Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Jainism - guide for the new atheist

Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 12:59:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Dear, msiinformed foolish atheist.

Jainism is pantheistic. It follows the belief that in nature there is god, yes. Why? Well they pray or rather, worship the world. My reference? The Namokar Mantra, the Jainist equiviant to the lords prayer, it goes as follows:

Namo Arihantânam
Namo Siddhânam
Namo Âyariyânam
Namo Uvajjhâyanam
Namo Loe Savva Sahûnam
Eso Panch Namokkaro, Savva Pâvappanâsano
Mangalanam Cha Savvesim, Padhamam Havai Mangalam

I bow to the Arihantâs (Prophets)
I bow to the Siddhâs (Liberated Souls).
I bow to the Âchâryas (Preceptors or Spiritual Leaders).
I bow to the Upadhyâya (Teachers).
I bow to all the Sadhûs (Saints).
This fivefold bow (mantra) destroys all sins and obstacles
and of all auspicious mantras, is the first and foremost one.


But that's just one reason. You "humanists" of the west mistake Jainist self worship and the worship of nature as your own human loving morality(which itself is just a modern revival of romance hedonism). Humanism is an excuse for a ethic that allows you to live without following the nihilist most honest way of life (though there is nothing inherently wrong with logical dishonestly, it's common). To call Jainism atheist has the same logical integrity as calling Scientology agnostic.

Jainism is a nastika faith. Nastika being a more materialist form of faith, translating the term into atheist isn't entirely correct. Nastika, though not believing in a afterlife or living deity/a jiva, they share the same dogma and rituals that astika have. Their focus just pressed greater emphasis on the present, the earthed, and not the future, the ascended. Nastika schools more or less died out as Modern Hinduism expanded for reasons I will explain later.

The unatheistic and pantheistic nature of Jainism is evident in their worship and prayer of all things natural but also in the fact that Jains have their own cosmetology and myths. An example is the Kalacakra, the wheel of time. As time passes it changes to accommodate the wisdom and happiness of the people(a.k.a adherence to faith). You live longer and longer and get taller and taller. In times of great happiness you live 705.6 Quintillion Years and are 1.5km tall. [Read - Tri-shashthi-shalaka-purusha-charitr – all there, lol]

Other examples of prayer and nature worship are:
-Mahavira worship
-Arhat, enlightened souls.
-Siddhas, angel/ghost souls.
-and many more uncommon deities.

sh1t religon is sh1t
Jainism is a dead religion, nastika faiths more or less died or were absorbed into other astika religions that's why Jainism is locked in one state. Nastika groups are much like the same a Christian dissident groups throughout the dark ages. People just don't like to do things without a informal rational process(that is to say, conclusions that don't follow their axioms, very much like an informal fallacy); Jainism tells people to do things dogmatically because... you must. It lacks the message from the omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscience god(religious blackmail if you like), or in Hindu theology venatorpotens, natatpotens or vitaepotens. Jainism only persists due to the 1.6 billion Indians state that keep the several tens of millions Jainists alive. By proportion Jainists are a very low minority indeed and exist in large only because of the insulation and huge proportions India endures. For a better explanation see religious anthropology, the Indian subcontinent is a prime example of the history and evolution of religion.

tl;dr - Jainism, Atheist? Nope. There's a reason it's called a religion and not a Ethic.

P.S - Would you like me to explain Taoism and the teachings of Zhuangzi and Laozi too?
'sup DDO -- july 2013
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 1:09:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 12:59:02 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

P.S - Would you like me to explain Taoism and the teachings of Zhuangzi and Laozi too?

Nope that's okay. No God no religion. If the Dali Lama can make up definitions so can I. I don't talk as purdy as he does though.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 1:10:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"There is no supreme divine creator, owner, preserver or destroyer. The universe is self-regulated and every soul has the potential to achieve divine consciousness (siddha) through its own efforts." -- Wikipedia

Jain scripture: "Some foolish men declare that a creator made the world. The doctrine that the world was created is ill advised and should be rejected. If God created the world, where was he before the creation? If you say he was transcendent then and needed no support, where is he now? How could God have made this world without any raw material? If you say that he made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression."

