㊙️ THE STRONGEST ARGUMENT FOR ATHEISM (TSAFA)

[Old Things]

Obviously, authority can be abused.

Then its not a virtue to follow such authority.
Authority stems from self interest. An authority that compromises the well being is useless.

You have the same problem with a leader who is like a wet noodle with no backbone. Extremes in either direction can be bad. Authority is good when properly implemented.

 

[Old Things]

It depends on what Buddhism is and what makes it true or not.

Buddha was a real person. He lived and found the way to enlightenment.

Citation needed.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Citation needed.

There are texts for this. I do not have them, but they are various sources.

 

[Old Things]

Citation needed.

There are texts for this. I do not have them, but they are various sources.

Let me know when you can quote them and tell me when they were written.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Let me know when you can quote them and tell me when they were written.

I am not info channel. Just google it like normal people.
That said you acting like Buddhism does not exist is interesting.

 

[Old Things]

Let me know when you can quote them and tell me when they were written.

I am not info channel. Just google it like normal people.
That said you acting like Buddhism does not exist is interesting.

Of course, it exists. It's just not historically reliable.

 

[Black Rose]

Every documentary I saw said Siddhartha Gautama was a real person.

The story of his life was well-documented. What was controversial was what happened when people started to turn Buddhism into a religion because that was when mystical supernatural stuff got mixed in with his actual life.

 

[Old Things]

Every documentary I saw said Siddhartha Gautama was a real person.

The story of his life was well-documented. What was controversial was what happened when people started to turn Buddhism into a religion because that was when mystical supernatural stuff got mixed in with his actual life.

What is the earliest account of his life after he died? AFAIK, it wasn't until 500-800 years after he died. That's comparable to when Islam started compared to Christianity.

 

[Black Rose]

Every documentary I saw said Siddhartha Gautama was a real person.

The story of his life was well-documented. What was controversial was what happened when people started to turn Buddhism into a religion because that was when mystical supernatural stuff got mixed in with his actual life.

What is the earliest account of his life after he died? AFAIK, it wasn't until 500-800 years after he died. That's comparable to when Islam started compared to Christianity.

If that is true, who made up Buddhism? Who invented the man Siddhartha Gautama?

I read some of the Wikipedia articles on him and what documentations exist but I don't know if you accept Wikipedia as a valid source. Wikipedia does have links to valid sources though.

 

[ZenRaiden]

What is the earliest account of his life after he died? AFAIK, it wasn't until 500-800 years after he died. That's comparable to when Islam started compared to Christianity.

The Early Buddhist Texts contain no continuous life of the buddha, only later after 200 BCE were various "biographies" with much mythological embellishment written.[2] All texts agree however that Gautama renounced the householder life and lived as a sramana ascetic for some time studying under various teachers, before attaining nirvana (extinguishment) and bodhi (awakening) through meditation.

Sounds like the records of Buddha come 300 years after his death.
Either way Buddha was real historical figure.

 

[Old Things]

What is the earliest account of his life after he died? AFAIK, it wasn't until 500-800 years after he died. That's comparable to when Islam started compared to Christianity.

The Early Buddhist Texts contain no continuous life of the buddha, only later after 200 BCE were various "biographies" with much mythological embellishment written.[2] All texts agree however that Gautama renounced the householder life and lived as a sramana ascetic for some time studying under various teachers, before attaining nirvana (extinguishment) and bodhi (awakening) through meditation.

Sounds like the records of Buddha come 300 years after his death.
Either way Buddha was real historical figure.

That's fine. My point is not to say that Buddha was not a real person. My point is that it is not a religion that has very good historical argumentation for it.

 

[ZenRaiden]

My point is that it is not a religion that has very good historical argumentation for it.

Right, whats wrong with explaining to people how to live good life?

 

[Old Things]

My point is that it is not a religion that has very good historical argumentation for it.

Right, whats wrong with explaining to people how to live good life?

I don't understand the question.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I don't understand the question.

Buddhism is specifically a philosophy mixed with social and cultural and cosmological, sometimes deistic ideas.
Generally they all built on idea of how to alleviate suffering.

My point is that it is not a religion that has very good historical argumentation for it.

So you said this... which I don't follow?

 

[Old Things]

So you said this... which I don't follow?

