Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed

[Darkstorn]

"evidence provided but never addressed" seems to be the common theme of all threads having to do with evolution. ALL evidence is ignored. I'm starting to see it as slightly pointless to even argue about it.

We'll just have to wait and let evolution do its course. The strongest should at least theoretically survive? Unless the weak and stupid manage to ruin that for all of us before it happens.

/E: A question about heaven to the guy above me:

Can you imagine heaven using non-mundane methods? I mean, the image of heaven in your head. Because we all know you formed them using mundane means, using concepts existent in the real world. Because you cannot know something you have no experience of. So yes, you "have been" in your heaven already. Otherwise you wouldn't know what it is.

But to be honest, even if your idea of heaven existed, it wouldn't be my heaven: I couldn't do any of the things i actually wanted to. I couldn't eat bacon, i couldn't drink beer, i couldn't make an idol of Satan, etc.

/E2: I'll also say that your entire argument seems to hinge on ridiculing that other guy. You make fun of his beliefs while expressing your own equally retardo-funny ones. That being said, i'm a Buddhist like him. And i'll fix one thing in his claims:

Saying that the Buddha exists in a state that transcends life and death is slightly wrong. Buddhism DOES NOT make claims regarding the existence or non-existence of things WHATSOEVER. Literally, when the Buddha was asked whether something exists or doesn't, he refused to answer. I do get what you mean though, but it's not quite that clear cut. A more accurate way would be to say that he exists, he doesn't, and both and neither at the same time.

 

[sayak83]

f I had the power, I would make abortions illegal. I have to follow the law that is in effect now.

This shows your inherent tyrannical tendency to forcefully impose your God's morality on others. Shows I am justified in opposing and preventing you from such actions.

Your opinion is noted and since you provided no evidence, it is rejected.

Same for you.

If it gives you a warm fuzzy to reject history, be my guest.

History is not rejected. Buddha himself says that he incarnated himself from the highest heavens (much above where your God currently lives) and moved into the state of Nibbana after leaving the earth.

If you want cockroaches in your nirvana, that fine with me. I don't want any in hral and only heaven.

You don't get a choice on this matter. But cockroaches are also fundamentally souls like you and me and their bodily form is only temporary. In the final state of moksha, your state will not have any connection to your bodily forms in the countless lives where you have been everything from gods to mosquitoes. And yes, you have been a cockroach yourself as well in an earlier life (and may become one in a future one). You yourself may have also been a god yourself and may become one in future.

 

[omega2xx]

This shows your inherent tyrannical tendency to forcefully impose your God's morality on others. Shows I am justified in opposing and preventing you from such actions.

If you had the authority, you would make eating cows against the law. That shows your inherent tyrannical tendency to forcefully impose your not a god laws on me.

History is not rejected. Buddha himself says that he incarnated himself from the highest heavens (much above where your God currently lives) and moved into the state of Nibbana after leaving the earth.

Once up a time.....And the lived happily ever after.

You don't get a choice on this matter. But cockroaches are also fundamentally souls like you and me and their bodily form is only temporary. In the final state of moksha, your state will not have any connection to your bodily forms in the countless lives where you have been everything from gods to mosquitoes. And yes, you have been a cockroach yourself as well in an earlier life (and may become one in a future one). You yourself may have also been a god yourself and may become one in future.

Any religion that makes cockroaches of the same value as humans has a serious reality problem.

 

[Darkstorn]

Omega2xx: Your only argument is ridiculing his faith while thinking of yourself high on the pedestal. That is why your argument seems at best petty, and at worst made by someone who has serious trouble understanding reality around them.

If you want to argue, use proper arguments. Right now you're making a fool of yourself. You are ridiculing Buddhism. While believing in fairy tales.

/E: Sayak, you cannot make claims about souls, seeing as Buddhism makes no such claims. The existence of a soul is analogous to the existence of the self... Even thinking that you have a soul is counter-productive for the purpose of Buddhism. It's "besides" the point. Life after death is ALSO besides the point, what matters is now, and the people around you.

The Buddha neither rejected or accepted the existence of a soul. It's a meaningless pondering.

 

[omega2xx]

Omega2xx: Your only argument is ridiculing his faith while thinking of yourself high on the pedestal. That is why your argument seems at best petty, and at worst made by someone who has serious trouble understanding reality around them.

If you want to argue, use proper arguments. Right now you're making a fool of yourself. You are ridiculing Buddhism. While believing in fairy tales.

Unless you have evidence Buddhism is true and Christianity is not, get back to me. Unless you can do that it is you who is being petty and has serious trouble understanding reality around them. and making a fool of your self.

Who dies and made you the final authority of what is a proper argument? You don't even understand that disagreeing is not ridiculing. If it is then you are ridiculing my religion. Maybe now you will understand it is not a one way street, but I doubt if you extreme bias and arrogance will allow you to be wrong.

 

[Darkstorn]

Unless you have evidence Buddhism is true and Christianity is not, get back to me. Unless you can do that it is you who is being petty and has serious trouble understanding reality around them. and making a fool of your self.

