I like that Vishva's here

Originally posted by Agerg
How many times have we heard (paraphrased)

"any person who subscribes to the teachings of [the Bible] shall receive perfect knowledge without error."?

Any difference between his claims and fundamentalist Christians' claims are trivial.

The statement that, "any claims that are different are trivial", clearly shows you are fabricating from thin air.

Vedanta teachings are presenting actual truth, and the Bible is a meat eaters scripture presenting error.

For you to make an informed comment you would have to study the Vedanta and actually find out what it is presenting.

You have not done this and your comments are baseless.

I could list 100 items in the Bible that are in error and are in contrast to Vedanta.

Your baseless comments are meant to invalidate the Vedanta, which has threatened your shaky atheistic position.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
The statement that, "any claims that are different are trivial", clearly shows you are fabricating from thin air.

Vedanta teachings are presenting actual truth, and the Bible is a meat eaters scripture presenting error.

For you to make an informed comment you would have to study the Vedanta and actually find out what it is presenting.

You have no ...[text shortened]... ments are meant to invalidate the Vedanta, which has threatened your shaky atheistic position.

double post

Originally posted by vishvahetu
The statement that, "any claims that are different are trivial", clearly shows you are fabricating from thin air.

Vedanta teachings are presenting actual truth, and the Bible is a meat eaters scripture presenting error.

For you to make an informed comment you would have to study the Vedanta and actually find out what it is presenting.

You have no ...[text shortened]... ments are meant to invalidate the Vedanta, which has threatened your shaky atheistic position.

Sorry vishvahetu but I don't believe the claims made by any person that their holy book is more true than any other holy book. As there is no way for any theist to demonstrate their claim is true, then there is nothing you or any other fundamentalist can do do to change my position.

Your beliefs are just as crazy as everyone else.

My atheism stands on solid ground thankyou ;]

Originally posted by Agerg
Sorry vishvahetu but I don't believe the claims made by any person that their holy book is more true than any other holy book. As there is no way for any theist to demonstrate their claim is true, then there is nothing you or any other fundamentalist can do do to change my position.

Your beliefs are just as crazy as everyone else.

My atheism stands on solid ground thankyou ;]

Your rejection of Vedanta is baseless, unless you take the time to involve yourself in its study and living, otherwise you are just banding together false religion with true religion.

Any belief that starts of with....there is no intelligence at the foundation of the universe, is shaky and dishonest

You embrace this belief, because it allows you to live an unrestricted life of sense enjoyment.

This belief is not based on truth or knowledge....but on untruthfulness.

To live an unrestricted life of sense enjoyment, that is even available to the hogs, dogs, camels and asses.....all a person has to do, is deny the spiritual aspect of life, and then they can do as they please without a conscience.

But of course to deny that which is undeniable, a person would have to be dishonest.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Your rejection of Vedanta is baseless, unless you take the time to involve yourself in its study and living, otherwise you are just banding together false religion with true religion.

Any belief that starts of with....there is no intelligence at the foundation of the universe, is shaky and dishonest

You embrace this belief, because it allows you to ...[text shortened]... cience.

But of course to deny that which is undeniable, a person would have to be dishonest.

Sorry vishvahetu but you have zero chance of swaying me from my position. I don't believe your claims - nor do I believe the claims of any other fundamentalist.

You cannot back up your holy book other than your word that it is true; and I don't trust you on this matter.

Originally posted by Agerg
Sorry vishvahetu but you have zero chance of swaying me from my position. I don't believe your claims - nor do I believe the claims of any other fundamentalist.

You cannot back up your holy book other than your word that it is true; and I don't trust you on this matter.

Then study it and live it.

If you dont...then anything you say against Vedanta is baseless.

If you want to say an honest statement say this.....

' I could not bother to investigate Vedanta and therefore I do not know anything about it, especially if there is a God or not, and for the time being I shall remain an atheist, because it allows me to live as I like, without any feelings of guilt because I do not have to answer to anyone but myself"

But to simply say there is no God is dishonest because you would not know if there is a God or not.