Btw, you provide no evidence to say its Pantheistic.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 1:15:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 1:09:47 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/4/2010 12:59:02 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

P.S - Would you like me to explain Taoism and the teachings of Zhuangzi and Laozi too?

Nope that's okay. No God no religion.

Bare assertion. And all dictionaries and evidence points to the contrary.

If the Dali Lama can make up definitions so can I.

When did the Dalai Lama ever make up a definition? He never even attempted to define religion (well, at least in the thread that I quoted him).

All the Dalai Lama said was that Buddhism is a godless religion (which is FACT), but he did not try to actually define what religion is. Please tell me why you think he did or show me the direct quote where he tried to define religion.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 1:16:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 1:10:18 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"There is no supreme divine creator, owner, preserver or destroyer. The universe is self-regulated and every soul has the potential to achieve divine consciousness (siddha) through its own efforts." -- Wikipedia

Jain scripture: "Some foolish men declare that a creator made the world. The doctrine that the world was created is ill advised and should be rejected. If God created the world, where was he before the creation? If you say he was transcendent then and needed no support, where is he now? How could God have made this world without any raw material? If you say that he made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression."
Tell me, do pantheist religions have a creator or is the earth omnipresent(like in Jain faith)?

Btw, you provide no evidence to say its Pantheistic.
The Sadhus and Sadhvis are based on respect for Jiva, they pray for jiva as well.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 1:18:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 1:09:47 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/4/2010 12:59:02 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

P.S - Would you like me to explain Taoism and the teachings of Zhuangzi and Laozi too?

Nope that's okay. No God no religion. If the Dali Lama can make up definitions so can I. I don't talk as purdy as he does though.
Taoism is much more pantheistic than Jainism, it would be easy.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 1:21:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 1:18:10 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 11/4/2010 1:09:47 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/4/2010 12:59:02 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

P.S - Would you like me to explain Taoism and the teachings of Zhuangzi and Laozi too?

Nope that's okay. No God no religion. If the Dali Lama can make up definitions so can I. I don't talk as purdy as he does though.
Taoism is much more pantheistic than Jainism, it would be easy.
Tao Te Ching and Laozi are blatant pantheists.

Geo do you deny this?
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 1:25:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 1:10:18 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"There is no supreme divine creator, owner, preserver or destroyer. The universe is self-regulated and every soul has the potential to achieve divine consciousness (siddha) through its own efforts." -- Wikipedia

Jain scripture: "Some foolish men declare that a creator made the world. The doctrine that the world was created is ill advised and should be rejected. If God created the world, where was he before the creation?

Transcendent, not needing the physical universe.

If you say he was transcendent then and needed no support, where is he now?

Obviously, still quite transcendent. You expect to see him sitting on the park benches reading the newspaper?

How could God have made this world without any raw material?

He commanded it to be, and it sprang into existence. He has power over the nature of reality itself, being the one that created the framework of our reality, and actually being outside of our reality and unaffected by it.

It's not that He needed materials to make it out of; He actually made the reality that it needed to exist.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 1:30:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 1:15:40 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/4/2010 1:09:47 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/4/2010 12:59:02 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

P.S - Would you like me to explain Taoism and the teachings of Zhuangzi and Laozi too?

Nope that's okay. No God no religion.

Bare assertion. And all dictionaries and evidence points to the contrary.

If the Dali Lama can make up definitions so can I.

When did the Dalai Lama ever make up a definition? He never even attempted to define religion (well, at least in the thread that I quoted him).

All the Dalai Lama said was that Buddhism is a godless religion (which is FACT), but he did not try to actually define what religion is. Please tell me why you think he did or show me the direct quote where he tried to define religion.

