PsiCop

Unfortunately Buddhism has not always been a "pacifist" religion. Many people through history have gone to war to promote it ... including, for example, the 5th Dalai Lama, and King Ashoka of India. Most Buddhists today are pacifists, it's true, but this has not always been the case, and there are even some modern Buddhist violence (e.g. the Tamil Tigers, which has a significant Buddhist membership).
I agree fully with that. But given the profound silliness which Buddhist is prone to, I'm not sure that it's all that great an alternative. Surely NO metaphysics is better than a laughable metaphysics that makes sovereigns out of 2-year-olds who shout "That's mine!"

SirArthur

According to the URL you post Ashoka converted to Buddhism astonished with war cruelty... the whole point is on Buddhism force conversions are against its doctrines (curiously on Christianity too), obviously sooner or later a leader of those religions will bend that rule to suit his needs. Typical...

Laughable metaphysics are, at least, way better than marry 9 y.o. girls, mass-murdering, slaughtering and all the usual from God of the Desert religions...

__________________
We can never have an idea of what we can achieve. All we can do is follow an interrogation and see where it may lead us to.

The Great Bible & Quran of Atheists and Agnostics:

http://cleanup.awardspace.com/

PsiCop

I'm not quite sure why you continue defending what is so obviously laughable. That the laughable metaphysics of Buddhism has not proven itself to be quite as dangerous as other forms of metaphysics, STILL does not make it acceptable.

Consider this (admittedly ridiculous) situation: I offer to jab you with a hatpin or with a knife. I could try selling you on the idea of getting jabbed with the pin, because it won't cause as much pain as the knife ... but your answer should be not to choose one or the other, it should be not to get jabbed with anything! That's the choice I'm making here ... the choice to be FREE of ALL metaphysics -- no negotiation, no quibbling, no weighing options.

ALL metaphysics is bullshit. ALL of it, ALL the time, EVERY where, in ALL cases, NO exceptions. That SOME metaphysics might not be quite as bad as some other metaphysics, cannot make any metaphysic inherently acceptable, and it certainly doesn't grant it any veracity.

xexon

I take it you've never had an experience that would confirm metaphysics? Metaphysics has little to do with religious belief.

Metaphysics is quite real. Just because you personally can't reach that far yet doesn't mean that you won't.

MOST of creation is beyond a human's ability to detect.

You only see the tip of the iceberg.


x

__________________
Destroyer of Worlds

PsiCop

Actually, metaphysics is a superset of religion. So religion ALWAYS has EVERYTHING to do with metaphyics.
OK, let me try this: Unicorns and dragons are real. Just because you personally can't reach that far yet doesn't mean that you won't.

But of course ... unicorns and dragons DO NOT, in fact, exist. Point is, just because you can imagine something, doesn't grant it veracity, and just because YOU can imagine it while someone else can't, doesn't make you any better than them.

So what? Lots of things are not detectable. That there are undetectable things in the world, does NOT entitle you to make stuff up, then justify the existence of your fabrications using this fact.

xexon

And how do do know I'm making things up?

No matter how eloquent the tongue is with words, there are some things that can not be transmitted with them. What a person experiences on the "other side", is one of them.

Unicorns don't exist?

Silly wabbit. You've never been to that place, have you?


x

__________________
Destroyer of Worlds

PsiCop

No metaphysics can be verified. Anyone ... you, me, Buddha, Jesus, the Reverend Moon, whoever ... can make any metaphysical claim, yet be unable to demonstrate it objectively to anyone else. This means anyone can invent anything metaphysical, then demand to be believed because after all, we can't know everything, can we?

Sorry, it doesn't wash. Metphysical claims, because they are not verifiable, are inseparable from raw fiction.
Again, this does not entitle a presumption of veracity.
Please define "the other side." Explain how it differs from "this side." Explain further how (quite conveniently for you), this "other side" happens ... just happens! ... never to be objectively verifiable.
They may exist in the mind, but have no objective reality.
You keep talking about some "other place" as if it exists and I'm supposed to have been there. As I've already asked, if you wish to discuss this "other place," you will first have to define and locate it. Be sure your definition is objective and verifiable; otherwise it's useless to anyone else.