To know there is no God, you would have to be omnipotent and omnipresent, so you could investigate every part of the cosmos and the spiritual world, to see if you could find God, and only after doing this you could say there is no God.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Then study it and live it.

If you dont...then anything you say against Vedanta is baseless.

If you want to say an honest statement say this.....

' I could not bother to investigate Vedanta and therefore I do not know anything about it, especially if there is a God or not, and for the time being I shall remain an atheist, because it allows me to l world, to see if you could find God, and only after doing this you could say there is no God.

I make no claim it is true there exist no gods; I merely operate under that assumption. I have no need to read or study your holy book - I can conclude, with a rational mind, it is no less, and no more true than any other theists' holy book. Similarly I have no need to be jumping off buildings to prove I cannot fly!

Originally posted by Agerg
I make no claim it is true there exist no gods; I merely operate under that assumption. I have no need to read or study your holy book - I can conclude, with a rational mind, it is no less, and no more true than any other theists' holy book. Similarly I have no need to be jumping off buildings to prove I cannot fly!

If you got some scales and on one side you put everything you could imagine that would support there existing a God........and on the other side you could put anything that pointed to there not being a God.

For a start I cam immediately imagine many things to support God.....and I am having difficulty in thinking of even one thing that does not support.

In thinking of things to support God, anything that reflects intelligence would be included.

If you say no....that you cannot include evidences of intelligence, then that would be improper.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
If you got some scales and on one side you put everything you could imagine that would support there existing a God........and on the other side you could put anything that pointed to there not being a God.

For a start I cam immediately imagine many things to support God.....and I am having difficulty in thinking of even one thing that does not support ...[text shortened]... If you say no....that you cannot include evidences of intelligence, then that would be improper.

Hey Vishy, have you ever had a direct contact with your god? By that I mean a two way conversation?

Originally posted by vishvahetu
You are not a theist, because a true theist does not subscribe to animal slaughter

This is clearly not so. In fact most theists eat meat. You may sincerely feel that eating meat is wrong for you and for others, but just because you are sincere does not mean you can misrepresent what other theists actually believe or declare them 'not true theists' because their belief system and theism differs from yours.

Originally posted by FMF
This is clearly not so. In fact most theists eat meat. You may sincerely feel that eating meat is wrong for you and for others, but just because you are sincere does not mean you can misrepresent what other theists actually believe or declare them 'not true theists' because their belief system and theism differs from yours.

Spiritual living is about mercy, kindness, compassion, non-violence, purity and character.....and theists who subscribe to false religion and eat meat have just rejected theses qualities.

So their spiritual life is a front and a fraud.

So I inform them, that their religion is false because it teaches animal slaughter, because in a conversation on religion falsity is problematic if it is left unattended.

There is only one God and one religion, and that one religion is the religion that does not teach falsity, and teaches not be cruel to animals by causing them suffering.

Other theists who are cruel to animals are pseudo theists.

Why do you champion religion that supports falsity.

That is your poor attempt to be seen as a do-gooder for freedom of religion.

Dont take freedom of religion that far, that you even support falsity.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Spiritual living is about mercy, kindness, compassion, non-violence, purity and character.

I think a person who has achieved a degree of spiritual balance in his or her life also has characteristics such as not excessive vanity, an appropriate degree of humility, healthy doubt, curiosity, the embrace of diversity and disagreement, a reasonable, positive and not overbearing ego, tolerance and open-mindedness, common decency, manners, a non abusive approach to discourse, manageable anger and so on.

On another thread you talked about your decision long ago to seek a "perfect existence" but - think about it, would you? - how short do you yourself feel you have fallen? Your character is not only something that exists in your own mind. You "character" is also something that is perceived by others based on your words and deeds.