By claiming "godless religion" he is qualifying the word religion thus defining it.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

Geo, why do you care? Oh....because the Dali said so it must be so. Is he infallible? Was Buddha infallible? He had a little eating disorder so he wasn't without defect.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 1:42:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 1:30:02 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/4/2010 1:15:40 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/4/2010 1:09:47 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/4/2010 12:59:02 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

P.S - Would you like me to explain Taoism and the teachings of Zhuangzi and Laozi too?

Nope that's okay. No God no religion.

Bare assertion. And all dictionaries and evidence points to the contrary.

If the Dali Lama can make up definitions so can I.

When did the Dalai Lama ever make up a definition? He never even attempted to define religion (well, at least in the thread that I quoted him).

All the Dalai Lama said was that Buddhism is a godless religion (which is FACT), but he did not try to actually define what religion is. Please tell me why you think he did or show me the direct quote where he tried to define religion.

By claiming "godless religion" he is qualifying the word religion thus defining it.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

False. Considering Buddhism as a religion is not the same as defining what religion is.

Geo, why do you care? Oh....because the Dali said so it must be so.

Strawman.

Is he infallible?

I never claimed that. I already explained an I invoked the Dalai Lama. Zets claimed that the the dominant view of Buddhism was Theistic so I countered that by saying the dominant view is not theistic because even the Dalai Lama is non-theistic and says Buddhism is non-theistic.

My use of the Dalai Lama is to express what the dominant view is, NOT what truth is.

Was Buddha infallible?

First of all, red herring. Secondly, the Buddha is not inherently infallible, but he has yet to be falsified.

He had a little eating disorder so he wasn't without defect.

That was before he attained in Enlightenment. The Buddha was on a journey seeking Enlightenment and practiced asceticism which involved eating one grain of rice a day and became very skinny. But he then concluded that asceticism is not the way and went back to eating moderately only to fulfill the body's needs (he was never fat if that's what you're thinking).

Btw, (since were on red herrings) Jesus was supporsed to be God, yet he experienced immense pain and he also had a temper tantrum and went berserk on a synagogue. That seems even more of a problematic defect for someone claiming Godhood.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 2:01:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 1:42:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/4/2010 1:30:02 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/4/2010 1:15:40 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/4/2010 1:09:47 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/4/2010 12:59:02 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

P.S - Would you like me to explain Taoism and the teachings of Zhuangzi and Laozi too?

Nope that's okay. No God no religion.

Bare assertion. And all dictionaries and evidence points to the contrary.

If the Dali Lama can make up definitions so can I.

When did the Dalai Lama ever make up a definition? He never even attempted to define religion (well, at least in the thread that I quoted him).

All the Dalai Lama said was that Buddhism is a godless religion (which is FACT), but he did not try to actually define what religion is. Please tell me why you think he did or show me the direct quote where he tried to define religion.

By claiming "godless religion" he is qualifying the word religion thus defining it.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

False. Considering Buddhism as a religion is not the same as defining what religion is.
No, it's like saying that rock is a non-breathing stationary mammal.

Geo, why do you care? Oh....because the Dali said so it must be so.

Strawman.
Just curious. Sheesh.

Is he infallible?

I never claimed that. I already explained an I invoked the Dalai Lama. Zets claimed that the the dominant view of Buddhism was Theistic so I countered that by saying the dominant view is not theistic because even the Dalai Lama is non-theistic and says Buddhism is non-theistic.

My use of the Dalai Lama is to express what the dominant view is, NOT what truth is.

Was Buddha infallible?

First of all, red herring. Secondly, the Buddha is not inherently infallible, but he has yet to be falsified.
That's because he communicated in nebulous gobbledygook.

He had a little eating disorder so he wasn't without defect.

That was before he attained in Enlightenment. The Buddha was on a journey seeking Enlightenment and practiced asceticism which involved eating one grain of rice a day and became very skinny. But he then concluded that asceticism is not the way and went back to eating moderately only to fulfill the body's needs (he was never fat if that's what you're thinking).

