Indeed, although I think I'll respond one more time, more in hope than anticipation of a sensible response. Let's take your latest one point at a time, although perhaps not in order.
I am not a self-proclaimed expert on anything, let alone Confucianism. I am, however, a Buddhist and have been for over twenty years, and have studied Buddhism in both academic and monastic environments. I humbly suggest I might have picked up just a few things beyond your 'knowledge' of the subject, which seems to have been picked up from reading the back of a matchbox. Of course, I 'asserted' nothing of the sort... it's yet another product of your strawman factory.
?
I am impressed that your knowledge of Confucianism extends to the dates of Confucius life! However, back to reality - are you really claiming that a system of moral conduct and good government that influences billions and puts them on the 'right' moral track could exist on the basis of the worship of spirits, souls and ancestors, but not without it?!! If so, how do reconcile this with your first post? If not, what is your point?
I see I wasn't clear enough. I am objecting to your use of Confucianism and Buddhism because many sects have infused them with spiritual aspects. As per atheism, gods don't exist so how could spirits?
Of course I understand the point you are attempting to make, it is both simple and simplistic. It just happens, in my opinion, to be wrong. I'm not going to go over why - again - as that is obviously pointless. Whereas other posters might present a carefully considered case opposing that opinion, all we see from you are puerile whines of "drop it" and "off topic". You are like a small child who prefers to stick fingers in ears and chant 'la, la, la' rather than hear something they don't like.
No. The only one childish here is you. See below for a more precise restatement of my initial question. Moreover, I asked you to drop those things because they were irrelevant to my initial post. But due to a lack of clarity on my part, you are arguing about something which I didn't intend to stray to. If I am a child, you are a rabid dog who prefers to froth at the mouth instead of discussing things in a civilized manner.
I could only gasp in disbelief at this. I have already stated that I cannot put up much of a case for religion not being necessary - although I don't happen to believe it is. But, your claim was not for the necessity of religion, but for God and prophets. I really shouldn't have to tell you what your own claim is!! Whatever 'supernatural elements' may, or may not, exist or have existed in Buddhism or Confucianism are totally irrelevant; they do not extend to a monetheistic God or His prophets.
I can only gasp in disbelief at your dramatics. My claim was not an accurate representation of my point which is why so much confusion exists here. See below for a clarification. Also, like I said before, I object to your using philosophies/religions which have spiritual elements to them as atheistic examples when atheists deny anything metaphysical.
As I have explained no such 'contradiction' exists (stick those fingers in your ears again), and any perception of same is solely the result of your own ignorance. You simply do not know what you are talking about. That might not be obvious to muslims but it is painfully obvious to Buddhists, this one at least. With that in mind;
I know exactly what I am talking about. The only one lacking in knowledge here is the one who happens to lack manners also.
I can only suggest you follow your own advice. Whether you do or not please have the courtesy to keep such arrogant drivel to yourself in future. Attempting to patronise is bad enough at the best of times, but doing so when you are as totally out of your depth as you are is the act of a **** . Fill that in yourself.
The only arrogant drivel is the one you are spewing. Like a mad dog you argue about a point that I didn't mean to bring up, heap insult upon insult, and litter your "argument" with condescension. Either get some manners or keep your argument to yourself because I debate with people not animals.
