There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[joelr]

You haven't answered my question, joelr. What do you mean (contextually) by the word 'deep'?

No, I did answer your questions. You didn't answer mine. Now why exactly are you piggybacking on this thread and using it as a personal attack? I am standing up for myself from being attacked by repetitive bully nonsense. To which you jumped in with even more needless attacks? You actually are joining in in the bullying. Spineless.
I have no desire to talk philosophy with you. You just took my words which were speaking up for myself to someone else and turned them around and insulted me with every post. I even tried to explain what was going on. You can F$%# O$# with your cowardly attack.

 

[joelr]

Here's another odd 'word'. Does it mean non-scientific? Or perhaps anything joelr does not believe? Or maybe anything he doesn't understand?

No I understand. Don't get it twisted. It means stuff people believe but have no evidence to warrant belief and is almost definitely false. Monsters, alien abductions, religion, ghosts, scientology.

 

[joelr]

Here's another odd 'word'. Does it mean non-scientific? Or perhaps anything joelr does not believe? Or maybe anything he doesn't understand?

Maybe someday before dissapearing in the middle of a debate you lost you can provide some actual evidence that isn't crank and you'll feel less butthurt?

 

[shunyadragon]

Better than the Abrahamic religions? They have a cyclic universe which is actually an idea in modern cosmology. It isn't "then God created everything".... wu.

Picking one point to justify your agenda, and ignoring all the mythology of the Gita is a problem of selectively calling other religions 'wu.' Also not acknowledging that Daoism and Confucianism predate anything known written in Hinduism concerning moral philosophy,

 

[shunyadragon]

No I understand. Don't get it twisted. It means stuff people believe but have no evidence to warrant belief and is almost definitely false. Monsters, alien abductions, religion, ghosts, scientology.

. . . including mythical cosmology of Hinduism.

 

[shunyadragon]

The Vedas are older, 1500, I have studied Taoism. It is unique but very different. Not as deep into metaphysics. More about ways to live and think.

False, the Vedas are specifically and historically dated to no older than ~300 -200 BCE.

Bhagavad Gita - Wikipedia.

According to Arthur Basham, the context of the Bhagavad Gita suggests that it was composed in an era when the ethics of war were being questioned and renunciation to monastic life was becoming popular.[46] Such an era emerged after the rise of Buddhism and Jainism in the 5th century BCE, and particularly after the semi-legendary life of Ashoka in 3rd century BCE. Thus, the first version of the Bhagavad Gita may have been composed in or after the 3rd century BCE.[46]

Linguistically, the Bhagavad Gita is in classical Sanskrit of the early variety, states the Gita scholar Winthrop Sargeant.[47] The text has occasional pre-classical elements of the Sanskrit language, such as the aorist and the prohibitive mā instead of the expected na (not) of classical Sanskrit.[47] This suggests that the text was composed after the Pāṇini era, but before the long compounds of classical Sanskrit became the norm. This would date the text as transmitted by the oral tradition to the later centuries of the 1st-millennium BCE, and the first written version probably to the 2nd or 3rd century CE.[47][48]

According to Jeaneane Fowler, "the dating of the Gita varies considerably" and depends in part on whether one accepts it to be a part of the early versions of the Mahabharata, or a text that was inserted into the epic at a later date.[49] The earliest "surviving" components therefore are believed to be no older than the earliest "external" references we have to the Mahabharata epic. The Mahabharata – the world's longest poem – is itself a text that was likely written and compiled over several hundred years, one dated between "400 BCE or little earlier, and 2nd century CE, though some claim a few parts can be put as late as 400 CE", states Fowler. The dating of the Gita is thus dependent on the uncertain dating of the Mahabharata. The actual dates of composition of the Gita remain unresolved.[49] While the year and century is uncertain, states Richard Davis,[50] the internal evidence in the text dates the origin of the Gita discourse to the Hindu lunar month of Margashirsha (also called Agrahayana, generally December or January of the Gregorian calendar).

Obviously that is a metaphor or literal for fundamentalists. The Illiad has Gods and creatures as well but it's the story and the meaning.

No more obviously a metaphor than any other scripture of ancient scripture.

 

[shunyadragon]

I was thinking of Buddhism. The only outrageous claims are your suggesting all this nonsense about supporting things I don't believe in. I am familiar with Sumeria and the first author in history.