This isn't what the thread is about. You hijacked it. It's not my place to prove Christianity wrong or Buddhism right, because it's simply not what this thread is about.

And your ONLY argument so far against him is ridicule. THAT is petty.

Who dies and made you the final authority of what is a proper argument? You don't even understand that disagreeing is not ridiculing. If it is then you are ridiculing my religion. Maybe now you will understand it is not a one way street, but I doubt if you extreme bias and arrogance will allow you to be wrong.

I am ridiculing you for your lack of proper arguments, not your religion. Your only argument is trying to ridicule another and make fun of his beliefs. I have not done that. I could, to give you the taste of your own medicine. But i won't, and it's not what the thread is about. Stop TRYING to derail it on PURPOSE.

I do consider you petty, yes. You have nothing except ridicule.

 

[McBell]

Unless you have evidence Buddhism is true and Christianity is not, get back to me. Unless you can do that it is you who is being petty and has serious trouble understanding reality around them. and making a fool of your self.

Who dies and made you the final authority of what is a proper argument? You don't even understand that disagreeing is not ridiculing. If it is then you are ridiculing my religion. Maybe now you will understand it is not a one way street, but I doubt if you extreme bias and arrogance will allow you to be wrong.

All of that to say "I know you are, what am I?"?

 

[omega2xx]

This isn't what the thread is about. You hijacked it. It's not my place to prove Christianity wrong or Buddhism right, because it's simply not what this thread is about.

I am no the one who changed the suject.

And your ONLY argument so far against him is ridicule. THAT is petty.

So far all you hved dcone is ridicule me---that is even pettier.

I am ridiculing you for your lack of proper arguments, not your religion. Your only argument is trying to ridicule another and make fun of his beliefs. I have not done that. I could, to give you the taste of your own medicine. But i won't, and it's not what the thread is about. Stop TRYING to derail it on PURPOSE.[/QUOTE]

You ae doing the same thing I hve been doing--You have a dou ble l standard and you forgot to tell me how dies and mae youthg final authority on what is a prop;er argument.

I do consider you petty, yes. You have nothing except ridicule.

I consider you petty, yes you have nothing but ridicule and your arrogance thinks you get to determine what is a prop;er argument. How sad, Do you want to discuss this subject or just whine about me?

 

[Darkstorn]

I am no the one who changed the suject.

I'm talking about the fact that you are asking me to do something that has nothing to do with the thread.

So far all you hved dcone is ridicule me---that is even pettier.

"even pettier" - how exactly? You are LITERALLY making fun of someone. I make the claim that i'm not, you are only saying that i am.

You ae doing the same thing I hve been doing--You have a dou ble l standard and you forgot to tell me how dies and mae youthg final authority on what is a prop;er argument.

You forgot to write this in a way that makes it understandable to myself.

I consider you petty, yes you have nothing but ridicule and your arrogance thinks you get to determine what is a prop;er argument. How sad, Do you want to discuss this subject or just whine about me?

I still agree with my assessment: That you making fun of someone is petty and not a proper argument. If you think this is arrogant, then i think you are being ignorant.

/E: You accuse me of doing the same thing as you. Okay. So let's do the same thing as you:

You believe the world was created in 7 days.

You believe that the world is flat.

You believe that you have a brain larger than that of a goldfish.

 

[omega2xx]

All of that to say "I know you are, what am I?"?

Do you want to discuss the subject or just keep making silly statements?

 

[Darkstorn]

Do you want to discuss the subject or just keep making silly statements?

What subject is that? Proving the supremacy of your thought process? So far you have been failing miserably.

 

[omega2xx]

I'm talking about the fact that you are asking me to do something that has nothing to do with the thread.



"even pettier" - how exactly? You are LITERALLY making fun of someone. I make the claim that i'm not, you are only saying that i am.



You forgot to write this in a way that makes it understandable to myself.



I still agree with my assessment: That you making fun of someone is petty and not a proper argument. If you think this is arrogant, then i think you are being ignorant.

/E: You accuse me of doing the same thing as you. Okay. So let's do the same thing as you:

You believe the world was created in 7 days.

You believe that the world is flat.


You believe that you have a brain larger than that of a goldfish.

I bet you got all of that great wisdom on the play ground in the third grade. Evidently you only have the intellect to insult others, not enough to discuss a subject.

When I was a child, I use to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.

 

[Darkstorn]

I bet you got all of that great wisdom on the play ground in the third grade. Evidently you only have the intellect to insult others, not enough to discuss a subject.

Rofl. So you were being a Man(with a big "M") and not making fun of Sayak at all? Remember that Cockroach comment. You were LITERALLY acting like a 12-year-old.

Not to mention you seem to consider a disagreeing reply to your posts as "ridiculing" and "petty". Show me where have i ridiculed you before. I mean, other than the last post, and the post where i did say *myself* that i'm ridiculing you(which wasn't really true, i just said it because you keep saying so.)

