08 Mar 11
Originally posted by FMFYou are once again twisting words, to make what I say seem different to what I am actually saying.....dont do it.
Spiritual people don't eat meat? This assertion is clearly incorrect. There are thousands of millions of people who eat meat and yet are on their diverse spiritual paths. Your claims about "transcendental platforms" and "different consciousnesses" with regard to eating meat or being a vegetarian are only credible or relevant to people who happen to subscribe to the same [or a similar] religionist doctrine as you do.
When I say spiritual people I am talking about true spiritual persons who follow the authorized and bonafide process of spiritual living.....I am not talking about persons who profess to false religion or false spirituality which teach much error.
Just like you, who profess to live a spiritual life and have invented you own FMF styled spirituality which includes slaughtering animals......there are millions of persons just like you, who are inventing their own spiritual values, which in turn protects their vices.
08 Mar 11
Originally posted by DasaTwisting what words? It is you who is redefining words that have conventional meanings. Your assertion that "true spiritual persons" are only those who submit to Vedic "authority" is only credible or relevant to people who happen to submit to Vedic "authority". Your assertion means nothing to the people you are addressing on this Forum. It is your subjective opinion and nothing more. It has no bearing on all the "spiritual persons" that fall outside your partisan definition.
When I say spiritual people I am talking about true spiritual persons who follow the authorized and bonafide process of spiritual living.....I am not talking about persons who profess to false religion or false spirituality which teach much error.
08 Mar 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobie“...Why dont you ask him about the Fuhrers use of Darwinian principles on a social level ...”
Why dont you ask him about the Fuhrers use of Darwinian principles on a social level or how many Buddhist monks were killed during the Khmer Rouges attempt to set up an Atheist state?
The Fuhrer didn't use “Darwinian principles”; Neither any credible modern scientist nor Darwin himself say anything about evolution indicating how we morally should behave. “Social Darwinism” was a false science invented by the Nazis and NOT by atheists. Hitler was a theist.
08 Mar 11
Originally posted by FMFVedanta is the only authority, but you are not aware of this because of the thread (you must get yourself qualified) 25th Feb 11 : 19 : 53 which describes you in a nut shell....so please read it twenty times so you understand your predicament and stop commenting from that deep well of speculation that you call FMF spirituality, which is leading you astray.
Twisting what words? It is you who is redefining words that have conventional meanings. Your assertion that "true spiritual persons" are only those who submit to Vedic "authority" is only credible or relevant to people who happen to submit to Vedic "authority". Your assertion means nothing to the people you are addressing on this Forum. It is your subjective op ...[text shortened]... as no bearing on all the "spiritual persons" that fall outside your partisan definition.
08 Mar 11
Originally posted by DasaI don't accept this. I don't think anybody on this Spirituality Forum accepts this. What you may or may not have written on some other thread is immaterial. People here cite all manner of "authorities". Asserting that "Vedanta is the only authority" is only credible or relevant to you. It is a subjective opinion of yours. I can think of nobody else here who accepts it or agrees with you.
Vedanta is the only authority...
08 Mar 11
Originally posted by FMFYes but they are defending false religion and cheating science and have no credible say in the matter.
I don't accept this. I don't think anybody on this Spirituality Forum accepts this. What you may or may not have written on some other thread is immaterial. People here cite all manner of "authorities". Asserting that "Vedanta is the only authority" is only credible or relevant to you. It is a subjective opinion of yours. I can think of nobody else here who accepts it or agrees with you.
What they present is from the deep well of speculation also, and therefore their comments are not credible..
You have to understand that this is the spirituality forum, and it is over-run by atheists and persons of false religion who have no clue on what to do or what not to do.......so I am putting some balance into the forum and am presenting truth not speculation.
I am not interested in speculation ....its worthless and just leads one astray.
If you want to reject then fine, and you can just join the other 6 billion persons who have no clue to why they exist.
Are you going to admit that causing suffering to animals is wrong, or does your self styled ideology protect you from that.
08 Mar 11
1 edit
==============================
And even if this was true, atheism would not be the cause of their evil because atheism is the absence of a belief.
==================================
This is the latter maneuvor that does not conform to the standard philosophical definition of Atheism.
It is not merely a lack of belief in God. It is a positive assertion that there is no God.
A - theist = without God or No God
A - moral = without morals or No Moral
I think you have to honestly go back to the standard definition and not try to sugar coat it into a lack of belief. Athiest = "Look! there is no God !!"
That's an A - Theist.
Not "Look. I lack a belief in God". That is a post modern variant.
The Real Definition of Atheism Dr. William Lane Craig
http://www.youtube.com/user/nephilimfree?blend=1&ob=4#p/a/f/0/5TyI6Hxa4R4
08 Mar 11
Originally posted by DasaYou have a very negative view of the human race, Dasa and an extraordinarily restricted and self-serving definition and concept of what spirituality is.
If you want to reject then fine, and you can just join the other 6 billion persons who have no clue to why they exist.
08 Mar 11
6 edits
Originally posted by jaywillIt's been a while since we had dialogue jaywill (my choice not yours), and so you're free to ignore this post (well you don't even need me to tell you that) but I really want to challenge you on:
[b]==============================
And even if this was true, atheism would not be the cause of their evil because atheism is the absence of a belief.
==================================
This is the latter maneuvor that does not conform to the standard philosophical definition of Atheism.
It is not merely a lack of belief in God. Lane Craig
http://www.youtube.com/user/nephilimfree?blend=1&ob=4#p/a/f/0/5TyI6Hxa4R4[/b]
I think you have to honestly go back to the standard definition and not try to sugar coat it into a lack of belief. Athiest = [b] "Look! there is no God !!"
That's an A - Theist.
