Dead men DO bleed! : On debating with theists.

midlandsmissus

midlandsmissus wrote:

Otherwise i'm sticking by my opinion. I'm not saying they're all exactly the same. i'm saying i'm sure god doesnt care which one you affiliate yourselves with.

Mlm, you are of course entitled to your opinion and noone has said contrary, but as I have said before please do not parade any of it as fact about the teachings of various religions.
See my edit on the Hindu religion.

My point on the buddhism may have been a little strong, and there are indeed different practices, however I was mostly reacting to the idea it could be similar to christianity. I would appreciate if you could read the link.

eoin5

Húrin wrote: »

And why is it a human trait?

Theres a few theories that are well grounded in reason, the one given in the god delusion involving memes is quite a good one.

Either way the emergence of religion is a lot more likely to be a trait than caused by any of the gods that are supposed to have created us.

Húrin wrote: »

(Possible) Cause: A real God who has given humans a thirst for him.
Effect: A thirst in humans for a real God.

In other words, if there's an appetite, then there is a food for it.

Wouldnt there be loads more possible reasons for peoples thirst for a real god other than a god implanting that thirst in them? Wouldnt indoctrination or desperation or a want to explain the unknowable be much more realistic possible factors?

Goduznt Xzst

JohnGalt wrote: »

when debating a theist I try to get an idea of how reasonable they are before I really put forward any arguments or attempt to refute theirs.

midlandsmissus

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Ah, yes, we should all go by what a fictional character says.

Zombrex

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Ah, yes, we should all go by what a fictional character says.

We should if it is true. :pac:

Having just popped over here from the Christianity forum where I was discussing how homosexuality came into being during the Fall of man, it really does boggle the mind how people can still believe this stuff after spending 5 minutes thinking about it.

One conclusion that it is hard not to arrive at is that they simply don't think about it.

The Christians get up in arms at the suggestion ("We reason just as much as the rest of you!", that sort of thing), but seriously this stuff when you actually look at what is actually supposed to have happened it off the wall

The most amusing part of all if it is that they (you?) seeming can't understand why someone like me doesn't believe? They can't understand that I don't accept that homosexuality is a sinful desire that appeared in the world as a consequence of Adam eating a fruit he was told not to.

Its like asking why I don't believe the world is on the back of a Snow Giant ... boggles the MIND

enda1

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Ah, yes, we should all go by what a fictional character says.

The ironing is delicious!

sink

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Ah, yes, we should all go by what a fictional character says.

You should take your own advice!

bou

bluewolf wrote: »

There are so many profound differences in the entire approach to either religion I don't even know where to start.

I suggest this link as some basic reading:
http://64.233.183.132/search?q=cache:YuR8oF2LKaoJ:ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/apologetics/AP3W1101.pdf

This article seems to be written by a Christian commentator who does present quite a few points for comparison from Buddhism. However, I don't think this accurately portrays a buddhist view. They seems to write in a way aiming to distance Buddhism from Christianity, maybe so as to protect Christians. It certainly is not written by a buddhist.

If I recall, the Susuki Roshi quote is taken a bit out of context. The idea of a buddhist considering Christianity as an enemy is I think quite wrong in many ways. He says "Buddhism is agnostic and practically speaking, atheistic (or in later form, polytheistic)." Agnostic, no. Atheistic, yes, but there is 'something' about our being which is infinite and beyond concept. Polytheistic, not really. Buddha is a kind of a saviour, in showing the path. Buddhism has faith (in Buddha Dharma and Sangha). I don't know what his problem with 'ignorance' and desire is. There is a kind of something to offend - your actions will have consequences. 'Eradication of the individual' is rather blunt and the truth more deep and subtle. 'Merging with the ultimate pantheistic-cosmic Buddha nature', not pantheistic; more like one with something undefinable. Then he lost me for a bit. Buddhism accepts Buddhism and doesn't endorse anything else. "... in Buddhism one finds it difficult to deny that life is ultimately not worth living" - he hasn't a clue about this. I grow too tired to comment on the last bit.

Buddhist teachers sometimes say that there are many paths towards truth and other paths than buddhism may bring you along the path. They also say that when one approaches realisation of ultimate truth, there is no Buddhism in that, no 'ism' of any kind.

In the teachings, it doesn't talk too much about other religions except as examples to point out some misunderstandings of the nature of reality which a buddhist practitioner could fall into.

Zombrex

enda1 wrote: »

The ironing is delicious!

LOL :pac:

MrPudding

Húrin wrote: »

No, he asked his followers to:

And we know this how....?

MrP

Zombrex

midlandsmissus wrote: »

All religions are based around a god obviously. These Gods in every religion have different names. In my opinion each god that people believe in is the same god. They just have different names due to different languages and cultures. Therefore this is not worshipping false idols etc. this is all worshipping the one god. so it doesn't matter what group you affiliate yourselves with. It doesnt matter.

Yes but you are ignoring that they require different things from us, have different personalities, and all the religions that contain different gods in the same religious system (polytheist religions)

So the argument really doesn't stand up to much assessment.

You can argue that they are all the same real entity, but then that simply means that all religions have got it very very wrong about what god is, how he acts and what he wants.

To me it seems more logically that gods simply don't exist, but that all humans have a predisposition to invent them, and model them based on their own cultures.

midlandsmissus

sink wrote: »

You should take your own advice!

just knew that one was coming!

Goduznt Xzst

Wicknight wrote: »

To me it seems more logically that gods simply don't exist, but that all humans have a predisposition to invent them, and model them based on their own cultures.

Reminds me of this quote:

"If triangles made a god, they would give him three sides." - Baron de Montesquieu