The problem is your selective accepting this and that from the Gita to justify your agenda, and call all other scriptures 'wu.'

Yes, the moral philosophy is deep, the exploration into consciousness is deep and accepted as deep by many great thinkers, writers and scientists. Emerson, Ghandi, Heisenburg,
I already gave sources and all that with the philosophy, I'm not going to just keep posting the same philosophical topics. We are past that.

No, we are NOT past that. It remains your select bias of what you subjectively 'believe as 'deep' based on a selective agenda,.You classically overstate the philosophy of the Gita and negate the philosophy of other ancient religions,

I can easily cite references concerning ALL other ancient religions and philosophies some older than the Gita, as documented, like Taoism and Confucianism

Laozi is traditionally regarded as one of the founders of Taoism and is closely associated in this context with original or primordial Taoism.[25] Whether he actually existed is disputed;[26][27] however, the work attributed to him—the Tao Te Ching—is dated to the late 4th century BCE.[28]

The moral philosophy of Taoism is intimately related to the older Confucian literature, and this is dated as older by reference to what Confucius and his student collected the writings from all over China.

Not older than Hinduism. Didn't say the Gita was older, I'll deal with that lie below.

Hinduism has no documented Age. It is the Gita and any other writings you need to refer to that document your assertions.

Yes you did claim ~1500 BCE for the Gita which is false,



[quore] Then here is yet another tip. Stop lying. Here is what I actually said:
"It is considered deep philosophy on consciousness and the nature of reality. - Vedas, the oldest scriptures of Hinduism, and deal with meditation, philosophy, consciousness and ontological knowledge"

Draft saved​

Ha, in the tip about me stopping false claims you make up a fantasy argument? Somehow the Vedas being the oldest scripture in Hinduism becomes "the Gita is older than everything"????? [/quote]

Here is the return trip 'Stop making false subjective claims of the Vedas and Hinduism to justify your agenda.

No, I claimed the Vedas are not as old as you claimed or significant as other ancient religions, and other older writings and scriptures contribute to the moral philosophies and knowledge, which you negate in favor of glorifying the Vedas and Hinduism. You made the false undocumented claim that the Taoist philosophy is from Hinduism

That isn't sketchy? Please, stay, I'll continue smashing you all day.

Oh yeah, like you lead the French troops at the battle of Waterloo. Like your false claims of the origin of Taoist philosophy, which is likely intimately related to the much older writings collected by Confucianism not Hinduism.

 

[samtonga43]

Maybe someday before dissapearing in the middle of a debate you lost you can provide some actual evidence that isn't crank and you'll feel less butthurt?

LOL!! So many assumptions...

 

[shunyadragon]

This thread left the original purpose long ago. There are some interesting 'thought' and philosophical' discussions on this subject still may be productive. The first factual basis for the evidence is yes, there is no 'objective verifiable evidence for the existence of God or Gods. The second is science has an adequate explanation for the nature of our physical existence, the existence of life, and humanity having natural explanations and origins without the necessity of Gods.

The other problem is IF God exists 'Which God is God?'. Over the millennia of human existence, there have evolved numerous conflicting and contradictory beliefs about God. The evidence demonstrates that these diverse views reflect the culture of the time and place the beliefs were recorded, which makes the claims of any one religion problematic and irrational that their God exists as described and the other religions are false Gods. Conclusion: IF God exists the 'Source some call God(s) exists the nature of God is beyond the comprehension of the fallible human subjective beliefs. Also, IF this 'Source' exists as truly an Omnipotent, All Powerful All Knowing Creator God exists the nature of our existence, life, and the nature of humanity must reflect the attributes of the 'Source' from a universal perspective beyond human comprehension with no contradictions.

I believe in the 'Source' some call God, but reject the existence of God or God(s) as described from the fallible human perspective in ancient religions, The evidence for the existence of this 'Source' is indeed subjective in nature. I believe in the spiritual and physical evolution of humanity, and the knowledge of our nature as in consciousness and the nature of our relationship with our physical existence evolves progressively in the different religions. Older religions are motr rooted in the primitive cultures of the time but do contain guidance for humanity for the time they are revealed. It remains a problem that ancient religions are very tribal and have no relationship with humanity outside their tribe, which results in conflicts and other problems rejecting the other religions, and the numerous divisions thereof...

