ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags agnosticism , agnosticism definitions

Reply
Old 24th May 2018, 08:31 AM   #441
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 553
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I don’t think so. I have mentioned five or six different religions at last. (...)

Well, you did say in your post #428 that : “ … I find it astonishing that anyone can claim to be agnostic about the existence of centaurs like Chiron. Or gods like Zeus... or God the Father.” And especially : “ In the case of the god of Christianity or the centaur Chiron, that probability seems practically null to me. That's why I'm an atheist.”. That is, it seemed to me that you were saying that your atheism was centered around Christianity -- as well as, in addition, specific instances like the Zeus-God, which today at least no one takes seriously and is only a caricature.

But okay : that was just my inference from what you’d said there, and there is no need to argue this : since you obviously know better than I do what you yourself focus your beliefs on. If you say you’ve studied other, non-Abrahamic religions before arriving at your particular worldview, sure, I’ll take your word for it.


Quote:
(...) Absolutely NO!
This Advaita is an empty-idea of god. A god that doesn’t manifest himself in any thing is superfluous and not worth to waste a minute discussing about. Molière made an intelligent satire of this blah-blah: “Mihi a docto doctore domandatur causam et rationem quare opium facit dormire : A quoi respondeo, quia est in eo virtus dormitiva” (Latin is not incidental). It is to say: Opium sleeps because it has “sleeping substance”. If we stare to the world and we just see the world, Advaita is only “virtus orbis-terrae”, worldly substance, that is, the world itself and nothing else. If you ask if I believe in Advaita it will be the same than asking if I believe the world exists. Any ulterior discussion about agnosticism or atheism focused on Advaita has no sense because we would be speaking about nothing. (...)

I agree with you that Advaita is an empty idea of God, as I have clearly said in post #430, which I’d referenced to you. In fact, I myself spoke of the ancients fueling their wild imagination with narcotics, in those posts of mine that I’d referenced to you, which half-joking idea you now mirror back to me here in your Latin quote about opium. So there’s no question of disagreement there.

The point was -- again, as I’d explained in that post I’d referenced to you -- that one cannot directly disprove this idea, like you might the idea of a Zeus-God or a Yahweh-God. One dismisses it, certainly, but only by asking for evidence and, finding none, setting this idea aside. Which is soft atheism. My point was, that Advaita does not allow of hard atheism -- because it is not falsifiable, and therefore does not allow of direct disproof. It does allow of atheism though, but by the soft-atheism route.



(And incidentally : here's clear demonstration of what I've been saying all along, and what I've also said in this same post #430 that I've referenced to you. Someone interested in football may find great pleasure in analyzing intricacies of some strategy, or someone's form ; while to those uninterested, it is simply overgrown children thrashing around in a field. Here's what you say : "(Advaita is) not worth to waste a minute discussing about". My dear Sir, that is not for you to say, not at least if you generalize. You may not wish to spend a single second on it, that is perfectly fine ; but if another is happy to examine it in great detail, that is their prerogative. And nor does this interest make of this person, who's interested in this idea, a theist, any less than an Olaf Stapledon fan can be accused of believing in the literal truth of what he'd written.)


Quote:
Budha’s idea about the non-existence of the Self is also empty. Furthermore, it has not any relation with the problem of gods, then I don’t see it is useful in our discussion.

I’m sorry, but in what sense do you say it is "empty"? This ancient idea does pre-empt, in a way, what Neuroscience is now beginning to tell us, or so it seems to me.

I agree -- as I had very cleary detailed in the post I referenced -- that this does not directly speak of God, and therefore I said I prefer to use the word “God idea” rather than “God” per se. I speak of this in the same breath as the other religions and other God ideas, because Buddhism taken as a whole does present a world-view that is religious, and that can -- perhaps with the exception of specific ideas like Anatta -- be rejected by the reasonable person.

But sure, you’re right : Anatta itself does not directly speak to God per se. That is obvious. I said as much myself, very clearly, in my post #430, which I’d referenced to you in my post that you’ve quoted.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2018, 12:59 PM   #442
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,688
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
My pleasure.
. . . snip . . .
Some “nuances” for you to understand . . .
  1. ALL gods are purely fictional
  2. NO god is any less fictional than any other.
  3. God stories containing facts don’t make gods any less fictional.
  4. God stories containing more facts don’t make the gods in those stories any less fictional than gods in stories containing less facts.
  5. That some god stories may contain education content and accurate predictions doesn’t make the gods in those stories any less fictional.
  6. ALL god beliefs/claims completely fail at the first “onus of proof” hurdle.
  7. ALL god beliefs/claims can and should be completely dismissed at the failed first hurdle.
  8. Debating gods beyond the failed first hurdle is as meaningless as debating the colour of dragons.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 24th May 2018 at 01:24 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2018, 07:30 PM   #443
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 553
Your #1 to #7 I agree with hundred percent.

Your #8 I agree with, except : how much "meaning" you derive is a function of your level of interest, whatever the subject -- football, or SF, or dragon lore, or God ideas. Perfectly legitimate areas of study and discussion, as long as you are sure that you are not deluding yourself.

What you present here are not "nuances". These are plain and very simple things that are not in dispute at all. The actual nuances you have not mentioned at all.

You say what you do with the air of making a point. Have you not understood anything I have said here?