When I was a child, I use to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.

You, did away, with childish things? Now THAT is funny. So you were being a shining beacon of adulthood in this thread? Laughable.

You are clearly not a man. Are you even 18?

/E: You claim that it's petty and ridiculing you to quote your post and tell you that it's not good manners to argue with someone when the only arguments you have, are intended to make fun of your opponent. Not to mention, you were making fun of him because he believes in different things than yourself! You are taking your belief 100% seriously and shooting down other belief systems as if they were worth nothing.

THAT is arrogance. Had you read the bible, you would understand that your position is that of sin. A hypocritical self-righteous self-centered dumdum you are.

 

[sayak83]

Omega2xx: Your only argument is ridiculing his faith while thinking of yourself high on the pedestal. That is why your argument seems at best petty, and at worst made by someone who has serious trouble understanding reality around them.

If you want to argue, use proper arguments. Right now you're making a fool of yourself. You are ridiculing Buddhism. While believing in fairy tales.

/E: Sayak, you cannot make claims about souls, seeing as Buddhism makes no such claims. The existence of a soul is analogous to the existence of the self... Even thinking that you have a soul is counter-productive for the purpose of Buddhism. It's "besides" the point. Life after death is ALSO besides the point, what matters is now, and the people around you.

The Buddha neither rejected or accepted the existence of a soul. It's a meaningless pondering.

I was talking about souls in relation to Hinduism, not Buddhism.
I was talking about the state of nirvana in terms of tathagata-garbha (Buddha-nature)
Buddha-nature - Wikipedia

Since omega's arguments essentially boils down to "my orange lollipop is the best in the world because my lollipop says so" I am simply refuting him by saying "my vanilla lollipop is the best in the world because my lollipop says so." Its embarrassing, but what else is there to say?

But we can discuss about Buddhism in the thread below
Objections against Buddhism
Objections against Buddhism

Thanks for your support.

 

[Darkstorn]

I was talking about souls in relation to Hinduism, not Buddhism.
I was talking about the state of nirvana in terms of tathagata-garbha (Buddha-nature)
Buddha-nature - Wikipedia

Ah, then i misunderstood your point. Apologies.

Since omega's arguments essentially boils down to "my orange lollipop is the best in the world because my lollipop says so" I am simply refuting him by saying "my vanilla lollipop is the best in the world because my lollipop says so." Its embarrassing, but what else is there to say?

Good point. I think i'm putting too much effort into it.

Arguing with Omega feels like arguing with a geriatric 12-year-old. So childish yet so... How do i say it? Non-aware.

 

[sayak83]

@omega2xx

If you had the authority, you would make eating cows against the law. That shows your inherent tyrannical tendency to forcefully impose your not a god laws on me.

No I won't. The only situation where I would consider spending any effort in imposing my views on others by making them law is if I live in a country where the other major religious groups are trying to do this already and it has proved impossible to stop them. If the morals of a specific sect are going to become the law anyways, then self-preservation dictates that I should try to make it the case that it my sect that gets to the finish line first.
But if I had the power I would always keep all ideology bases views of morality distinct from the laws and allow each group to practice their faith and morality as they wish.

Any religion that makes cockroaches of the same value as humans has a serious reality problem.

Any religion that aggrandizes human beings over the beings of other animals has a serious reality problem.

 

[sayak83]

Ah, then i misunderstood your point. Apologies.

None needed. It would be unfair on me to expect that you understand my positions based on the vacuous omega2-sayak83 discourses of 2017.

 

[omega2xx]

Rofl. So you were being a Man(with a big "M") and not making fun of Sayak at all? Remember that Cockroach comment. You were LITERALLY acting like a 12-year-old.

Not to mention you seem to consider a disagreeing reply to your posts as "ridiculing" and "petty". Show me where have i ridiculed you before. I mean, other than the last post, and the post where i did say *myself* that i'm ridiculing you(which wasn't really true, i just said it because you keep saying so.)



You, did away, with childish things? Now THAT is funny. So you were being a shining beacon of adulthood in this thread? Laughable.

You are clearly not a man. Are you even 18?

/E: You claim that it's petty and ridiculing you to quote your post and tell you that it's not good manners to argue with someone when the only arguments you have, are intended to make fun of your opponent. Not to mention, you were making fun of him because he believes in different things than yourself! You are taking your belief 100% seriously and shooting down other belief systems as if they were worth nothing.

THAT is arrogance. Had you read the bible, you would understand that your position is that of sin. A hypocritical self-righteous self-centered dumdum you are.

Don't forget to look both ways when you cross the street going to he playground.

 

[Darkstorn]

Don't forget to look both ways when you cross the street going to he playground.

If this is the level of conversation you can handle at most, then you have proven my point: That i'm arguing with a 12-year-old.

 

[omega2xx]

If this is the level of conversation you can handle at most, then you have proven my point: That i'm arguing with a 12-year-old.

You have shown you level of intellect by not discussing the subject and have tried to hide behind insults. I am discussing with at third grader.