At what point would you say there is good historical evidence for something? How far after the event(s) would you accept something to be historically reliable? Bart Erhman would put it 100 years after the event. That is still in the living memory. But if you get to 300 years after the event, well, it's possible that things have been distorted like the telephone game.

 

[ZenRaiden]

At what point would you say there is good historical evidence for something? How far after the event(s) would you accept something to be historically reliable? Bart Erhman would put it 100 years after the event. That is still in the living memory. But if you get to 300 years after the event, well, it's possible that things have been distorted like the telephone game.

Sure, but the things Buddhist say are experiential. They say do it and it works.
Just follow these rules and follow these things.
The thing is even Buddha actually never said to believe something.
He explicitly said everyone should believe in the things that work for them.
In essence the philosophy of Buddhism is empirical.

 

[Old Things]

At what point would you say there is good historical evidence for something? How far after the event(s) would you accept something to be historically reliable? Bart Erhman would put it 100 years after the event. That is still in the living memory. But if you get to 300 years after the event, well, it's possible that things have been distorted like the telephone game.

Sure, but the things Buddhist say are experiential. They say do it and it works.
Just follow these rules and follow these things.
The thing is even Buddha actually never said to believe something.
He explicitly said everyone should believe in the things that work for them.
In essence the philosophy of Buddhism is empirical.

To me, that just sounds like dead religion. If I wanted a list of things I wanted to do and not do, I would become a religious Jew. But I believe Christianity is a living breathing religion. It's not about following dos and don'ts that give live, but the Spirit of God that gives life abundantly. You can't will it into existence by your own effort. It has to come from an encounter with the living God.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

It has to come from an encounter

exactly

 

[Old Things]

It has to come from an encounter

exactly

"Draw near to God and He will draw near to you."

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

"Draw near to God and He will draw near to you."

should i move to my left

or to my right ?

 

[SteppeWanderer]

At what point would you say there is good historical evidence for something? How far after the event(s) would you accept something to be historically reliable? Bart Erhman would put it 100 years after the event. That is still in the living memory. But if you get to 300 years after the event, well, it's possible that things have been distorted like the telephone game.

Sure, but the things Buddhist say are experiential. They say do it and it works.
Just follow these rules and follow these things.
The thing is even Buddha actually never said to believe something.
He explicitly said everyone should believe in the things that work for them.
In essence the philosophy of Buddhism is empirical.

To me, that just sounds like dead religion. If I wanted a list of things I wanted to do and not do, I would become a religious Jew. But I believe Christianity is a living breathing religion. It's not about following dos and don'ts that give live, but the Spirit of God that gives life abundantly. You can't will it into existence by your own effort. It has to come from an encounter with the living God.

I struggle to find the proper term to describe what I want to describe, I believe it has never very often been termed or given explanation at length, for various reasons I am sure.

Personally I am kind of sensuous but not strictly in a sexual sense that you would easily conclude based on that description, but in fact, a way of feeling and experiencing the world and your senses very vividly. Colors, mood and lighting are very important to the general environment. The only closet explanation I could ever find in describing it is the alienation features quite tentatively in Karl Marx’s theories. I believe this to be to some extent what is meant by the absence of the alienation.

But that’s kind of what is closest to the profane and meaningful or even spiritual to me. Otherwise religion feels kind of flat by comparison, you’re kind of boxed in by scripture and it makes everything seem kind of dull and less dynamic.

 

[Old Things]

"Draw near to God and He will draw near to you."

should i move to my left

or to my right ?

I don't think you understand or are even trying to understand.

But that’s kind of what is closest to the profane and meaningful or even spiritual to me. Otherwise religion feels kind of flat by comparison, you’re kind of boxed in by scripture and it makes everything seem kind of dull and less dynamic.

Whoever told you that is what Christianity is like is lying to you.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Whoever told you that is what Christianity is like is lying to you.

good video


freedom = restriction

war = peace

fear = happiness

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

you’re kind of boxed in by scripture

A man becomes sick and goes to the doctor for help.

The doctor examines him and then writes out a prescription for some medicine.

The man has great faith in his doctor.

He returns home and in his prayer room he sets a beautiful picture of the doctor.

Then he sits down and pays respects to that picture or statue: he bows down three times, and offers flowers and incense.

And then he takes out the prescription that the doctor wrote for him, and very solemnly he recites it: “Two pills in the morning! Two pills in the afternoon! Two pills in the evening!”

