Debunking a Creator

[RongzomFan]

God damn it Gatito

 

Are you going to tell us what you know??

[ralis]

Which should also apply to the Vedas, the Torah, the Bible, the Koran.

 

What is your point? Are you feeling that some of us are singling out Buddhism for special judgement? Furthermore, to bring in outside topics is derailing and qualifies as a logical fallacy.

[RongzomFan]

What is your point? Are you feeling that some of us are singling out Buddhism for special judgement?

 

Not a special judgement, but no unfair lynching either.

[Simple_Jack]

What is your point? Are you feeling that some of us are singling out Buddhism for special judgement? Furthermore, to bring in outside topics is derailing and qualifies as a logical fallacy.

 

No, only that the criticism of Buddhism from you, gatito, etc are double standards.

[RongzomFan]

Since Gatito refuses to tell us what he knows about, I will refer to this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarvepalli_Radhakrishnan#Criticism_and_context

 

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan made all sorts of weird claims about Vedanta, which South Asian scholars even to this day love tearing apart.

[gatito]

Since Gatito refuses to tell us what he knows about, I will refer to this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarvepalli_Radhakrishnan#Criticism_and_context

 

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan made all sorts of weird claims about Vedanta, which South Asian scholars even to this day love tearing apart.

 

I simply cannot - and will not attempt to keep up with two of you machinegun posting at me - this is NOT "nice"

[ralis]

Not a special judgement, but no unfair lynching either.

 

You started this thread so why not 'man up' and take the criticism like a man as opposed to acting like a victim. You Buddhists can certainly dish it out but when Buddhism is scrutinized, you can't handle it.

[Simple_Jack]

I simply cannot - and will not attempt to keep up with two of you machinegun posting at me - this is NOT "nice"

 

Because they are proving that you, ralis, etc. are biased and defer to double standards.

[RongzomFan]

You started this thread so why not 'man up' and take the criticism like a man as opposed to acting like a victim. You Buddhists can certainly dish it out but when Buddhism is scrutinized, you can't handle it.

 

You refuse to state your criticism. I've asked you countless times.

 

You probably still won't

[Simple_Jack]

You started this thread so why not 'man up' and take the criticism like a man as opposed to acting like a victim. You Buddhists can certainly dish it out but when Buddhism is scrutinized, you can't handle it.

 

I'll man up when you, gatito, etc. end the logical fallacies and admit to your double standards.

[RongzomFan]

You started this thread so why not 'man up' and take the criticism like a man as opposed to acting like a victim. You Buddhists can certainly dish it out but when Buddhism is scrutinized, you can't handle it.

 

Why don't you man up, and actually state your criticism??

[RongzomFan]

LMAO, still nothing

[Simple_Jack]

You started this thread so why not 'man up' and take the criticism like a man as opposed to acting like a victim. You Buddhists can certainly dish it out but when Buddhism is scrutinized, you can't handle it.

 

I wasn't the one who specifically mentioned Buddhism, when I pointed out that all Dharmic religions, do not consider positing a creator god as pertinent to understanding the nature of afflictions.

[gatito]

I can't get a word in edgeways

 

And they're definitely not being "nice" - are they?

[Simple_Jack]

I can't get a word in edgeways

 

And they're definitely not being "nice" - are they?

 

Some of the other posters weren't being nice when I pointed out that it wasn't pertinent for Dharmic religions to posit a creator god in order to understand the nature of afflictions.

[gatito]

So, I'm going for a walk with SnugglePuppy and Cerberus

 

I might drop by tomorrow

[Simple_Jack]

So, I'm going for a walk with SnugglePuppy and Cerberus

 

I might drop by tomorrow

 

I hope you admit to your logical fallacies and double standards by then.

[RongzomFan]

Vedanta was debunked in academia by both western and Indian sides:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarvepalli_Radhakrishnan#Criticism_and_context

[RongzomFan]

Adi Shankara was a theist who believed in gods:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=0z02cZe8PU8C&pg=PA313&dq=krishna+a+sourcebook+He+describes+Krishna+as+an+avatara+of+Vishnu/Narayana,+indeed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JVGhUsCSOc_lsATU04DwAw&ved=0CDQQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=krishna%20a%20sourcebook%20He%20describes%20Krishna%20as%20an%20avatara%20of%20Vishnu%2FNarayana%2C%20indeed&f=false

[RongzomFan]

Why don't you man up, and actually state your criticism??

 

bump for ralis

[RongzomFan]

Ralis dug himself into a hole when he tried to judge Buddhism on the basis of e-prime.

 

 

Gatito dug himself into the bigger hole.

 

Extravagant claims about Vedanta have been debunked, and are still being debunked, by South Asian academics.

Edited December 6, 2013 by RongzomFan

[Simple_Jack]

What is your point? Are you feeling that some of us are singling out Buddhism for special judgement? Furthermore, to bring in outside topics is derailing and qualifies as a logical fallacy.

No, only that the criticism of Buddhism from you, gatito, etc are double standards.

 

Bump.

[RongzomFan]

I don't understand ralis' vague criticisms.

 

Something about e-prime, something about transmission (which I addressed), and of course extreme prejudice against Buddhism.

[Simple_Jack]

I don't understand ralis' vague criticisms.

 

Something about e-prime, something about transmission (which I addressed), and of course extreme prejudice against Buddhism.

 

Yes, prejudice which can only be directed towards Buddhism despite the claims of the Vedas, the Torah, the Bible, the Koran being of divine origin.

[RongzomFan]

To understand everything is illusion, you only need Madhyamaka reasoning. Logic.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=6185&sid=66bfdf5114f9a42b5804d855d6dac9e4&start=220#p74244

 

First, if an appearance is an existent, can it arise from another existent? Or does it arise from a non-existent? As for the first, an existent does not arise from another existent because the arising of something existent is a contradiction in terms; and the arising of an existent from a non-existent is impossible. To address this, Nāḡrjuna writes:

An existent does not arise from an existent;
an existent does not arise from a non-existent;
a non-existent does arise from an existent;
a non-existent does not arise from a non-existent —
where then can there be an instance of arising?

If the arising of existents is not established, the arising of appearances is not established. If arising is not established, remaining is not established, and likewise, perishing is not established. If the three, arising, remaining and perishing, are not established, then there is no reason to accept the charge of annihilationism since I never suggested that there was an existent entity that could perish.

All we are left with is empty appearances: they are not real because no existence, etc., can be ascertained regarding them; they are not unreal since they appear. All we can say about them is that they arise in dependence. - Loppon Namdrol

Edited December 6, 2013 by RongzomFan