That's the kind of answer I like: aggressive, structural and direct. I knew I would find that here. I'll say I like you already (even if you don't seem to be liking me). For my part, I'll say I don't believe in any absolute truth, but I absolutely believe in discussing them.

Now, let's get to it.

As a pre note, let me say it was my first post here and didn't know that I wasn't allowed to include certain characters in my message, so parts of the posts never showed up, particularly when I meant to provide the original text, since the translation you so gently provided me is not all that accurate, if it is meant to be understood as a translation.

Point by point, as you seem to like it:

Buddhism is a dialectical sophism, since it is presenting itself through and by a series of precepts, and asking those precepts to be accepted as truths without providing a reason to accept them as truths. When applied to religion, that is what is understood as a dogma. It is gregarian, since it tends to form groups around those that accepted the precepts. And as all sophism, it is irrational in principle. I don't see how you can say I'm bias, when I'm going exactly the other way, that is, trying to present a rational argument about what is being stated as true. The only way you can say I'm bias here, is if you are bias yourself first. It would be more effective if you try to refute my arguments, instead of my person. But let's move on...

I did not say that the solution to the four truths were the four truths. I did say, very clearly, that buddhism, particularly that fourth "thruth", calls to find the solution for the problem created by the four truths, in those "Eight Noble Ways". You need to, not only read again what I wrote, but also recheck your sources, because the fourth "truth" doesn't say "there is a path out of suffering". The correct, or a far more correct translation, is the one I gave (as for the other three as well): "To extinguish the origin of suffering, One must follow the Eight Noble Ways". Unless you want to accept only your version, very much as christians only read the parts of the ten commandments that suit their argument, choosing to disregard the rest. If that is the case then, yes, I am wrong, since you would be presenting your case without giving room for refutation, never minding how unethical that could be...

Again, in other words, if what you are saying is that we are only discussing your version of the four truths as your presented them, then yes, you're right, my case goes straight to the bin. But, then again, if your version is the only one being discussed here, we are not talking about buddhism, just something inspired on buddhism, or that means to resemble buddhism. But that is not buddhism.

Until you can make that clear for me, I guess I'll stop here, since to give any further explanations would not make sense when we are, obviously, not talking about the same subject. I'll just note that I am not "changing the claims". What I presented are the traditional buddhist "claims". You are the one that has already changed them...

"Second of all, no one here said that all versions of Buddhism are good, so yes there are Buddhist philosophies which are nearly the same as Christianity". - Agreed. As already stated: the problem is not that, since I went for the traditional form of what is normally understood as buddhism, and not yours. The problem should be in that difference.

"The main difference is that the majority are not theists but deist.
The fact that you cannot see this in the philosophy is a problem you need to analyse better". - I've never even suggested the question of any "prime cause", to use the most neutral terminology possible. I kept my argument strict to the word, without going that far. The fact that I've never came even close to the matter can only be explained in two ways: you're trying to assault something I never said, or you're trying to make my argument up for me...

Last but not least, only theist make such arrogant and extremist arguments:
"it is impossible to call yourself "atheist" the minute you start to recognize exceptions". - What you're trying to do here, inefficiently, has a name: argumentum ad hominem. And is the second time you go for that. But I'll keep the ball on your court, so to speak: even if it is arrogant and extremist, that alone would not be sufficient to consider it wrong. Even if you don't like the statement, you fail to disprove it. Again, I never went for the question of theistic or deistic nature. What I did claim is that all religions are based on the trap of unfalsifiable dogmas, something rationally unacceptable.

And yes, I am claiming that an atheist cannot also be a theist, not without falling in a contradiction of terms. I do believe that if you want to be both, you need to find another term, because "atheist" won't fit with any amendments, being those amendments of theistic or deistic nature. You were clear about your definition of theism, but you didn't go as far, formally, as defining deism. And that would have been interesting, because I can suspect another clash there...

"About your hospital suffering, there is a way out of suffering, some include drugs, some include surgery or cloning of cells, death itself is a solution of suffering". - I don't have cancer, that was but an example and I tried to be clear about that. I'm making that clear again for future readers, just in case. Now, all the solutions you give to the case are clearly medical, that is scientific, solutions rather than religious. Which is perfectly fine, couldn't agree more with you on that. My point really was that it is impossible to understand the origin of that suffering (originally, the term is "duḥkha", the inherited existential weight of the samsaric, that is simplyfing, human condition) as the result of any form of desire, or need, or longing (tanhā). Again, we fall on the previous problem: I was referring to the traditional understanding of buddhism, when you seem to be somewhere else. In any case, I'll admit I'd have a hard time defining death as "a solution" rather than as "an end", which doesn't provide a solution to a problem, just its indefinite suspension, or its cancellation, without ever finding a solution.

"A truth does not mean to be a likable truth". - Once again, I couldn't agree more. But I would also say that, whether likeable or not, all pretended truths should be considered open for debate.

(And, besides the clear differences and occasional ill-intended remarks, let me say that this conversation has been, and most probably will keep being, a pleasure. It feels nice to find someone with such confrontational taste. If you can take that as a compliment, I promise not to ever send a compliment your way again. Wink).