All day, all life long he keeps reciting the prescription because he has great faith in the doctor, but still the prescription does not help him.

 

[SteppeWanderer]

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

@LOGICZOMBIE simply is making it clear that any atheist needs no justification for what they believe and if they do then that requires some kind of coercion.

bingo

 

[Old Things]

@LOGICZOMBIE simply is making it clear that any atheist needs no justification for what they believe and if they do then that requires some kind of coercion.

bingo

Be careful here. Atheists frequently demand evidence for religions and then reject whatever evidence they are given.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Be careful here. Atheists frequently demand evidence for religions and then reject whatever evidence they are given.

i think it's important that you know

i just discovered you have an incurable disease

this disease is undetectable

but has the horrifying effect of causing eternal torture if you die with it

so don't die

also,

i can cure this disease for you

if you dedicate your life to me and do what i say

and i can guarantee you'll be very happy about this generous arrangement

after you die

 

[Old Things]

Be careful here. Atheists frequently demand evidence for religions and then reject whatever evidence they are given.

i think it's important that you know

i just discovered you have an incurable disease

this disease is undetectable

but has the horrifying effect of causing eternal torture if you die with it

so don't die

also,

i can cure this disease for you

if you dedicate your life to me and do what i say

and i can guarantee you'll be very happy about this generous arrangement

after you die

You mock me. Not surprised. I have noticed your heart has gotten harder and harder since I have tried to share the truth with you.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

You mock me. Not surprised. I have noticed your heart has gotten harder and harder since I have tried to share the truth with you.

this seems like a claim that demands some level of "evidence"

 

[Old Things]

You mock me. Not surprised. I have noticed your heart has gotten harder and harder since I have tried to share the truth with you.

this seems like a claim that demands some level of "evidence"

I've provided evidence. You don't care about the evidence as many atheists do not.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I've provided evidence. You don't care about the evidence as many atheists do not.

i'm making the claim

that's the point of the disease example

now

don't you think my claim demands some sort of "evidence" ?

 

[Old Things]

I've provided evidence. You don't care about the evidence as many atheists do not.

i'm making the claim

that's the point of the disease example

now

don't you think my claim demands some sort of "evidence" ?

You die and rise from the dead and I will believe your claim.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

You die and rise from the dead and I will believe your claim.

already did that

reincarnated

 

[Old Things]

You die and rise from the dead and I will believe your claim.

already did that

reincarnated

Anything but Christianity, huh? See how that works for you on judgment day.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Anything but Christianity, huh? See how that works for you on judgment day.

Yeah, the thing is lots of people don't care about death or after death.
Such fear is pretty basic and not very spiritual imho.
Not that there is anything wrong about it, but what exactly do you have to prove there is such thing as judgment day, other than your conviction?
Also do you actually think I will stake mylife on a mere "word" of person?
If I were to do that Id be dead many times in my life.
It comes natural to be skeptical of peoples claims.
We just somehow have to shed the skepticism when it comes to Jesus stuff.
Because Jesus was wizard.
So wizards must be honest.
Whats more its not the words of wizards, but only his friends, and only after they were edited many times over.
Then conveyed by people to us, who cannot for the world of it, agree what those words mean.

 

[Old Things]

Anything but Christianity, huh? See how that works for you on judgment day.

Yeah, the thing is lots of people don't care about death or after death.
Such fear is pretty basic and not very spiritual imho.
Not that there is anything wrong about it, but what exactly do you have to prove there is such thing as judgment day, other than your conviction?
Also do you actually think I will stake mylife on a mere "word" of person?
If I were to do that Id be dead many times in my life.
It comes natural to be skeptical of peoples claims.
We just somehow have to shed the skepticism when it comes to Jesus stuff.
Because Jesus was wizard.
So wizards must be honest.
Whats more its not the words of wizards, but only his friends, and only after they were edited many times over.
Then conveyed by people to us, who cannot for the world of it, agree what those words mean.

Study 1 Corinthians 15 and I am pretty sure you will come out with a different perception. I don't think you will do this, but if you do, you will have a different outlook. See what the skeptics say about it. Then see what Christians say about it. Then make your own decision.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Study 1 Corinthians 15 and I am pretty sure you will come out with a different perception. I don't think you will do this, but if you do, you will have a different outlook. See what the skeptics say about it. Then see what Christians say about it. Then make your own decision.