 

[rational experiences]

The teaching of humans talk about two different forms of God.

The God in created creation which human science theories. As science products. Conversions. Powers. Energies.

And the unknown God. The God that was never created and had always existed and always will.

We only live on earth.

Science says the sun is temporary.

Once earths heavens in space only held a non alight heavens. Immaculate type. One side he taught was sacrificed. How the heavens now was alight.

Half of the heavenly God body. Sacrificed.

I don't use the term God. As humans have theoried using that word too many times in literature and memory to define its not my spiritual subject.

The unknown source of all things.

Cannot be known in created creation as it left the source and converted a mass of its owned body as one loss only.

So as we argue we question. Asked and what theory do you tell. I don't talk science theories claiming I know a first reaction.

I talk about only what hadn't changed. By the word we used as eternal type.

It's why God in argument science is highest coldest position in heavens type or fused rock. The opposition to science God is converting mass.

The eternal owns no opposition.

 

[joelr]

Picking one point to justify your agenda, and ignoring all the mythology of the Gita is a problem of selectively calling other religions 'wu.' Also not acknowledging that Daoism and Confucianism predate anything known written in Hinduism concerning moral philosophy,

Again, wrong on all counts. I picked one point to justify the one point. I said way back I don't buy into the theology of this Hindusim, so it's also wu.
Confucianism, from Confucius who lived 500 B.C? He was writing down tradition but so were Hindu authors?
Why would I need to acknowledge something I'm not studying? Makes no sense?
I remember the I Ching being pretty heavy, maybe I'll get back to it. Right now I'm trying to understand something else. So ALL of your bizarre complaints are just you chasing ghosts.
Daoism is also interesting. Not older than Hinduism. If I get back to that maybe I'll say it's also deep. Seems really important to you so I'll be sure to let you know.

 

[joelr]

. . . including mythical cosmology of Hinduism.

Sure. Since we are being thorough, the complete wu-wu of revelations, a theistic God, reinventing religions (how dare he), ridiculous prophecies that are clearly not prophecies at all. I would leave it at that but you wanted to go here.
So the bigger issue here is your religion, which you believe to be true, seems to generally support much of the Hindu wu?

Hinduism is recognized in the Baháʼí Faith as one of nine known religions.[1] Krishna is included in the succession of Manifestations of God.

In another tablet (published in Gleanings, section LXXXVII) Baháʼu'lláh discussed the absence of records about history before Adam. Here he refers to the Jug-Basisht which is the Persian translation of the Yoga Vasistha, a syncretic philosophic text.[2] The translation was done during the Mughal Dynasty in the sixteenth century A.D. and became popular in Persia among intellectuals with Indo-Persian interests since the
In the Story of Bhusunda, a chapter of the Yoga Vasistha, a very old sage, Bhusunda, recalls a succession of epochs in the earth's history, as described in Hindu cosmology. Juan Cole states that this means that in dating Creation, Baháʼu'lláh promotes the theory of a long chronology over a short one


In Hinduism, Brahman is believed to be the Absolute Reality. Followers of Vedanta see Brahman as an impersonal reality, of which each soul (ātman) is a part. The theistic traditions of Hinduism, which include Vaishnavism and Shaivism, consider Brahman as a personal God, whom they call Bhagwan or Ishvara (Lord).[4] According to the Baháʼí teachings, these differing views are all valid and represent different points of view looking at the Absolute Reality.

There are many similarities in the ethical and moral teachings of Hinduism and the Baháʼí Faith. These include subject as contemplation, detachment, faith, love, non-violence, purity, respect for parents, righteousness, self-control, right speech, not stealing, truth, virtue, work as worship

The speedy growth of the Indian Baháʼí community since the 1960s was influenced by adapting the Baháʼí teachings for presentation in a clearly Hindu context familiar to the people of the countryside - using principles and language familiar to them:[9][10]

• emphasizing the figures of Buddha and Krishna as past Manifestations of God or Avatars;
• references to Hindu scriptures such as the Bhagavad Gita;
• the substitution of Sanskrit-based terminology for Arabic and Persian where possible (i.e., Bhagavan Baha for Baháʼu'lláh), and the incorporation in both song (bhajan)[11] and literature of Hindu holy places, hero-figures and poetic images;
• Hindi translations of Baha'i scriptures and prayers that appeared during this period which are so heavily Sanskritized as to make it difficult to recognize their non-Hindu antecedents.