Btw, (since were on red herrings) Jesus was supporsed to be God, yet he experienced immense pain and he also had a temper tantrum and went berserk on a synagogue. That seems even more of a problematic defect for someone claiming Godhood.

We aren't really talking about Chris here are we?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 2:18:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 2:09:11 PM, Mirza wrote:
It was once monotheistic, and so was Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. People have corrupted these religions.

Present your evidence.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 2:18:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 2:18:16 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/4/2010 2:09:11 PM, Mirza wrote:
It was once monotheistic, and so was Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. People have corrupted these religions.

Present your evidence.
Present your original, if you possess it - which you do not.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 2:27:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 2:01:06 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/4/2010 1:42:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/4/2010 1:30:02 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/4/2010 1:15:40 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/4/2010 1:09:47 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/4/2010 12:59:02 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

P.S - Would you like me to explain Taoism and the teachings of Zhuangzi and Laozi too?

Nope that's okay. No God no religion.

Bare assertion. And all dictionaries and evidence points to the contrary.

If the Dali Lama can make up definitions so can I.

When did the Dalai Lama ever make up a definition? He never even attempted to define religion (well, at least in the thread that I quoted him).

All the Dalai Lama said was that Buddhism is a godless religion (which is FACT), but he did not try to actually define what religion is. Please tell me why you think he did or show me the direct quote where he tried to define religion.

By claiming "godless religion" he is qualifying the word religion thus defining it.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

False. Considering Buddhism as a religion is not the same as defining what religion is.
No, it's like saying that rock is a non-breathing stationary mammal.

False categorization is not the same as defining a word. It may be false to categorize Buddhism as a religion (disputable), but it's not the same as actually defining the word "religion."

False categorization =/= false definition

Geo, why do you care? Oh....because the Dali said so it must be so.

Strawman.
Just curious. Sheesh.

Is he infallible?

I never claimed that. I already explained an I invoked the Dalai Lama. Zets claimed that the the dominant view of Buddhism was Theistic so I countered that by saying the dominant view is not theistic because even the Dalai Lama is non-theistic and says Buddhism is non-theistic.

My use of the Dalai Lama is to express what the dominant view is, NOT what truth is.

Was Buddha infallible?

First of all, red herring. Secondly, the Buddha is not inherently infallible, but he has yet to be falsified.
That's because he communicated in nebulous gobbledygook.

If that were the case, the Buddhas philosophy wouldn't be highly revered by great philosophers. No serious philosopher has ever claimed Buddhism is "gobbledygook" or incoherent. Even Bertrand Russel praised Buddhism.

He had a little eating disorder so he wasn't without defect.

That was before he attained in Enlightenment. The Buddha was on a journey seeking Enlightenment and practiced asceticism which involved eating one grain of rice a day and became very skinny. But he then concluded that asceticism is not the way and went back to eating moderately only to fulfill the body's needs (he was never fat if that's what you're thinking).

Btw, (since were on red herrings) Jesus was supporsed to be God, yet he experienced immense pain and he also had a temper tantrum and went berserk on a synagogue. That seems even more of a problematic defect for someone claiming Godhood.

We aren't really talking about Chris here are we?

Youre the one who went off topic by bringing up Buddha when the topic was "the Dalai Lama and religion," so I basically said "since were off-topic, let me bring up Jesus."

If you knew what "red herring" meant, you would understand that. You bringing up Buddha was a red herring, so I said, while were bringing up red herrings, let me mention Jesus.

Hint: red herring = off topic
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 2:30:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 2:18:38 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 11/4/2010 2:18:16 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/4/2010 2:09:11 PM, Mirza wrote:
It was once monotheistic, and so was Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. People have corrupted these religions.

Present your evidence.
Present your original, if you possess it - which you do not.

You make the claim, you bring the evidence.

Your claim is that the three Eastern religions were originally monotheistic, so the burden is on you to demonstrate that to be true. I can present evidence to the contrary, but the burden is not on me.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 2:41:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 2:30:28 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
You make the claim, you bring the evidence.