What have people been saying? Well, you are shockingly and self-defeatingly vain, incessantly abusive, unkind, often incoherent or contradictory, ill-mannered, prone to anger, largely unable to communicate properly, misanthropic, "intellectually" and "spiritually" tyrannical (this being the best expression I could come up with, and the two words are in quotation marks because in fact I often feel that your posting style actually strangulates 'intellect' and 'spirituality' and leaves only a kind of sterile, astonishing, hectoring nothingness), many people see you as self-consumed, bizarrely self-righteous, and sometimes willfully ignorant too (as in the case of your meaning-sapping, unconventional, self-seeking, insulting use of certain vocabulary) and so on.

Considering your shameful demeanour on this forum, and your disgraceful abuse of fellow posters, and considering you claim that your spiritual belief system is "about mercy, kindness, compassion, non-violence, purity and character", why would anyone want to emulate you or subscribe to whatever it is that has produced you and your forum persona? Do you have any faculty for introspection and evaluation of your own behaviour on this forum whatsoever?

I am saying all this in good faith, with kindness and compassion, and in the hope that your turbulent, counterproductive, outrageously hostile and rude contributions and attitude to other members of this community [be they theists or atheists, and whatever their belief systems may be] can be adjusted so that you become an effective and respected advocate of what you believe.

Originally posted by FMF
I think a person who has achieved a degree of spiritual balance in his or her life also has characteristics such as not excessive vanity, an appropriate degree of humility, healthy doubt, curiosity, the embrace of diversity and disagreement, a reasonable, positive and not overbearing ego, tolerance and open-mindedness, common decency, manners, a non abusive appr ...[text shortened]... justed so that you become an effective and respected advocate of what you believe.

When you talk to a consistently dishonest person, you must at some stage pull them up and tell them they are dishonest for the sake of both persons concerned....or it all becomes a circus.

When talking to a consistently foolish person, sooner than later you must tell this person that their foolishness is not tolerated for all concerned.....or it all becomes a farce.

So your misunderstanding, that I should be like Mary Poppins, and stroke your dishonesty is not going to happen.

But what I do expect, is for you to sooner than later, start to be honest and stop playing word games and mind games.

What you are clearly doing in these threads is,....that you are trying to use word skills to set up a smoke screen of confusion, to make out that your dishonesty, is nothing more than misunderstood sincerity.

But I have exposed your nonsense, and now you can only attack the messenger with falsity.

The proof that you are playing mind games is.....that even after 20 postings, you have not presented your stand on spirituality.

I do not know if you are a Christian or Buddhist, or Muslim or a New Ager, because you do not present anything....but you certainly present disdain if someone attacks your support of animal cruelty.

Is there anyone else in this forum who knows what FMF stands for?....speak up please.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
you have not presented your stand on spirituality.

Religionists "present" their "stands".

Religionists claim to know what "God's instructions" are and "present" them to others.

Religionists, for the most part, seek to package their "spirituality" in terms of folk tales, geographically specific cultural mores, the results of thought experiments and the like.

Religionists choose, internalize and regurgitate "authorities".

Religionsits sometimes, like yourself, become extremely hostile to dissenters or to people who do not conform, submit or agree.

Religionists talk in terms of a "stand on spirituality".

Religionists eschew doubt - even when doubt is one of the greatest human faculties.

Religionists "present" things to each other - unencumbered by doubts - and then either accept disagreement or attack. You choose the latter.

However, I am not a religionist. So there we have it.

As for my spiritual insights, they are known - but I just don't think you are interested. If you were you'd know that I have already expounded on them, especially when I was posting under the screen name John W. Booth. I mentioned this only yesterday and yet you now - no doubt sincerely - seem to suggest that you are unaware of it. The signs are that you are uninterested. Perhaps it is part and parcel of your profound disrespect.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
When you talk to a consistently dishonest person, you must at some stage pull them up and tell them they are dishonest for the sake of both persons concerned....or it all becomes a circus.

For the sake of both persons concerned? So you are admitting that you accuse me of lying for your own sake as well as allegedly for mine?

When talking to a consistently foolish person, sooner than later you must tell this person that their foolishness is not tolerated for all concerned.....or it all becomes a farce.

You insult me for all concerned? So you claim to be speaking or acting on behalf of others? Who exactly? If you don't mind me asking.