Krishna is a main deity and giver of many revelations. He is also responsible for all of the philosophy in the Gita. Your religion claims this philosophy are revelations from God? From a manifestation or avatar.
Yet you have been harping on how "wu" Hinduism is. This is all so ironic.

 

[joelr]

False, the Vedas are specifically and historically dated to no older than ~300 -200 BCE.

Bhagavad Gita - Wikipedia.

According to Arthur Basham, the context of the Bhagavad Gita suggests that it was composed in an era when the ethics of war were being questioned and renunciation to monastic life was becoming popular.[46] Such an era emerged after the rise of Buddhism and Jainism in the 5th century BCE, and particularly after the semi-legendary life of Ashoka in 3rd century BCE. Thus, the first version of the Bhagavad Gita may have been composed in or after the 3rd century BCE.[46]

Linguistically, the Bhagavad Gita is in classical Sanskrit of the early variety, states the Gita scholar Winthrop Sargeant.[47] The text has occasional pre-classical elements of the Sanskrit language, such as the aorist and the prohibitive mā instead of the expected na (not) of classical Sanskrit.[47] This suggests that the text was composed after the Pāṇini era, but before the long compounds of classical Sanskrit became the norm. This would date the text as transmitted by the oral tradition to the later centuries of the 1st-millennium BCE, and the first written version probably to the 2nd or 3rd century CE.[47][48]

According to Jeaneane Fowler, "the dating of the Gita varies considerably" and depends in part on whether one accepts it to be a part of the early versions of the Mahabharata, or a text that was inserted into the epic at a later date.[49] The earliest "surviving" components therefore are believed to be no older than the earliest "external" references we have to the Mahabharata epic. The Mahabharata – the world's longest poem – is itself a text that was likely written and compiled over several hundred years, one dated between "400 BCE or little earlier, and 2nd century CE, though some claim a few parts can be put as late as 400 CE", states Fowler. The dating of the Gita is thus dependent on the uncertain dating of the Mahabharata. The actual dates of composition of the Gita remain unresolved.[49] While the year and century is uncertain, states Richard Davis,[50] the internal evidence in the text dates the origin of the Gita discourse to the Hindu lunar month of Margashirsha (also called Agrahayana, generally December or January of the Gregorian calendar).

You say false then demonstrate evidence that isn't sure? I think Worldhistory got it correct:

Bhagavad Gita

It is commonly referred to as the Gita and was originally part of the great Indian epic Mahabharata. Its date of composition, therefore, is closely associated with that of the epic – c. 5th-3rd century BCE – but not all scholars agree that the work was originally included in the Mahabharata text and so date it later to c. 2nd century BCE.

No more obviously a metaphor than any other scripture of ancient scripture.

Some Hinduism is more like traditional theism. So what? Theism is wu.

 

[joelr]

Draft saved​

Ha, in the tip about me stopping false claims you make up a fantasy argument? Somehow the Vedas being the oldest scripture in Hinduism becomes "the Gita is older than everything"?????

[/QUOTE]

Maybe do a check of what you think something says before you get overconfident with your response. Oops, too late.
Didn't say the Gita was older than everything? The Vedas go back to around 1500 and cover the subjects I mentioned and much more.

Here is the return trip 'Stop making false subjective claims of the Vedas and Hinduism to justify your agenda.

So you were wrong with that. But you haven't established any agenda, just baseless claims?

No, I claimed the Vedas are not as old as you claimed or significant as other ancient religions, and other older writings and scriptures contribute to the moral philosophies and knowledge, which you negate in favor of glorifying the Vedas and Hinduism. You made the false undocumented claim that the Taoist philosophy is from Hinduism

No that is your imaginary argument you have been having all this time. By saying Hinduism has some deep philosophy you inferred everything else about agendas, ignoring other religions, all a bunch of propaganda based in imagination. A bad look.

Yeah I was thinking Buddhism when I said Taoism. Did I not already say that? Yes I did. Continuing to harp on a small mistake shows desperation.