Your claim is that the three Eastern religions were originally monotheistic, so the burden is on you to demonstrate that to be true. I can present evidence to the contrary, but the burden is not on me.
Their moral stances stem from religion. Their scriptures were also heavily influenced by monotheism, and the main Hindu scriptures still speak of One God Almighty. The Buddhists have strayed away from monotheism due to corrupt beliefs in what their ancestors would condemn today. Buddha was a man of high morals, and he was a monotheist. I will stand by my claim. In fact, you are the one who always claims that Buddha denied God, and I am asking you to bring original evidence. It took Buddhists 400 years to agree on what he said, and they forgot most of it, unfortunately.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 2:47:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 2:27:28 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/4/2010 2:01:06 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/4/2010 1:42:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/4/2010 1:30:02 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/4/2010 1:15:40 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/4/2010 1:09:47 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/4/2010 12:59:02 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

P.S - Would you like me to explain Taoism and the teachings of Zhuangzi and Laozi too?

Nope that's okay. No God no religion.

Bare assertion. And all dictionaries and evidence points to the contrary.

If the Dali Lama can make up definitions so can I.

When did the Dalai Lama ever make up a definition? He never even attempted to define religion (well, at least in the thread that I quoted him).

All the Dalai Lama said was that Buddhism is a godless religion (which is FACT), but he did not try to actually define what religion is. Please tell me why you think he did or show me the direct quote where he tried to define religion.

By claiming "godless religion" he is qualifying the word religion thus defining it.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

False. Considering Buddhism as a religion is not the same as defining what religion is.
No, it's like saying that rock is a non-breathing stationary mammal.

False categorization is not the same as defining a word. It may be false to categorize Buddhism as a religion (disputable), but it's not the same as actually defining the word "religion."

False categorization =/= false definition
Stop being so damn anal, you know exactly what i mean.

Geo, why do you care? Oh....because the Dali said so it must be so.

Strawman.
Just curious. Sheesh.

Is he infallible?

I never claimed that. I already explained an I invoked the Dalai Lama. Zets claimed that the the dominant view of Buddhism was Theistic so I countered that by saying the dominant view is not theistic because even the Dalai Lama is non-theistic and says Buddhism is non-theistic.

My use of the Dalai Lama is to express what the dominant view is, NOT what truth is.

Was Buddha infallible?

First of all, red herring. Secondly, the Buddha is not inherently infallible, but he has yet to be falsified.
That's because he communicated in nebulous gobbledygook.

If that were the case, the Buddhas philosophy wouldn't be highly revered by great philosophers. No serious philosopher has ever claimed Buddhism is "gobbledygook" or incoherent. Even Bertrand Russel praised Buddhism.
Like i said before, it sounds purdy.

He had a little eating disorder so he wasn't without defect.

That was before he attained in Enlightenment. The Buddha was on a journey seeking Enlightenment and practiced asceticism which involved eating one grain of rice a day and became very skinny. But he then concluded that asceticism is not the way and went back to eating moderately only to fulfill the body's needs (he was never fat if that's what you're thinking).

Btw, (since were on red herrings) Jesus was supporsed to be God, yet he experienced immense pain and he also had a temper tantrum and went berserk on a synagogue. That seems even more of a problematic defect for someone claiming Godhood.

We aren't really talking about Chris here are we?

Youre the one who went off topic by bringing up Buddha when the topic was "the Dalai Lama and religion," so I basically said "since were off-topic, let me bring up Jesus."

If you knew what "red herring" meant, you would understand that. You bringing up Buddha was a red herring, so I said, while were bringing up red herrings, let me mention Jesus.

Hint: red herring = off topic

I know what a red herring is, thanks. I simply said "if the dali lama can make up definitions so can i". That was my great divergence from the topic that brought us here.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2010 3:52:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 2:41:03 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 11/4/2010 2:30:28 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
You make the claim, you bring the evidence.

