Have you ever questioned other peoples beliefs?

@Setanta,

I quite like contributing to the 'Caption Competition'... you know you weren't trying to be humorous just stirring as usual. Now **** off and bother someone else. Laughing

1 Reply

@igm,

Hey, dipshit, you want to play this game? What evidence can you provide that your boy Siddartha ever achieved enlightenment? What evidence to you have that there is any such thing as enlightenment? What evidence do you have that there are degrees of enlightenment? In short, what evidence do you have fo your favorite blind-faith superstition?

I am following the theme of the thread, i am questioning your beliefs.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

What do you mean by enlightenment... if we agree on the term I'll go from there.

Again, you've made a statement but not given any reasons to back it up!

e.g. The Buddha (subject) was not enlightened (predicate) (both together is the proposition or thesis (what is being claimed) the reasoning (none so far from you) and finally an example (again none so far from you).

3 Replies

@igm,

Amended my previous post.

0 Replies

@igm,

I once asked you what peasants who could barely feed their families, but nevertheless fed the useless mouths of Buddhist monks could do to end their suffering. Your response, which you gave again and again, was that the way to end suffering is enlightenment. So you obviously believe that there is such a thing as enlightenment. You're also full of ****, as usual. I didn't make a statement, i asked a series of questions. So far, i'll have to assume that you cannot defend your beliefs, and that you are trying to divert the discussion because you can't.

1 Reply

The Free Dictionary-dot-com provides this definition of Buddha: One who has achieved a state of perfect spiritual enlightenment in accordance with the teachings of Buddha. You babble on about the Buddha all the time. A reasonable assumption, therefore, is that you believe that there is such a thing as enlightenment. Another reasonable assumption is that you believe Siddartha attained a state of perfect enlightenment. Yet another reasonable assumption is that if there is such a thing as perfect enlightenment, that there must be degrees of enlightenment. I didn't make a statement, i asked you a series of questions about your superstitious belief set--questions it appears that you are unwilling or unable to answer.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

I can't talk about whether the Buddha was enlightened if you don't know what enlightenment is. What do you believe enlightenment is? Define your understanding and I'll go from there as I've already said.

1 Reply

@igm,

Oh no, you can't shift the burden of proof. You were the one babbling about enlightenment when i asked you what starving peasants are to do to relieve their suffering and you said that enlightenment relieves suffering. So you obviously believe that there is such a thing as enlightenment. If you have the moral courage to enter into a defense of your superstition, then you will provide a definition of enlightenment, the one you had in mind when you said that enlightenment relieves suffering. We can go from there, whenever you're ready to put up--of course, if you're not, you could simply shut up.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

This is what you said:

Setanta wrote:

Hey, dipshit, you want to play this game? What evidence can you provide that your boy Siddartha ever achieved enlightenment? What evidence to you have that there is any such thing as enlightenment? What evidence do you have that there are degrees of enlightenment? In short, what evidence do you have fo your favorite blind-faith superstition?

I am following the theme of the thread, i am questioning your beliefs.

Stick to what you said.

You don't know what enlightenment is so how can I prove Siddhartha (as you call him) achieved it... you know nothing about the subject... go away and come back when you at least know the subject.

If you want to talk about peasants then start a thread on it.

1 Reply

@igm,

What i said is that i am following the theme of the thread by questioning your beliefs. That is self-evident. Stupidly insisting upon calling my questions statements does not make it so. I have asked you a series of questions, i have made no statements about enlightenment. I can understand your reluctance, though, to attempt to defend a blind-faith superstition.

In responding C.I. once, you puked up this load of crap:

Quote:

ci, Enlightenment helps the person who attains it and along the path to that and when the path is completed one 'explains' to those who ask 'how' they can do the same thing. Compassion can be done by 'all' unselfish people and should be done by Buddhists as part of the group of unselfish people but only the Buddha's teachings teach how to put an end to suffering in the particular way the Buddha explained.

This makes it obvious that you believe that there is such a thing as enlightenment. This makes it obvious that you believe that enlightenment ends suffering. This makes it obvious that you believe that this can be accomplished by following the so-called Buddha's teachings. I am asking you to defend this statement of faith on your part. I am making no statement, other than that this is what you have claimed.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Ci has never posted on this thread so it is irrelevant to your opening post to me which I'm now attempting to understand.

I can't defend it because you seem to know nothing about Buddhism.

If you did then you'd say, 'The Buddha could not of achieved enlightenment because (then you give some reasons) and I Setanta have now proved that fact in the reasons I have given.'

Do that I'll agree or disagree and give my reasons for doing so.

1 Reply

@igm,

No, you're just trying to weasel out of your rhetorical responsibility. You have very obviously shown that you believe that there is such a thing as enlightenment. If you expect others to agree with that, then you have to define enlightenment in such a manner that they agree, and demonstrate that there is such a thing. You can't answer the questions i asked you, so you're trying to shift the burden of proof, and essentially claim that you can't answer because i'm too stupid to understand.

We can take it nice, slow and easy. What is your definition of enlightenment, and what evidence do you have that such a thing exists?

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You have very obviously shown that you believe that there is such a thing as enlightenment.

There is such a thing as enlightenment (in conventional truth) but you do not know what it means but even though you don't know what it means you have nevertheless said the Buddha could not of achieved it. If I said for example the Buddha achieved it because (and I then gave a reason) as you don't know what enlightenment is you couldn't say whether what I'd said was correct or not.

You tell me what enlightenment is and I'll tell you if your understanding of it is the enlightenment that the Buddha said he achieved.

1 Reply

@igm,

I have not said that he could not have achieved enlightenment. I have asked you for evidence that Siddartha achieved enlightenment, and therefor deserves that phony-baloney title of Buddha.

Stop trying to weasel out of your responsibility. Look at my last question to you and answer it.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

We can take it nice, slow and easy. What is your definition of enlightenment, and what evidence do you have that such a thing exists?

You have not answered this question.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I have not said that he could not have achieved enlightenment.

Of course not as we've established that you don't know what it is.

Setanta wrote:

I have asked you for evidence that Siddartha achieved enlightenment, and therefor deserves that phony-baloney title of Buddha.

How can I give you evidence if you don't know what enlightenment is? You wouldn't know whether the evidence was correct or not.

I will answer any question from your opening post to me (or start a new thread for anything else) if I believed you could understand the answer and as you don't know what enlightenment is I can't. Find out what enlightenment is and we can proceed.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Please refer to my previous posts on why you need your definition of enlightenment.

p.s. don't miss my post above this one (as you're creating two posts one after the other... try and be patient).

0 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

neologist wrote:
Death, IMO, is preferable to deliberate sin.
Why? You still haven't given a reason. What will happen to you if you deliberately sin e.g. by accepting a transfusion? You've said you're going to probably be forgiven so why not live with this particular sin in order for your family to have the benefits of your still being with them?

Actuary, I have. Adam and Eve's sin was deliberate. Were I to sin deliberately, I could not expect anything other than their eventuality. It would be a mistake to presume forgiveness, using it as a license to sin.

2 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

. . . e.g. The Buddha (subject) was not enlightened (predicate) (both together is the proposition or thesis (what is being claimed) the reasoning (none so far from you) and finally an example (again none so far from you).

Have you ever questioned other peoples beliefs?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know