Oh yeah, like you lead the French troops at the battle of Waterloo. Like your false claims of the origin of Taoist philosophy, which is likely intimately related to the much older writings collected by Confucianism not Hinduism.

Yup, definitely desperation. No I don't lead troops. I lead words and when you come at me with baseless arguments and claims you get smashed. Maybe next time try a line of argument not based in anger, bullying and falsehoods and you might have a chance.

 

[joelr]

LOL!! So many assumptions...

Right except you jumped on the back of someone else's argument just to throw shade and insults. That isn't an assumption. That is weakness. You have never presented a good argument for your beliefs, so it's a fair guess.

 

[shunyadragon]

Maybe do a check of what you think something says before you get overconfident with your response. Oops, too late.
Didn't say the Gita was older than everything? The Vedas go back to around 1500 and cover the subjects I mentioned and much more.

The above is unbelievably false. I never said any such thing.

Clarify 1500?? BCE or AD?. I gave a reference that refutes 1500 BCE. If you persist in insisting on 1500? please document with a reference,

So you were wrong with that. But you haven't established any agenda, just baseless claims?

Documented the problems with your claims.

No that is your imaginary argument you have been having all this time. By saying Hinduism has some deep philosophy you inferred everything else about agendas, ignoring other religions, all a bunch of propaganda based in imagination. A bad look.

Yeah I was thinking Buddhism when I said Taoism. Did I not already say that? Yes I did. Continuing to harp on a small mistake shows desperation.

Actually, Siddhartha Gautama c. 563 BCE or 480 BCE, and its scriptures are about the same age as the Gita. Both may be considered to have origins in Hindu older traditions and beliefs. It is unreasonable to claim that the Gita itself is the inspiration for the scriptures and beliefs of Buddhism.

Yup, definitely desperation. No I don't lead troops. I lead words and when you come at me with baseless arguments and claims you get smashed. Maybe next time try a line of argument not based in anger, bullying and falsehoods and you might have a chance.

Again, perpetual name-calling contributes nothing to the discussion.

Still, no documentation or coherent argument that the Gita is any more influential than any other religion or philosophy in the contemporary world. All religions and philosophies contribute to the evolving morals and philosophies of today's world. Judaism, Christianity, Taoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism contributed to the evolving concept of consciousness and meditative practices, It is too subjective to claim that the Gita is superior. to other religions some of which are documented as older.

Your claims about 'Deep philosophy' remain subjective vague and undocumented.

Again please document with reference what you refer to as 1500?. date.

 

[shunyadragon]

You say false then demonstrate evidence that isn't sure? I think Worldhistory got it correct:

Bhagavad Gita

It is commonly referred to as the Gita and was originally part of the great Indian epic Mahabharata. Its date of composition, therefore, is closely associated with that of the epic – c. 5th-3rd century BCE – but not all scholars agree that the work was originally included in the Mahabharata text and so date it later to c. 2nd century BCE.

These dates agree with my source, and to note, The range of dates of possible origins of the Gita does range as referenced, but the Gita itself is a compilation over time, and parts of it are dated later than in the first millennia AD. The Gita is not known to exist in and of itself prior to ~300 to 200 BCE. There is no reference to a 1500? date. The Gita is not that old. Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism are older, and Buddhism cannot be documented as inspired by Gita. Both were inspired by older traditional traditions and beliefs. Considering the documented time Buddha lived he likely inspired part of the compilation of the Gita,

Some Hinduism is more like traditional theism. So what? Theism is wu.

Some? The Gita is fundamentally Theistic as claiming an intimate relationship between humans and Gods.

It is an important issue concerning the weakness of your claims and being selective about glorifying the Gitaa and negating other religions.

Your problem of selectively glorifying the Gita over other ancient religions which is the common ego-centric problem of the followers of other ancient religions like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam relying on selective references that agree with you The reality is many scholars refer to the various different religions as having a significant contribution to moral philosophy and the nature of consciousness. . The Baha'i Faith and I consider them equally in the context of the culture and time their scriptures were compiled in the progressive Theistic spiritual evolving nature of humanity.