Your claim is that the three Eastern religions were originally monotheistic, so the burden is on you to demonstrate that to be true. I can present evidence to the contrary, but the burden is not on me.
Their moral stances stem from religion.

That doesn't make sense. They ARE religions, so you can't say they stem from "religion."

Their scriptures were also heavily influenced by monotheism,

I doubt that's true (present evidence please), but even if it is true, just because a philosophy is INFLUENCED by monotheism does not necessarily mean that the philosophy is monotheistic.

Here's how you can prove your claims. Find the oldest canonical doctrines of each religion and show me which passages from ancient scripture that assert a monotheistic view. If you can't do that, then you have no basis to claim they are monotheistic.

and the main Hindu scriptures still speak of One God Almighty.

That part is true, and I agree that Hinduism is monotheistic.

The Buddhists have strayed away from monotheism due to corrupt beliefs in what their ancestors would condemn today.

When talking about Buddhist doctrine which is based in scripture, it doesn't matter what certain Buddhists believe. What matters is what the oldest scripture claims.

Buddha was a man of high morals,

And so is Richard Dawkins. Being a moral person =/= Theist.

and he was a monotheist.

No evidence for that assertion.

In fact, you are the one who always claims that Buddha denied God, and I am asking you to bring original evidence.

Ok. Here's DIRECT evidence straight from the OLDEST Buddhist scripture.

Read this passage from the Culla Vagga 6:2; Tipitaka: http://www.debate.org...

For more ancient Buddhist scripture on God, see here, 3rd post: http://www.debate.org...

It took Buddhists 400 years to agree on what he said,

False. It took them about 400 years to put it in writing.

and they forgot most of it, unfortunately.

Baseless assertion. Got any proof for that claim?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2010 7:33:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
From a rational perspective,

> Jainism came from a deity based theistic religion.
> Judaism came from a polytheistic religion.

If you agree to the first you must agree to the second, Mirza.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2010 12:19:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 12:59:02 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
P.S - Would you like me to explain Taoism and the teachings of Zhuangzi and Laozi too?

I'd love it! :)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2010 12:24:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 1:21:29 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Tao Te Ching and Laozi are blatant pantheists.

Geo do you deny this?

I would say that in the laozi there's a spattering of silliness that might lead you to conclude that... though I'm pretty sure it DOESN'T ONCE really suggest that "the Dao" is conscious...

but, I doubt the Original form had such things... and the concept of "the Dao" holds it's own in the Laozi without the silliness of people worshipping it.

and Zhuangzi = gold
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2010 12:25:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 1:18:10 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 11/4/2010 1:09:47 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/4/2010 12:59:02 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

P.S - Would you like me to explain Taoism and the teachings of Zhuangzi and Laozi too?

Nope that's okay. No God no religion. If the Dali Lama can make up definitions so can I. I don't talk as purdy as he does though.
Taoism is much more pantheistic than Jainism, it would be easy.

philosophical daoism is NOT pantheistic.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2010 12:28:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/5/2010 12:25:54 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 11/4/2010 1:18:10 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 11/4/2010 1:09:47 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/4/2010 12:59:02 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

P.S - Would you like me to explain Taoism and the teachings of Zhuangzi and Laozi too?

Nope that's okay. No God no religion. If the Dali Lama can make up definitions so can I. I don't talk as purdy as he does though.
Taoism is much more pantheistic than Jainism, it would be easy.

philosophical daoism is NOT pantheistic.

Philosophical daoism? Where's the distinction.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2010 1:25:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/5/2010 12:28:08 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Philosophical daoism? Where's the distinction.