Not "Look. I lack a belief in God". That is a post modern variant. [/b]
Would you accept a one size fits all definition of "theist"? If the god we referred to was Islamic God would you accept the charge that you believe in and follow the teachings of Allah simply because you are a theist? Or perhaps a heavily liberal and allegorical interpretation of scripture (and God) inconsistent (if I recall correctly) with your beliefs? I somehow doubt it; and the same is true with the title atheism. As a best-fit term to describe our position, it has the meaning we atheists collectively (except for a minority of "strong" atheists) agree it has now; not what it may have meant if we trace back it's origins, or what you want it to mean.
08 Mar 11
Originally posted by DasaProtect me from what? I have answered this question of yours over and over again and you simply ignore it. Here, once again: I am against animal cruelty. So I oppose causing unnecessary suffering. Yes, animal cruelty is "wrong" in my opinion. And of course, I condone the slaughtering of animals because they are a source of food for humans.
Are you going to admit that causing suffering to animals is wrong, or does your self styled ideology protect you from that.
08 Mar 11
Originally posted by DasaYou are not interested in speculation? Same here. This is exactly what I said in my John W. Booth - "I am a theist" thread and again on the "Challenge to FMF" thread.
I am not interested in speculation ....its worthless and just leads one astray.
I don't see any benefit in speculating about the 'afterlife'. I don't believe in speculating about such a thing as 'reincarnation'. They are both products of speculation and superstition without credible evidence to back them up. I am not interested in this kind of speculation
To me 'God' has nothing to do with the 'afterlife'. I have not received any "instructions" from God. I don't believe you have either, Dasa. I believe that your assertions about chanting, and about the benefits of not having sex with your wife after she'd given birth to your children, and being reincarnated on other planets etc. etc. is all sheer speculation. And I am not interested in speculation.
According to my spiritual mind-map, conjecture and aspiration and speculation about the 'afterlife' is not necessary and has no impact on my life or the way I live my life or my spirituality. I am not interested in speculation
Life is too precious, too wonderful and too much of a thoroughly spiritual experience for me to waste my time telling myself there must be something more than this. I am not interested in this kind of speculation, don't you see Dasa?
Basically I do not subscribe to the brands of "spirituality" that are constructed on (a) there must be something more than this and (b) God has given us "instructions" and we know what they are and (c) if we [follow God's 'instructions' then we will live forever.
I personally believe that "spiritual" dogmas, creeds and 'religious rules' rooted in these three things are simply speculation and on a hiding to nothing. I am not interested in speculation of this kind.
08 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill“...This is the latter maneuvor that does not conform to the standard philosophical definition of Atheism. ...”
[b]==============================
And even if this was true, atheism would not be the cause of their evil because atheism is the absence of a belief.
==================================
This is the latter maneuvor that does not conform to the standard philosophical definition of Atheism.
It is not merely a lack of belief in God. Lane Craig
http://www.youtube.com/user/nephilimfree?blend=1&ob=4#p/a/f/0/5TyI6Hxa4R4[/b]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
“...Atheism, in a broad sense, is the REJECTION of belief in the existence of deities ...”(my emphasis)
“...It is not merely a lack of belief in God. It is a positive assertion that there is no God. ...”
atheism is the disbelief that there is a god. Do you deny that atheists disbelieve that there is a god?
How does :
1, “I disbelieve that there is an X”
mean anything different from
2, “I believe there is no X” ?
Under what circumstances is 1 True but 2, false? Or 1 false and 2 true? Give me just ONE example of how one can be true but not the other...
08 Mar 11
3 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonnvm
“...This is the latter maneuvor that does not conform to the standard philosophical definition of Atheism. ...”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
“...Atheism, in a broad sense, is the REJECTION of belief in the existence of deities ...”(my emphasis)
“...It is not merely a lack of belief in God. It is a positive assertion that there is no God. ...[text shortened]... lse? Or 1 false and 2 true? Give me just ONE example of how one can be true but not the other...
08 Mar 11
Originally posted by FMFYou have it all upside down, because it is you who are speculating with your invented spiritualism.
You are not interested in speculation? Same here. This is exactly what I said in my John W. Booth - "I am a theist" thread and again on the "Challenge to FMF" thread.
I don't see any benefit in speculating about the 'afterlife'. I don't believe in speculating about such a thing as 'reincarnation'. They are both products of speculation and superstition withou ...[text shortened]... ing to nothing. I am not interested in speculation of this kind.
Vedanta is the authority and if anyone subscribes to it, then they are not speculating for it is coming from the Personality of Godhead.
If you reject Vedanta over your own invention, then you are the speculator, just like you have speculated that there is no continuance of the soul and that there is no instructions.
Causing suffering to animals is wrong and you have agreed to this, and you have speculated that it doesn,t matter because it is food.
But you can grow 10 times more food on 100 acres of land than using 100 acres for beef production....so your excuse that it is for food is bogus and an invention that comes from the speculating mind.
At the end of the day you are the same as the atheist who fabricate falsity for the relief of conscience..
Your time here in this forum has been in vain for you have been exposed as talking nonsense.
08 Mar 11
Originally posted by Dasa"Your time here in this forum has been in vain for you have been exposed as talking nonsense."
You have it all upside down, because it is you who are speculating with your invented spiritualism.
Vedanta is the authority and if anyone subscribes to it, then they are not speculating for it is coming from the Personality of Godhead.
If you reject Vedanta over your own invention, then you are the speculator, just like you have speculated that there is ...[text shortened]...
Your time here in this forum has been in vain for you have been exposed as talking nonsense.
Couldn't have phrased it any better myself Dasa(i)!
You have been exposed as a serial fraud.
Your time in this forum continues to be in vain.
Go away quickly before you waste more of your valuable time.
Signed.
Everyone.