Again . . . Yes, ALL contain ancient mythology and non-scientific information in their scriptures including the Gita.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sure. Since we are being thorough, the complete wu-wu of revelations, a theistic God, reinventing religions (how dare he), ridiculous prophecies that are clearly not prophecies at all. I would leave it at that but you wanted to go here.
So the bigger issue here is your religion, which you believe to be true, seems to generally support much of the Hindu wu?

Hinduism is fundamentally Theistic cover to cover is full of mythological stories and Creationist accounts including the age of humanity. I acknowledge this in all ancient religions that reflect the culture of the time the scriptures were compiled.

Hinduism

is recognized in the Baháʼí Faith as one of nine known religions.[1] Krishna is included in the succession of Manifestations of God.

True and recognizes the contributions of ALL religions to the evolving spiritual nature of humanity, and does not glorify one over the others as you do. The Baha'i Faith acknowledges the Theistic nature of the Gita as a part of the Progressive nature of human spirituality. and you conveniently edit it out to justify your agenda. evolution

[quote[ In another tablet (published in Gleanings, section LXXXVII) Baháʼu'lláh discussed the absence of records about history before Adam. Here he refers to the Jug-Basisht which is the Persian translation of the Yoga Vasistha, a syncretic philosophic text.[2] The translation was done during the Mughal Dynasty in the sixteenth century A.D. and became popular in Persia among intellectuals with Indo-Persian interests since the
In the Story of Bhusunda, a chapter of the Yoga Vasistha, a very old sage, Bhusunda, recalls a succession of epochs in the earth's history, as described in Hindu cosmology. Juan Cole states that this means that in dating Creation, Baháʼu'lláh promotes the theory of a long chronology over a short one. [/quote]

There is a difference between how the scriptures that describe the physical existence and our Creation, and the Baha'i Faith specifically acknowledges the evolving scientific knowledge ce of the history of our physical existence, and the Gita does not


In Hinduism, Brahman is believed to be the Absolute Reality. Followers of Vedanta see Brahman as an impersonal reality, of which each soul (ātman) is a part. The theistic traditions of Hinduism, which include Vaishnavism and Shaivism, consider Brahman as a personal God, whom they call Bhagwan or Ishvara (Lord).[4] According to the Baháʼí teachings, these differing views are all valid and represent different points of view looking at the Absolute Reality.

There are many similarities in the ethical and moral teachings of Hinduism and the Baháʼí Faith. These include subject as contemplation, detachment, faith, love, non-violence, purity, respect for parents, righteousness, self-control, right speech, not stealing, truth, virtue, work as worship

The speedy growth of the Indian Baháʼí community since the 1960s was influenced by adapting the Baháʼí teachings for presentation in a clearly Hindu context familiar to the people of the countryside - using principles and language familiar to them:[9][10]

• emphasizing the figures of Buddha and Krishna as past Manifestations of God or Avatars;
• references to Hindu scriptures such as the Bhagavad Gita;
• the substitution of Sanskrit-based terminology for Arabic and Persian where possible (i.e., Bhagavan Baha for Baháʼu'lláh), and the incorporation in both song (bhajan)[11] and literature of Hindu holy places, hero-figures and poetic images;
• Hindi translations of Baha'i scriptures and prayers that appeared during this period which are so heavily Sanskritized as to make it difficult to recognize their non-Hindu antecedents.

OK not an issur here

Krishna is a main deity and giver of many revelations. He is also responsible for all of the philosophy in the Gita. Your religion claims this philosophy are revelations from God? From a manifestation or avatar.
Yet you have been harping on how "wu" Hinduism is. This is all so ironic.

I have NOT harped on the 'wu' of Hinduism. I have harped on your selective consideration of the Gits, and failure to consider Hinduism on an equal consideration with other religions in history. ALL religions contain ancient mythology that reflects the culture of the time

You acknowledge above that the Gita is fundamentally Theistic as the Baha'i Faith and I acknowledge., and not just 'some.'

 

[shunyadragon]

In Hinduism, Brahman is believed to be the Absolute Reality. Followers of Vedanta see Brahman as an impersonal reality, of which each soul (ātman) is a part. The theistic traditions of Hinduism, which include Vaishnavism and Shaivism, consider Brahman as a personal God, whom they call Bhagwan or Ishvara (Lord).[4] According to the Baháʼí teachings, these differing views are all valid and represent different points of view looking at the Absolute Reality.

