Perhaps you didn't read the quote. They do NOT incorporate God into their understanding of the creation of the Universe.
The psychology of atheists and theists
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
Buddhists - some, anyway - observe that positing a cause or entity "behind" the universe is an error (a straying from the path, a deception, corresponds somewhat to "sin") Learning not to make such assumptions is then part of Buddhist enlightenment.
They incorporate the Abrahamic deity - "God" - as an example of illusion, belief an example of grasping one's illusions.
You : There are plenty of versions of God where God didnot create everything.Buddhism and Jainism, for example, do not posit that God createdeverything.
Jan: That's interesting seeing as neither of those religious traditions are theistic.
You : Ah yes, the arrogance of the religious believer.
If your ego will allow you, look up Brahma, one of the deities of Buddhism.
So is it a case of they do, except when they don't incorporate God.
BTW, have you tried looking up Brahma, "one of the deities of Buddhism"?
If you can see obvious connections between ancient Egyptian and the trinity, you must be the undisputed champ every time they bring out the limbo stick at parties.
Your nonsense quote is there for anyone to read.
You said; There are plenty of versions of God where God did not create everything. Then you went on to say; Buddhism and Jainism, for example, do not posit that God created everything. Meaning that they believe God created something, but not everything.
Now realizing your foolishness you back pedal, saying they do not incorporate God in any creation.
You don't know what you're talking about. Do you?
jan.
Your sophistry is noted.
However, you've looked very foolish indeed in the past trying to play these language games. Perhaps just admit defeat, and cut your losses?
Nope. They do not.
What "obvious connection between ancient Egyptian and the trinity?" Did you get your arguments confused again?
They do not what?
Incorporate God?
Or incorporate theistic ideas?
Or are we safe to interpret this fudging as something that belongs to the broader category of the "psychology of atheists"?
www.sciforums.com/threads/scientists-discover-that-atheists-might-not-exist-and-that’s-not-a-joke.160736/page-106#post-3539354
My bad, it was others discussing the apparent egyptian origins of the trinity ... you were discussing the same in regards to genesis.
Given this track performance, we are just questioning what you do with this fertile imagination of yours when you start discussing "the buddhist God Brahma" ....
Yes, the best sort of defense is offense. Perhaps this behaviour tells us something of the psychology of atheists ...
What sophistry?
Firstly. I have no idea what you're talking about.
Secondly. Defeat to whom.
I'm not saying I can't be defeated, but if you or any atheist on here are going to defeat me on the topic of theism, you have to start with a proper, satisfactory, thought out explanation, or definition of God. So far no one can even bring themselves to define, or describe God to the satisfaction of any theist. Such is the psychological state of the modern atheist.
You're all afraid because you know if you do, you will have to accept and believe in God.
This pretense of mockery, evasion, comedy is nothing but a weak smokescreen. Do you really think it isn't transparent?
Also, I think it is time to involve scriptures, as I don't see any reason not to.
jan.
///
Such is the absurd state of the theist that they make ridiculous, sometimes vague, claims & try to demand that others describe & explain those claims.
<>
There isn't one. That's the starting point, remember?
No.
As has been provided to you several times now, many Buddhists regard the idea that God created anything as an example of a kind of error or self-delusion one must learn to let go, to not make or do, on the path to enlightenment.
Please make a note of this - it keeps coming up.
Last edited:
Slartibartfast
Registered Member
Perhaps you could help out by describing the hole that doesn't exist.
I lost a hole in my back garden a few weeks back
Round about foot across and deep, it started to rain so I went inside. Came out about 6 hours later hole gone and water left in its place
To much to handle. Next day water gone and hole put back
Does anybody think this should be in Evidence of god thread?
Would you, or any theist, accept a definition of God that does not beg the question of the reality of God?
E.g. would you accept a definition along the lines of "that which theists believe is the cause of all...", or would you only find satisfactory those definitions that said "God is the cause of all"?
Show me one time where you or any other person has provided it to me?
Obviously Buddhism isn't your strong point.
jan.
To all the people who can see your latest attempt at distraction.
Let's rewind.
You said "If God exists (for the purpose of argument), how could there be anything if God did not exist?" You thought you were very clever; making a circular semantic argument that could not be proved false, since in your view God created everything. And your "for the purpose of argument" statement made the usual ego-driven assumption you usually make - namely, that all religions are like yours.
Your failure came when you didn't realize that there are religions that 1) have deities and 2) do not have a creation myth that requires creation of the universe via a deity. I listed two.
Ever since then you've been trying to backpedal your way out of it by using sophistry. "Well if they didn't create everything, that means they created something! Right? Right?" Nope, that doesn't follow. And in any case, that doesn't even support your claim "how could there be anything if God did not exist?"
Good luck with your next attempt!
Goldtop
Registered Senior Member
Clearly, the quote you provided is opposite of your claim that God is not a separate entity. Seems you need to do much more than just examine your belief.
Are you implying that in general Buddhists worships or believe in God?