I'd say "Religious" daoists are religious b/c they put value on "the dao".. they would think the dao's value is Transcendental too.. they worship the dao.
(also, some Daoist works have silly supernatural beliefs tied in.. Energy rays.. alchemy to become immortal.. and other cultural things which get mixed in)

the Zhuangzi, however, makes it very clear that valuation (along with ALL other assertive knowledge) is done from a certain perspective... it is Utterly Perspective BOUND... thus, the dao cannot be Transcendentally valuable….
Value can only come from a particular perspective…
and though he seems to be of the same tradition as laozi... with similar ideas... he hardly speaks of the dao by that/any name...

and nowhere does zhuangzi do anything "worship" it... or deify it.

the laozi clearly has the same message throughout much of it (saying you can't say anything assertive about the dao) but it's muddled by other stuff too... like trying to talk about PERSPECTIVE BOUND Ethics/valuation... even Political perspectives... at the level of the dao... where nothing "ought" to be any way... things just Are... At the level where there's no perspective to take.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2010 11:53:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/4/2010 1:42:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/4/2010 1:30:02 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/4/2010 1:15:40 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/4/2010 1:09:47 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/4/2010 12:59:02 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

P.S - Would you like me to explain Taoism and the teachings of Zhuangzi and Laozi too?

Nope that's okay. No God no religion.

Bare assertion. And all dictionaries and evidence points to the contrary.

If the Dali Lama can make up definitions so can I.

When did the Dalai Lama ever make up a definition? He never even attempted to define religion (well, at least in the thread that I quoted him).

All the Dalai Lama said was that Buddhism is a godless religion (which is FACT), but he did not try to actually define what religion is. Please tell me why you think he did or show me the direct quote where he tried to define religion.

By claiming "godless religion" he is qualifying the word religion thus defining it.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

False. Considering Buddhism as a religion is not the same as defining what religion is.

Geo, why do you care? Oh....because the Dali said so it must be so.

Strawman.

Is he infallible?

I never claimed that. I already explained an I invoked the Dalai Lama. Zets claimed that the the dominant view of Buddhism was Theistic so I countered that by saying the dominant view is not theistic because even the Dalai Lama is non-theistic and says Buddhism is non-theistic.

My use of the Dalai Lama is to express what the dominant view is, NOT what truth is.

Was Buddha infallible?

First of all, red herring. Secondly, the Buddha is not inherently infallible, but he has yet to be falsified.

He had a little eating disorder so he wasn't without defect.

That was before he attained in Enlightenment. The Buddha was on a journey seeking Enlightenment and practiced asceticism which involved eating one grain of rice a day and became very skinny. But he then concluded that asceticism is not the way and went back to eating moderately only to fulfill the body's needs (he was never fat if that's what you're thinking).

Btw, (since were on red herrings) Jesus was supporsed to be God, yet he experienced immense pain and he also had a temper tantrum and went berserk on a synagogue. That seems even more of a problematic defect for someone claiming Godhood.
Just wanted to clear this up.....Jesus was not God. He was his son, if you cant see the difference between the two.... also since when does our God not have emotions? He is constantly described as both a loving and a jealous God. Also there is that whole wrath thing he is
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2010 11:57:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/8/2010 11:53:49 AM, MarquisX wrote:

Just wanted to clear this up.....Jesus was not God. He was his son, if you cant see the difference between the two.... also since when does our God not have emotions? He is constantly described as both a loving and a jealous God. Also there is that whole wrath thing he is

Are you a unitarian christian then?
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2010 12:10:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/8/2010 11:57:22 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/8/2010 11:53:49 AM, MarquisX wrote:

Just wanted to clear this up.....Jesus was not God. He was his son, if you cant see the difference between the two.... also since when does our God not have emotions? He is constantly described as both a loving and a jealous God. Also there is that whole wrath thing he is

Are you a unitarian christian then?
There is no term or label for my beliefs yet
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2010 10:39:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/8/2010 12:10:08 PM, MarquisX wrote:
At 11/8/2010 11:57:22 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/8/2010 11:53:49 AM, MarquisX wrote:

Just wanted to clear this up.....Jesus was not God. He was his son, if you cant see the difference between the two.... also since when does our God not have emotions? He is constantly described as both a loving and a jealous God. Also there is that whole wrath thing he is

Are you a unitarian christian then?
There is no term or label for my beliefs yet

Ok, fair enough.