So you have evidence his claims are true? LOL
I want to talk with a militant atheist on God exists or not.
- Thread starter yrger
- Start date
According to what objective standard? Or is this a blind faith claim?
rossum
Active member
Yes I do have evidence: Buddhists 'really are happier'.
Prove it - and no links are not evidence - whats the objective definition of happy? LOL
rossum
Active member
So, I have no evidence that you exist -- all I have is a link. Since I have no evidence that you exist I do not need to waste my time replying to someone who cannot prove that they exist.
Of course, if you can provide some evidence that you exist, and that is not a link, then I might reconsider.
Notice she avoids the request and cant prove her claim nor present an objective standard. LOL
rossum
Active member
Notice she cannot prove that she even exists.
Notice she avoids the request and cant prove her claim nor present an objective standard. LOL
Dear Rossum, I see you to be into Buddha as into a 'quasi' God of a religion, the God I am explaining to exist, He is a God of reason, but I grant you that you enjoy what is called the privilege of faith in the modern contemporary society of the West.
Privilege of faith however does not give you any leave to disturb other people's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness: so when you Buddhist guys take to begging for food instead of working for food, or meditating in the traffic, government in the West might care to keep one or two eyes on you Buddhist guys.
Call it nirvana or call it salvation, it's still the same banana.
.
Nouveau
Well-known member
You're back on ignore until you're willing to answer my question without evasion.
Dear everyone, do you notice that Nouveau is always like that, he will quit when he sees that he is getting nowhere with me, in the practice of his baloney logic.
Okay, let me read your exposition of whatever you are into in re God exists or not, but without your bogus useless logic, as though your kind of logic is the only logic available for people who are into honest intelligent productive thinking.
He will say that I don't have any title to dictate what others do here, but who is dictating, I am just proposing - but with you, you will accept my proposal and then back out when the going is not to the direction of your bogus logic.
.
Okay, let me read your exposition of whatever you are into in re God exists or not, but without your bogus useless logic, as though your kind of logic is the only logic available for people who are into honest intelligent productive thinking.
He will say that I don't have any title to dictate what others do here, but who is dictating, I am just proposing - but with you, you will accept my proposal and then back out when the going is not to the direction of your bogus logic.
.
Okay, everyone readers, visitors, and my adversaries here, let us all go to the issue God exists or not.
What do you say about my idea that from the existence of transient things it follows that God exists, in concept as the permanent self-existent creator cause of man and the universe and everything transient with a beginning.
Keep in mind, that for you to talk about God exists or not, first and foremost present whatever information you have about what is God - that does not implicate you at all as to get yourselves ensnared into having committed yourselves to accept the existence of God.
Do it this way, with a disclaimer, like as follows:
.
What do you say about my idea that from the existence of transient things it follows that God exists, in concept as the permanent self-existent creator cause of man and the universe and everything transient with a beginning.
Keep in mind, that for you to talk about God exists or not, first and foremost present whatever information you have about what is God - that does not implicate you at all as to get yourselves ensnared into having committed yourselves to accept the existence of God.
Do it this way, with a disclaimer, like as follows:
- Disclaimer: the following information I (i.e. you) mention here is in no way any kind of any commitment that I endorse the existence of God, and I reserve the right to deny such an impression on the part of anyone who comes forward to claim: that I have already admitted the existence of God from my proffer of my information on what is God.
.
Ho hum,
Dear Nouveau, go back to your baloney logic and dwell there, you find comfort in it.
Now as usual you want me to waste my time and labor to argue with you on what you propose and what I propose, suppose you just present what information you have of God, and we will resume our honest intelligent productive thinking: in order to resolve the issue God exists or not.
Please! No more ho hum from you with your baloney logic, I am really so weary as to feel tedious and irksome with your presence that is of no profit altogether for me.
Tell you what, teach me something but not your bogus logic, okay?
.
Now as usual you want me to waste my time and labor to argue with you on what you propose and what I propose, suppose you just present what information you have of God, and we will resume our honest intelligent productive thinking: in order to resolve the issue God exists or not.
Please! No more ho hum from you with your baloney logic, I am really so weary as to feel tedious and irksome with your presence that is of no profit altogether for me.
Tell you what, teach me something but not your bogus logic, okay?
.
Nouveau
Well-known member
I don't use 'bogus logic'. I gave you a direct academic textbook citation to support my use of logic and you never replied.
If you are retreating back to your usual evasions then you can expect to be ignored.
I have made this same point countless times, and no one seems to be able to take it seriously. Most people think that they exist, yet they can't begin to prove it. They believe it is self evident.
rossum
Active member
The Buddha is not a god. A god may be a Buddha, as may a human being.
It is said that soon after his enlightenment the Buddha passed a man on the road who was struck by the Buddha's extraordinary radiance and peaceful presence. The man stopped and asked,
"My friend, what are you? Are you a celestial being or a god?"
"No," said the Buddha.
"Well, then, are you some kind of magician or wizard?"
Again the Buddha answered, "No."
"Are you a man?"
"No."
"Well, my friend, then what are you?"
The Buddha replied, "I am awake."
Matthew 25:35 "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink". How can you give food and drink if no-one is begging? By begging for food, Buddhist monks give others the opportunity for charity, which is a virtue in both religions.
No it is not. The Buddha was enlightened at age 35. He died age 80. For 45 years he was simultaneously in the ordinary world and in nirvana. Nirvana is not somewhere else; nirvana is here and now. You just need to be awake to realise it.
rossum
Active member
My reply was not deeply philosophical. It was a response to one of ferengi's standard tropes: "links are not evidence". I was merely playing it back in a slightly different key.