So you have decided that you can tell me that I have a god, and what it is?
Sorry, I have no gods.
You don't know what a god is.
Gods are not part of Theravada Buddhism. It is you deciding that gods not being part of it is a void, and that this void is a god. That is ll your doing and irrelevant. What is your intioning in misrepresenting Buddhism like this?
I'm using your own so-called logic and argumentation against you. You neither understand what a god is, nor the logic you employed in the earlier post. That explains your reply.
Because you don't know what a god is, you would never know if you were serving it. As they say ignorance is bliss.
No, it's you trying to impose the idea of god onto non-belief. I'm not sure what you get from this exercise.
It's obvious to anyone who knows what a god is, that non-belief is submitting to a void.
You seem upset that atheists don't assign any personal meaning to any idea of god.
You don't have any idea of a god. Literally. That means you will never know the god you serve.
Aren't you a buddhist? You haven't figured out how koans work? I have.
You weren't being comprehensible. That is your responsibility if you want to be understood.
If you want to understand you need to attach one word to the next. Coherence is on you.
I never said you did. And I have no conception of a god "void", that's in your mind. I understand that you are creating a false premise that "void is a god". This is an absurdity at face value, and you haven't explained how it is supposed to make sense. You are also creating meaning for me that I have never written about. What is there for me to understand about your falsehoods? You are also doing this with others in some sort of frustrated campaign against atheists.
Oh. So the post about being "enlightened" didn't include me? No you didn't mention me by name. Cowardly if you intended to include me and you didn't.
But, you did make a claim about what you think would be evidence of a god.
"One thing thing that always astounded me about some believers is how they don't consider their own behavior as evidence for their God existing and being an influence on their lives. When believers act disresepectfully, with malice, and show no remore for their hateful statements I can't believe that they have sort of God in their lives. Witht he lack of evidence for any of the many gods humans believe in I would think at least they would behave in a way that indicates they are living an enlightened life."
Notice: evidence for a God, capital G, according to you lines up with your definition of "living an enlightened life". You are inserting your version of god, without consent or evidential knowledge, onto others. And yet, you object to the same thing happening to you.
The truth is, your version of enlightenment is only useful for suffering, but it sacrifices all joy, pleasure, happiness, saticfaction, everything that is good in any way is sliced and diced and put onto the altar of the void. If you don't like the idea that you are serving the void, promoting the void, preaching its gospel, then, practice what you preach.
And if you were actually enlightened, you would know no one needs buddhism if they are over-joyed, happy, satisfied, patient and whole host of things which are positive and fulfilling. Literally Fullfilling. And. Surprisingly. None of it is needed if they are angry, or impassioned in any way. Suffering is easily conquered with God. You don't know it, because you don't what a god is.
You really have an inflated belief in yourself. You don't acknowledge being wrong. Character flaw.
I'm not wrong about this. You needed help. You were acting stupid. Stupid-simple is what you deserve.
And, your rule, from the void, is: the logical default is false. So. You would need to bring evidence that I was wrong. Then you would need to bring evidence that I don't acknowledge it. Good luck.
And, it may not feel good. But the truth is, there
are superior people in the world who are more capable than others. That's a fact. You may not like realising that. But its true. If I were to deny my capabilities as some sort of false modesty, that's a lie.
You are a frustrated person. It seems some theists can't deal with the critical analysis of atheists and lash out with personal insults. That is a flaw in character, and you have some things to reflect on. Good luck. Atheists will continue to debate you and other believers over claims of gods existing, and it's your choice to participate, and do so with emotional detachment and integrity, if you are willing.
You don't know me. I have nothing to be frustrated about. There is virtually no critical analysis that comes from atheists. You claim that lashing out with an insult is a character flaw, and yet, here you are trying to insult me. Let me help you. If you want to insult me, it needs to be true. Claiming I'm frustrated and that I have a character flaw is meaningless to me coming from you. There is no truth to it. You might as well be calling me an aardvark.
Regarding detachment, if that's your values, then it explains why you have problems making connections and things appear incoherent to you. It also explains why you are not aware of the god you serve.
Regarding emotions, they are perhaps one of the most powerful tools a person has. No, will not "cut off my own nose" because it pleases you. I will not lower myself to your standards.
Regarding integrity. You have not demonstrated any yourself, so your judgements regarding it are ignored. Again, your own rules, from the void, state: the logical default is false on anything you say. First you would need to define integrity. Then you would need to show how I have done, or am doing, something which is opposed to that definition. Based on what you've been saying, integrity to you means: behave in a way which is subservient to my own ideals.
I repeat, no thank you. Your ideals are weak and ineffective for almost all circumstances. I fully understand them, if I am in great pain someday, I may employ them. Or perhaps I will employ one of several other techniques which have all the same benefit but are lacking the negative side-effects.
