Debunking a Creator

[RongzomFan]

This is 100 % incorrect. Do not believe his lies.

 

You are the one who lies repeatedly:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32644-ib-and-rf-talk-about-religion-and-brian-and-nungali-fan-the-flamesoff-topic-derail/?p=499090

[adept]

Vedic monotheism sounds very interesting.

[adept]

You are the one who lies repeatedly:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32644-ib-and-rf-talk-about-religion-and-brian-and-nungali-fan-the-flamesoff-topic-derail/?p=499090

 

I wasn't aware of this ! Mind you I never venture into The Pit.

[RongzomFan]

Even Muhammed's scribe, Abdullah ibn Sa‘ad, thought Muhammed was a fraud.

 

Abdullah ibn Sa‘ad actually wrote some of the verses of the Koran.

 

bump

[Isimsiz Biri]

 

You are the one who lies repeatedly:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32644-ib-and-rf-talk-about-religion-and-brian-and-nungali-fan-the-flamesoff-topic-derail/?p=499090

I demonstrated your Satanic lies.

[RongzomFan]

I demonstrated your Satanic lies.

 

No, your own website had the same exact hadiths I quoted.

 

Hadiths that you claimed I fabricated.

[Simple_Jack]

Vedic monotheism sounds very interesting.

 

It can't be categorized strictly as monotheism, since the devotion to Vishnu for example is synonymous with Brahman; making it closer to monism.

[RongzomFan]

It can't be categorized strictly as monotheism, since the devotion to Vishnu for example is synonymous with Brahman; making it closer to monism.

 

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=HVDqCkW1WpUC&pg=PA329&dq=Ramanuja+krishna+a+sourcebook&hl=en&sa=X&ei=odagUuHVNbKisQTBtIDQBA&ved=0CDsQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=Ramanuja%20krishna%20a%20sourcebook&f=false

[thamosh]

Certainly a lot of creatures on this planet for a universe that has no creator......

 

But we'll just skip that point.

 

When you say there is no creator then ur basically saying nothings exist higher than you....Which feeds the ego but the ego is just a defense mechanism to counter act insecurities.

 

So then I wonder how your meditation is going.....

 

Could it be that your projecting that same disbelief in yourself on to the concept of god?

[Brian]

So is the question about the existence of some single person-like entity (giant guy with a long beard and flowing robes looking vaguely like Charlton Heston, perhaps, or "spider grandmother" from the Hopis) or about an aware creative force which people have attempted to describe in various ways?

 

As to the earlier mention of Wakan Tanka -- the poster obviously knew this (and hinted at it with an et cetera but that appellation comes from the Lakota Sioux (and related tribes). Different "families" of tribes have their own attempts at explaining the Great Spirit or the driving force behind the Great Mystery. The Chickasaw, for instance, tell of Ababinili as the origin of man:

 

http://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Legends/Ababinili_And_The_Humans-Chickasaw.html

Edited December 5, 2013 by Brian

[Isimsiz Biri]

 

No, your own website had the same exact hadiths I quoted.

 

Hadiths that you claimed I fabricated.

The hadiths you quoted does not tell what you claim. Besides, you are defeated before by Holy Quran verses.

[RongzomFan]

The hadiths you quoted does not tell what you claim.

 

Now you are making a different argument i.e. interpretation.

[adept]

It can't be categorized strictly as monotheism, since the devotion to Vishnu for example is synonymous with Brahman; making it closer to monism.

 

 

What about this article ?

http://voiceofdharma.org/books/hvhb/ch1.htm

[Simple_Jack]

When you say there is no creator then ur basically saying nothings exist higher than you....Which feeds the ego but the ego is just a defense mechanism to counter act insecurities.

 

This can be approached differently depending on the context of the tradition. Either way, all of this is irrelevant to understanding how affliction arises.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=HVDqCkW1WpUC&pg=PA329&dq=Ramanuja+krishna+a+sourcebook&hl=en&sa=X&ei=odagUuHVNbKisQTBtIDQBA&ved=0CDsQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=Ramanuja%20krishna%20a%20sourcebook&f=false

 

Thanks for that.

[Simple_Jack]

What about this article ?

http://voiceofdharma.org/books/hvhb/ch1.htm

 

I'm just saying, I personally wouldn't put them in the category of monotheism. It's your prerogative to disagree with me.

[ralis]

This is an age old argument of myth as opposed to pure reasoning. Neither will arrive at an answer. The hope that an absolute answer will be obtained in this discussion will not occur.

Edited December 5, 2013 by ralis

[adept]

I'm just saying, I personally wouldn't put them in the category of monotheism. It's your prerogative to disagree with me.

 

Ok. No worries. I'm just investigating stuff and trying to find something that resonates with my obvious monotheistic leanings.

The Qur'an seems too cold, violent, and fear based, as does the Bible to some extent.

[adept]

This is an age old argument of myth as opposed to pure reasoning. No one has provided an answer and the answer will not be obtained via this discussion.

 

Agreed, but some of the things brought up in this thread could prove illuminating for some people.

[Aetherous]

ralis,

Do you think Atheism uses "pure reasoning"? I could dust off my logic textbook...

[Simple_Jack]

This is an age old argument of myth as opposed to pure reasoning. No one has provided an answer and the answer will not be obtained via this discussion.

 

Sure not in the realm of epistemology and teleology.

[Brian]

This is an age old argument of myth as opposed to pure reasoning. Neither will arrive at an answer. The hope that an absolute answer will be obtained in this discussion will not occur.

I mostly agree here, ralis, except that I would categorize it as two camps reasoning from substantively differing sets of assumptions, with neither camp acknowledging their own assumptions or respecting the assumptions of the other.

[ralis]

ralis,

 

Do you think Atheism uses "pure reasoning"? I could dust off my logic textbook...

 

Buddhists, Greeks et al have discussed these monumental questions to no specific conclusions. If these questions were absolutely proven, then discussions such as these would be necessary.

 

As far as pure reasoning, language places a limit on such discourse.

[Simple_Jack]

The hope that an absolute answer will be obtained in this discussion will not occur.

 

What if an absolute answer is irrelevant?

[ralis]

I mostly agree here, ralis, except that I would categorize it as two camps reasoning from substantively differing sets of assumptions, with neither camp acknowledging their own assumptions or respecting the assumptions of the other.

 

Assumptions which are based on belief systems to an extent but not entirely.

[ralis]

What if an absolute answer is irrelevant?

 

What about a relative answer? That can be flawed as well.