Simple_Jack]

I don't understand.

 

Because you are biased against doctrines which find it meaningless to posit a creator god in order to understand the perpetuation of afflicted experience; just as I'm biased against eternalist doctrines which posit an uncaused [first] cause, agent, perceiver, etc.

[Aetherous]

Because you are biased against doctrines which find it meaningless to posit a creator god in order to understand the perpetuation of afflicted experience; just as I'm biased against eternalist doctrines which posit an uncaused [first] cause, agent, perceiver, etc.

 

No I'm not. I'm studying Buddhism right now. lol

[Brian]

I pointed out that the rules for logical discourse require the person making an assertion to defend that particular assertion rather than demand anyone challenging that assertion prove some imagined counter-assertion or be called names and treated rudely. If you somehow interpreted that as a hypocritical bias against dharmic religions or somehow believe that makes me a Christian apologist, I think perhaps you have more important things to work through than your grasping logic.

[Isimsiz Biri]

 

Thats typical Muslim apologetics for the genocide of the Banu Qurayza ordered by Muhammed.

He is trying to hide Buddhists killing Muslims in Myanmar. Actually, he approves those killings.

 

Needless to say, no such event about Banu Qurayza. Typical Satanic lie.

[RongzomFan]

Anyone can google "Banu Qurayza genocide"

[RongzomFan]

He is trying to hide Buddhists killing Muslims in Myanmar. Actually, he approves those killings.

Killing enemies of Buddhadharma needs to be done by high level tantriks who can send their consciousness to Sukhavati.

 

So no I don't approve.

[C T]

CT, just as Buddhists are biased against 'impossible ways of existing' and the eternalist doctrines which posit an uncaused [first] cause, agent, perceiver, etc.: eternalists are biased against anyone or any doctrine which are at odds with these parameters. Therefore, we are all hypocrites in some way.

 

Say it along with me Brian, gatito, ralis, turtle shell, adept and everyone else: I'M A HYPOCRITE!!!

Correct me if im mistaken, but biases are built on ignorant assumptions and beliefs, both of which are to be avoided as followers of Buddhadharma.

 

A genuine Dharma student's aim, if i remember correctly, is to remove such veils to get as close as possible to seeing things for exactly what they are, and the way towards this is to avoid speculative talks, parroting other people's experience, and to keep a distance from perpetuating discursiveness in one's communicative efforts.

 

If one speaks directly from one's personal experience, simultaneously avoiding the errors of envy and untruthfulness, then there is no possibility for hypocrisy to arise.

 

Buddhadharma in practice is concerned with uncovering what is real, and what is real should not have any trace of bias leanings.

[Stosh]

To be a hypocrite is to exclude the Vedas, the Torah, the Bible, the Koran from the logical fallacies and double standards that have been presented by gatito, ralis, Brian, etc.

I'm pretty sure I didn't endorse any of those... I dont see the connection which declares that being biased against views which one feels are confused ,renders one a hypocrite, since I didnt say that they couldnt be biased as well, against my views, on their grounds.

Have I missed some connection?

[Simple_Jack]

No I'm not. I'm studying Buddhism right now. lol

 

Yes, but based off of your previous statements in this thread, wouldn't this be from a biased position? Furthermore, what you are studying right now must submit to the authority of the former, by virtue of the inviolability of the position presented thus far. Therefore, the type of bias you are going to adhere to determines what type of hypocrite you become, since biases are an innate quality of the hypocrite. So, deciding upon upholding God as the alpha and omega or to upholding an uncaused [first] cause, agent, perceiver, etc. as untenable, decides the outcome of the hypocrisy.

 

I pointed out that the rules for logical discourse require the person making an assertion to defend that particular assertion rather than demand anyone challenging that assertion prove some imagined counter-assertion or be called names and treated rudely. If you somehow interpreted that as a hypocritical bias against dharmic religions or somehow believe that makes me a Christian apologist, I think perhaps you have more important things to work through than your grasping logic.

 

The hypocritical apologist subsumes other traditions into the authority of their own as expressions of their essence; such as the Vedantins on this forum who subsume all other traditions as the essence of their own [http://thetaobums.com/topic/32820-debunking-a-creator/?p=502904] or the followers of Abrahamic religions who subsume the worlds traditions under the authority of their respective Creator. Likewise, Buddhists subsume all other traditions as an expression of the buddha-vehicle, but with eternalist doctrines categorized as the "vehicle of gods and men"; thereby making it a type of hypocritical apologetics.

 

This makes me a hypocrite: if I can admit it, you can too.

[RongzomFan]

They only have the capacity to understand the vehicle of gods and men.

[Brian]

Oh, I've certainly been hypocritical before and I suspect I'll be hypocritical again. Not in this thread, though.

 

Out of curiosity, are you accusing me of being an Abrahamic hypocrite or a Vedantaic hypocrite?

 

FWIW, I espouse neither.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Brian

[Aetherous]

Simple Jack,

 

Yes, but based off of your previous statements in this thread, wouldn't this be from a biased position? Furthermore, what you are studying right now must submit to the authority of the former, by virtue of the inviolability of the position presented thus far.

 

Yes, I suppose you could say that is biased. But I prefer to think of myself as being open minded and able to consider multiple points of view, or traditions, at once. Unless something is shown to be absolutely true, I don't believe 100% in it.

 

RongzomFan,

 

They only have the capacity to understand the vehicle of gods and men.

 

Do you have the capacity to respond to my last post for you? By the way, reported for insulting the intelligence of other members without any reasoning behind it. I realize this is a common Buddhist turn of phrase, but that doesn't make it less insulting (and untrue).

Edited December 11, 2013 by turtle shell

[RongzomFan]

Pretty simple. "It's possible" is always the absolutely true answer to something totally unknown.

No its not.

 

That's the whole point with the dice.

 

[Aetherous]

No its not.

 

That's the whole point with the dice.

 

Ah, I see you didn't understand my post.

[RongzomFan]

 

Ah, I see you didn't understand my post.

 

I see you didn't understand the video.

[Aetherous]

I see you didn't understand the video.

 

You don't see where I showed my understanding of it, and then destroyed their false argument? It's back there in the post. Check it out!

[RongzomFan]

One has to justify possibility, not just claim it.

[Aetherous]

No, one doesn't have to according to real logic.

Edited December 11, 2013 by turtle shell

[RongzomFan]

No, one doesn't have to according to real logic.

Is it possible for a Chinese teapot orbiting mars to have been placed in orbit by Bigfoots, who are actually extraterrestrials wearing shaggy furs?

Edited December 11, 2013 by RongzomFan

[Aetherous]

There's a great possibility that there isn't...but it's also possible that there is. For instance, maybe someone in some kind of spaceship orbiting Mars has one there.

Also, to make a claim, you should provide evidence...otherwise it's meaningless.

To relate it back to this discussion...to claim that there is a God, one would need to provide evidence. To claim that there isn't a God (what this thread is supposed to be doing) one would need to provide evidence.

Absolute truth found through reasoning can be provided as evidence.

On the other hand, to claim the possibility of there being a God means there isn't enough evidence to provide, but that it's plausible. If it's not plausible, then one would need to provide sound reasoning for why it isn't. Then it would literally be impossible.

If something is not impossible, then it's always possible.

Also, if you wanted to make an argument regarding likelihood, it would have to be logically sound and not just based on personal opinion or emotion.

Edited December 11, 2013 by turtle shell