The above describes the diverse views of Theism, and Panentheism, which are ultimately a human view of God and not God, and in related beliefs also in Buddhism. Though some schools of Zen Buddhism do tend toward Atheism or agnosticism,

The 'Source' some call God(s) is ultimately an impersonal 'Source' and the Ultimate Reality. similar to what is found in Taoism, Buddhism The different aspects described in the scriptures are attributes of God in Creation, and not the personal nature of God, which is unknowable and unattainable,

The disagreement centers on 'What is Revelation?', which I will get into in the next post..

 

[joelr]

Maybe do a check of what you think something says before you get overconfident with your response. Oops, too late.
Didn't say the Gita was older than everything? The Vedas go back to around 1500 and cover the subjects I mentioned and much more.

The above is unbelievably false. I never said any such thing.

Clarify 1500?? BCE or AD?. I gave a reference that refutes 1500 BCE. If you persist in insisting on 1500? please document with a reference,

Ha, in the tip about me stopping false claims you make up a fantasy argument? Somehow the Vedas being the oldest scripture in Hinduism becomes "the Gita is older than everything"?????

You are not properly formatting your posts. You have quotes from me and then in the text where you reply it looks like more of my text. Post 4367 If you cannot handle simple code then this is what will happen.
Yes the Vedas go back to around 1500 B.C.

Actually, Siddhartha Gautama c. 563 BCE or 480 BCE, and its scriptures are about the same age as the Gita. Both may be considered to have origins in Hindu older traditions and beliefs. It is unreasonable to claim that the Gita itself is the inspiration for the scriptures and beliefs of Buddhism.

Right but I never said that the Gita was the inspiration. Yet another fictional argument. I said Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism.

Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism. Its founder, Siddhartha Gautama, started out as a Hindu. For this reason, Buddhism is often referred to as an offshoot of Hinduism. Known to the world as Buddha, Gautama is believed to have been a wealthy Indian prince.

Again, perpetual name-calling contributes nothing to the discussion.

and another! More fictional arguments? Telling someone they are being a bully isn't name calling. It's describing their bully actions. But when you do try to call out things like that with NPD people they will say it's name calling.

Still, no documentation or coherent argument that the Gita is any more influential than any other religion or philosophy in the contemporary world. All religions and philosophies contribute to the evolving morals and philosophies of today's world. Judaism, Christianity, Taoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism contributed to the evolving concept of consciousness and meditative practices, It is too subjective to claim that the Gita is superior. to other religions some of which are documented as older.

OMG.......ANOTHER fake argument. I said the work was influential and considered a classic of philosophy. Once agin you moved the goalpost and think I have to show it's MORE influential? Cooky?

Your claims about 'Deep philosophy' remain subjective vague and undocumented.

Again please document with reference what you refer to as 1500?. date.

Your motives for creating all these bizarre arguments remain subjective vague and undocumented. The comments about deep philosophy are documented in several of my posts. I said it was deep. There, it's documented. I don't care about your opinion of that? Why would I ? Plus I gave examples of Ghandi, Emerson and the internet philosophy encyclopedia all giving high praise to this work, far more than I need to post.


The Rigveda is the oldest known Vedic Sanskrit text.[5] Its early layers are among the oldest extant texts in any Indo-European language.[6][note 2] The sounds and texts of the Rigveda have been orally transmitted since the 2nd millennium BCE.[8][9][10] The philological and linguistic evidence indicates that the bulk of the Rigveda Samhita was composed in the northwestern region (see Rigvedic rivers) of the Indian subcontinent, most likely between c. 1500 and 1000 BCE,[11][12][13] although a wider approximation of c. 1900–1200 BCE has also been given.[14][15][note 1]


This article thinks the dates were changed because Genesis says the world started in 4B.C.
Thus, it can be seen that most of the Sanskritists, even those in the West disagreed with Max Mueller’s arbitrary date given to the Rig Veda and the Vedic literature. Most of the scholars now agree that Rig Veda can be dated around 4500–5000 BC and the rest of the Vedic literature from 4500 BC to 2000 BC. The Vedic literature is far older than the Genesis stories and Bishop Usher’s date of the creation of the universe at 9 am on 23rd October 4004 BC.
You are all alive because of PM Modi: Bihar minister asserts in viral video-India News , Firstpost