Hmm, today I am tired for such a debate, since you had to write a lot to explain some of the comments I have made, which means you are interested in some way to the debate.

Welcome to the forum.

First and foremost, I acknowledge that I know next to nothing on Buddhism, I simply saw those 4 truths as claimed by a poster, confirmed them on some site and replied respectively. If they are the real Buddhist truths or not, is irrelevant to the argument I have made.
Basically those 4 claims are valid in my opinion.
This in no way validates Buddhism, my reply towards most of Buddhism being deistic and not theistic comes from other research I have done and not from those truths.

I accept your compliment and thanks for the remarks and I like the way you replied too. most persons don't reply to most of my points and tend to ignore and change subject.

Need a re-read it seems:

"it is meant to be understood as a translation" I'm a bit lost, you mean a translation of the 4 truths?
If you wrote something and I missed it, I apologize for my harsh confrontation and wrong conclusions if there were any.

"Buddhism is a dialectical sophism, since it is presenting itself through and by a series of precepts, and asking those precepts to be accepted as truths without providing a reason to accept them as truths."
I am a bit tired today and this terminology is mixing me up a bit, are you implying that just because "Buddhism is a dialectical sophism", those 4 claims which this topic was about were not true?
The reason why it is presenting itself, has nothing to do with what the claims are in my opinion.

"I don't see how you can say I'm bias,"
"It is the same dialectical, gregarian, irrational nonsense I have already heard before"
This is a statement that implies your bias of what you have heard before= assuming that this argument is wrong not because it is proven wrong but because of your previous experience with similar "dialectical, gregarian, irrational nonsense"
You might be right but be right for the wrong reasons.(i call; because of your bias)

"I'm going exactly the other way, that is, trying to present a rational argument about what is being stated as true."
Well, you seemed to have the wrong claims in mind, so your conclusions were wrong.
It seems to me that I was wrong in thinking that you changed the claims to fit what your bias was telling you.
I just could not seem to match the 4 claims with your 4 solutions to the claims.
Maybe i should have assumed that there were some of post missing, so I apologize for calling you biased.
I am not willing to stand by my claim while I don't know your real reasons for now, so I take it back.

"It would be more effective if you try to refute my arguments"
Hmm I am not interested in your claims on Buddhism but in the claims of those 4 truths that I supplied the link for.
That was what i thought you were debating, which it seems I was wrong there. That is why i did not bother with your unrelated claims.
To debate your claims about Buddhism i would need to study in depth Buddhism first, and as I stated I am neither willing, nor have the time to do so.

Jeff:
"The main difference is that the majority are not theists but deist."
I said this as a reply to this:
"First of all, it is impossible to call yourself "atheist" the minute you start to recognize exceptions."
The fist exception is that an atheist is not an adeist.
Some of Buddhism is adism, thus an exception is needed.
That claim is simply wrong with regards to Buddhism, it doesn't matter if Buddhism was created in the most evil way imaginable and for the wrong reason, an atheist is the rejection of a claim by a Theist and not by a Deist.
Hope we agree on this.

Jeff:
"First of all, the 4 truths are not the solution for the 4 truths."
I said this because your 4 truths seemed not to relate to the 4 claims I agreed with. Your 4 counter arguments were hinged on the reasons/explanation of something different.
At that point, I thought you were giving a solution/explanation for them.
Eg:
The First "Truth", "All life is suffering ()"
"You would actually need to prove that all life is suffering, which is the same as to say that we come to this life with an inherited spiritual purpose, and that purpose is to suffer."
This seemed to me a solution to a question which was not related.
The first claim is:
'There is suffering'
and I can confirm that that claim is the truth even if there is no proof provided.
you said:
"You would actually need to prove that all life is suffering"
I just said to myself, this guy is eighter mixing up the claims or we are talking on different things, because to me you seemed to waste a lot of text without reading what the main argument in this topic was about.

"Unless you want to accept only your version"
Yea of course we consider only my version, I just agreed on 4 claims presented here, I don't really care what is actually written in Buddhism.
What I claimed about Buddhism is that mostly is deistic and not theist.
It was very mature of you to say that:
"If that is the case then, yes, I am wrong"

So let just say that we had a misunderstanding here.

"Again, in other words, if what you are saying is that we are only discussing your version of the four truths as your presented them, then yes, you're right, my case goes straight to the bin. But, then again, if your version is the only one being discussed here, we are not talking about Buddhism, just something inspired on Buddhism, or that means to resemble Buddhism. But that is not Buddhism."

I agree, we are not talking on Buddhism in detail since I am not that knowledgeable on the subject.
I just know that most of it is deistic in nature and that contradicted you first claim.
"First of all, it is impossible to call yourself "atheist" the minute you start to recognize exceptions."

An other thing that I wish to debate is the idea that death is not a solution for pain?
Why do you think that suffering is better then death?
If you were burning alive and knew that you were dead in 5 minutes(the longest 5 minutes of your life :p) why is death not a solution for that suffering?
It is a solution but maybe not the best solution.
Calling it "an end" is like saying that it does not hep in anyway when in reality it improves the situation.

It was a pleasure here too.