Atheists... Your life is pointless

<lag>

Thanks for the tip Frank and it has merit, but I am honestly not looking for subjective bias...spendius' view throws a wrench into Setanta's view(s)...whether Set tries to subjectively argue how spendius is not reputable or whatever he may try to say...

And you don't see how this has something to say about Zen and something to say about your negative comments about Zen?

Buddhist are atheist and are accused of having all the religious paraphernalia that theists have. So how are you describing the non-theists i.e. atheist Buddhists in your descriptions above and in numerous other posts?

You don't normally answer me. The reason is probably: you can't then say 'what would atheists do if there was no Christianity'? Buddhists have an 'atheist' alternative although it gets falsely rubbished because of the faults of Buddhists failing to follow what the Buddha taught (sound familiar?).

So, there is an atheist alternative to theism... it's Buddhism.

Thanks for the tip Frank and it has merit, but I am honestly not looking for subjective bias...spendius' view throws a wrench into Setanta's view(s)...whether Set tries to subjectively argue how spendius is not reputable or whatever he may try to say...





You do not have to worry about me mate...and I will show you what I actually mean...

It does not make a difference if we all think that spendius is being deceptive or not...and likes to talk in riddles...etc...

My point was simply this...the whole atheistic hardcore rejections or skepticism is debunked each time perfectly by Set, and spendius...even if spendius is being deceptive and we all think he is...

For on one hand there is nothing that the hardcore rejecting skeptic can say because they have to accept what Spendi says at face value...even if we believe what spendius says is not a self accurate portrayal of himself....because it is about evidence and not beliefs...

And then on the other hand, for anyone to say this, acknowledge it, or think it...(at least from the hardcore, atheistic, rejections or skepticism side) then they must acknowledge that they have beliefs that are worthy of merit other than just having doubts themselves...because in order for these hardcore skeptics to validate their "evidence" they have to acknowledge that they have these beliefs about one who uses sophistry or anything like it...and how it can not be factually validated but it takes one to have a belief to see it at it true face value...

Like I said mate...no worries...

Jealousy maybe? Who knows...

Spade, you've replied to me but seem to be speaking to Frank and using my quote to Matt?

No mate...I meant to speak directly to you about what you had said to Matt...using what I had said to Frank...and what I think you meant by what you were talking to Matt about...




I think I got you now mate...sorry...no worries...

Cool... I'll read rather than 'scan' it with that in mind.

Is Buddhism a religion? Is Buddhism atheist? What are your views on this?

I am actually very interested in hearing you two discuss these questions...

This is what i mean about your incoherence. That is not a coherent statement. I challenged your claim about "atheists," the use of which term without qualification means all atheists. I further challenged your claim about "the atheistic position." The use of the definite article clearly makes the inferential claim that there is one and only one atheistic position. That means you are obliged to substantiate any such claims if you are challenged. I provided a refutation of your claim, and you started you witless game of pseudo-epistemology about knowing and believing. You are rapidly painting yourself in a corner with that old bullshit because anyone can use your own silly mantra on you. How do you know, why do you believe that you subjectively validate a common monolith in your own subjective way about atheists and their "position?" (Sorry is that wan't incoherent enough, i haven't had a lot of practice playing your bullshit games.)

Don't ask me questions and don't tell me what to do. You don't answer other peoples' questions, and you don't meet other peoples' demands. Don't think you can lord it over others with your questions and demands while you fail to reciprocate.

Wanna hear something more profound?
"TELLING A RELIGIOUS TO RESPECT AN ATHEIST IS LIKE TELLING A WOMAN TO RAPE A MAN" - Ice Demon
Now give me my prize for beating Andre Oliver in the bad analogy nomination.

There's religious Buddhism (full of superstition).

There's institutional Buddhism (full of bureaucracy).

There's philosophical Buddhism (full of investigation and insight).

There's cultural Buddhism (full of tradition).

And probably more. The religious Buddhism is not qualitatively indistinct from any of the theist religions in that the ignorant pray to imagined spirits for salvation, good luck, etc. However, in Buddhism there is no creator god, so in that sense it is an atheist religion, as contradictory as that may sound to most people.

You'll have to do better than that. At least his analogy makes sense. In the context you bring, it would be more like, "Telling an theist to respect a religion would be like telling a woman to respect her rapist."

Your attempt sounds more like, "Telling a theist to respect an atheist is like telling a rapist to respect his victim."

Well, i will agree that Buddhists are full of it . . . the pertinent questions is, full of what?

*snicker*
Anything more you want to tell us.

I'll have to do worse than that you mean to keep up with Andre Oliver?
So you agree that even though it makes sense to you, it is really a horrible analogy.