If you have knowledge that I don't, then provide directions to it and evidence to support it ... stop whining that I don't know what it is. Elitism isn't becoming; it's a form of arrogance. It certainly does not establish your veracity. Only objective, verifiable evidence can do that.

xexon

Allow me to be clear.

It is of no concern of mine personally if you believe what I say or not. It does not affect me one way or the other.

I'll restate what I've said numerous times already. Its not a matter of having faith. Its a matter of being able to see what you currently can't. I can never convince you of what I say. But, I can invite you to work on yourself so that a wider range of perception is opened to you. You can then see for yourself.

I have nothing to sell. I'm merely letting you know of other options you may have been unaware of up until that point.

Take a pamplet, or keep walking.

The important thing is that you keep moving.



x

__________________
Destroyer of Worlds

PsiCop

I will be, too ... although I think I have been extremely clear so far. This means I will take extra care to be even more clear.
This is not a credible claim; your words and behavior suggest the opposite. You keep telling me there's something that exists that I cannot see, and have done so several times. If it truly did not matter to you whether or not I accept your metaphysics, you would not have persisted; you either would have changed tactics (optimally, by substantiating your claims rather than just demanding belief on my part) or given up. You have done neither.
You need not have done so. I got your point long ago. I have been, after all, a believer myself. Assuming ignorance on my part will accomplish nothing.
This is not true. ALL metaphysics is, by definition, a matter of "faith" since nothing metaphysical is demonstrable.
Again you assert the existence of things that apparently I'm not privy to. I do not believe these things exist. You can claim it until you're blue in the face, but the only way to compel me to accept it, is by providing objective, verifiable evidence for your claim.

It seems to me that it would be MUCH easier, for you, to accomplish this goal simply by relenting and providing the evidence I've requested. But rather than stoop to doing so, you continue with the tired refrain (spoken since time immemorial by metaphysicians of all types) that they cannot do so. You then assert that the fault for this lack of substantiation lies not in your staunch refusal to provide evidence, but in my unwillingness just to take your word for everything.

The fault here is NOT mine. It is YOURS. YOURS and that of every religionist and metaphysician who similarly refuses to divulge evidence for your claims.
It just so happens that there is a simple, quick, easy, and above all logical reason why you cannot demonstrate your metphysics: There is no such thing.
As I said above, the fault is NOT in me. It is in YOU. YOU are the ones with the beliefs. The burden is on YOU to back them up substantively. It is not my job just to believe you because you claim an entitlement to be believed.
Again, this is not a credible claim. You have repeatedly told me that you are special, I'm deficient, that your metaphysics exists and I am required ... merely by virtue of you having said so ... to take your word for everything. If you were not attempting to convince me of something, you would not have continued this laughable, illogical exercise.
No. All the evidence above is that you are, in fact, trying to "sell" me something. You may not be asking for money but you ARE demanding my credence. You are NOT automatically entitled to it, however, no matter how many times you make your elitist assertion that you're privy to things I don't know of.

Cough up evidence for your claims, or not.

Again, the problem here is NOT with me. It is not up to ME to do anything to substantiate YOUR claims. It is, rather, YOUR job to substantiate them.

I suggest you do so.

If you do not, then I must assume you haven't the courage to admit that your metaphysics may have no veracity. If this is all about you convincing yourself of them despite their lack of substantiation, then you've reached the end of the road, because there is nothing I or anyone else can do to help you with your own metaphysical insecurities.

xexon

But you've missed the point once again.

Its not my responsibility to prove anything to you.

Its your responsibility to prove it for yourself.

I understand your point of view very well as it's the same one I once had myself. But I matured abit since then. My perceptions are wider and afford me a view of things that others have yet to mature into. Thats not my fault. Its just the way it is. I'm older than you, spiritually speaking. Its not a matter of superiority or not.

Its more like a case of an 8 year old wanting pubic hair and can't grow it yet. This might make a good argument that its doesn't exist at all. Never seen it firsthand. Can't grow it either. Maybe its just a fable?

But time will prove the argument wrong.

Such is the case with you. Time will confirm what I say is true. You'll be a difficult customer until then. But I can smile about the whole thing because I know what wonders await you.

It awaits all of you.



x

__________________
Destroyer of Worlds