I read it. Not sure what it means.
Seems to me its just Jesus saying his a big deal.

 

[Old Things]

Study 1 Corinthians 15 and I am pretty sure you will come out with a different perception. I don't think you will do this, but if you do, you will have a different outlook. See what the skeptics say about it. Then see what Christians say about it. Then make your own decision.

I read it. Not sure what it means.
Seems to me its just Jesus saying his a big deal.

I didn't say to just read it. I said to study it. I don't blame you if you don't, but if you look at what skeptics say about it and then when apologists say about it it might make you think twice about not believing the resurrection of Christ.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

about not believing the resurrection of Christ

weren't you the one talking about near-death-experiences ?

do you believe every single person who has died and come back to life ?

 

[Old Things]

about not believing the resurrection of Christ

weren't you the one talking about near-death-experiences ?

do you believe every single person who has died and come back to life ?

There are probably some fakes. I see no reason why there wouldn't be.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

There are probably some fakes. I see no reason why there wouldn't be.

for the ones that you don't believe are fakes

does the fact that someone died and came back

make everything they say automatically true ?

 

[Old Things]

There are probably some fakes. I see no reason why there wouldn't be.

for the ones that you don't believe are fakes

does the fact that someone died and came back

make everything they say automatically true ?

Of course not. But it is certainly evidence of SOMETHING.

 

[SteppeWanderer]

 

[Old Things]

That was not too bad!

 

[dr froyd]

what if jesus was the devil and devil was jesus?

what evidence do we have that this is not the case

 

[Old Things]

what if jesus was the devil and devil was jesus?

what evidence do we have that this is not the case

Jesus is called the Son of God. All evidence we have of Christ says he is the Son of God, the sacrificial Lamb, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. I suppose I would say anything is POSSIBLE, but it is never about what is possible, but what is probable.

It seems you are willing to entertain any idea, no matter how absurd, except for what the Bible records about Jesus.

 

[dr froyd]

what if jesus was the devil and devil was jesus?

what evidence do we have that this is not the case

Jesus is called the Son of God. All evidence we have of Christ says he is the Son of God, the sacrificial Lamb, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. I suppose I would say anything is POSSIBLE, but it is never about what is possible, but what is probable.

It seems you are willing to entertain any idea, no matter how absurd, except for what the Bible records about Jesus.

i simply try to avoid coming to undue conclusions

which leads me to that question. What you have given me is just restatements of the same claim: that jesus is not the devil. If you are telling me your evidence is that jesus said so, then we are back to square one. Are you telling me the devil cannot tell a lie? Or lacks the imagination to write a book?

 

[Old Things]

what if jesus was the devil and devil was jesus?

what evidence do we have that this is not the case

Jesus is called the Son of God. All evidence we have of Christ says he is the Son of God, the sacrificial Lamb, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. I suppose I would say anything is POSSIBLE, but it is never about what is possible, but what is probable.

It seems you are willing to entertain any idea, no matter how absurd, except for what the Bible records about Jesus.

i simply try to avoid coming to undue conclusions

which leads me to that question. What you have given me is just restatements of the same claim: that jesus is not the devil. If you are telling me your evidence is that jesus said so, then we are back to square one. Are you telling me the devil cannot tell a lie? Or lacks the imagination to write a book?

What is your evidence that Jesus is Satan? Can you cite a single verse in the whole Bible that says that? I have heard of this argument before. It often comes from extremist anti-missionary Ultra-Orthodox Jews. But as far as I know, you are not a Jew, least of all an Ultra-Orthodox Jew. I'd simply ask you for your evidence that Jesus is Satan. Because if what you are saying is true, it means all of Church history has been wrong about Jesus. So, come, tell me your evidence. Quote a verse from the Bible that says that Jesus is Satan. Otherwise, it is simply incredulity. In fact, it would be worse to say that Jesus was Satan than to say that Jesus never existed. So tell me why is it that no scholar of the NT whether atheist or agnostic or Christian believes Jesus is the same as Satan? Why are you right and everyone else is wrong? If you can't provide evidence, then you are just being incredibly arrogant.

 

[dr froyd]

ive sometimes wondered: when you look at the anti-life philosophy of jesus - the rejection of one's human nature and earthly life, the glorification of weakness, the various prototypical-communist last-shall-be-first ideas - that perhaps this is the work of the devil trying to lead us astray, into poverty of mind and body