Your jaw-dropping inability to understand nuances is matched only by your amazing tenacity at repeating simple 'truths' that no one is contesting at all. This unthinking clamoring remains unthinking, regardless of whether it is done singly or in chorus with a few similar-minded cronies.

Last edited by Chanakya; 24th May 2018 at 07:32 PM.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2018, 08:11 PM   #444
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,688
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Your #1 to #7 I agree with hundred percent.

Your #8 I agree with, except : how much "meaning" you derive is a function of your level of interest, whatever the subject -- football, or SF, or dragon lore, or God ideas. Perfectly legitimate areas of study and discussion, as long as you are sure that you are not deluding yourself.

What you present here are not "nuances". These are plain and very simple things that are not in dispute at all. The actual nuances you have not mentioned at all.

You say what you do with the air of making a point. Have you not understood anything I have said here?

Your jaw-dropping inability to understand nuances is matched only by your amazing tenacity at repeating simple 'truths' that no one is contesting at all. This unthinking clamoring remains unthinking, regardless of whether it is done singly or in chorus with a few similar-minded cronies.
Thought it might be obvious that words placed in quotes aren't meant to be taken literally.

Thought it might also be obvious that I'm not interested in your psychobabble nuances.

Perhaps you might find some other member that's interested in debating your "argumentum ad nuances".

Although the last comment of your offering is more Argumentum ad superbium
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 24th May 2018 at 08:38 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2018, 09:01 PM   #445
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 553
Your personal interest or lack of it is of no interest to anyone other than yourself, and perhaps a few others who may happen to share that exact same level of interest or lack of it.

Your inability to understand, or at least to refute, my arguments does not magically transform them into "psychobabble". Your inability to acknowledge arguments that clearly demonstrate your error, speaks entirely to your own closed-mindedness and is not, per se, a reflection on those arguments.

And no, this is patently not "argumentum ad superbium", merly argumentum, period.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2018, 09:09 PM   #446
Egg
Graduate Poster
 
Egg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,486
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
  1. ALL gods are purely fictional
  2. NO god is any less fictional than any other.
  3. God stories containing facts don’t make gods any less fictional.
  4. God stories containing more facts don’t make the gods in those stories any less fictional than gods in stories containing less facts.
  5. That some god stories may contain education content and accurate predictions doesn’t make the gods in those stories any less fictional.
  6. ALL god beliefs/claims completely fail at the first “onus of proof” hurdle.
  7. ALL god beliefs/claims can and should be completely dismissed at the failed first hurdle.
  8. Debating gods beyond the failed first hurdle is as meaningless as debating the colour of dragons.
#1 see #6 & #7
__________________

"That's the thing with eggs: It's all about chicks and getting laid." - Wuschel
"A hen is only an egg's way of making another egg" - Samuel Butler
“When arguing with a stone an egg is always wrong” - African proverb
“A true friend is someone who thinks that you are a good egg even though he knows that you are slightly cracked” - Bernard Meltzer
Egg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2018, 09:12 PM   #447
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,688
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Your personal interest or lack of it is of no interest to anyone other than yourself, and perhaps a few others who may happen to share that exact same level of interest or lack of it.

Your inability to understand, or at least to refute, my arguments does not magically transform them into "psychobabble". Your inability to acknowledge arguments that clearly demonstrate your error, speaks entirely to your own closed-mindedness and is not, per se, a reflection on those arguments.

And no, this is patently not "argumentum ad superbium", merly argumentum, period.
Argumentum ad I'm right, you're wrong.

Bye . . .
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2018, 09:16 PM   #448
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,688
Originally Posted by Egg View Post
#1 see #6 & #7
See #6 as a rational justification for #1 and #7.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2018, 09:22 PM   #449
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 553
Edit italicised :
No one is disputing #1 through #7, ynot, neither Egg nor I.



----


This is so cute! We seem to be having a bona fide "theological disagreement" here, that's getting heated! How very quaint -- you'd almost expect people to now suggest that we wrap up this dispute with pistols or long thin blades!

And the irony here is that everyone involved here is firmly atheistic!

Peace, ynot!

I believe I've clearly shown you to be in error, ynot. I'm hoping you can acknowledge that.

But it's no big deal. Let this not get acrimonious.

I'm putting forward my hand myself, ynot, even at the risk of rebuff and of getting snubbed : Shake, ynot? Let's put this behind us, and part as friends?

Last edited by Chanakya; 24th May 2018 at 09:33 PM.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2018, 09:25 PM   #450
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 553
Egg, thanks for sticking up for me!

Even though it is clear I'm right -- the discussion clearly demonstrates that -- nevertheless, speaking withot support from others can get lonesome.

Cheers!
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2018, 09:27 PM   #451
Egg
Graduate Poster
 
Egg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,486
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
See #6 as a rational justification for #1 and #7.
#6 -> #1
__________________

"That's the thing with eggs: It's all about chicks and getting laid." - Wuschel
"A hen is only an egg's way of making another egg" - Samuel Butler
“When arguing with a stone an egg is always wrong” - African proverb
“A true friend is someone who thinks that you are a good egg even though he knows that you are slightly cracked” - Bernard Meltzer
Egg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2018, 09:30 PM   #452
Egg
Graduate Poster
 
Egg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,486
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Egg, thanks for sticking up for me!

Even though it is clear I'm right -- the discussion clearly demonstrates that -- nevertheless, speaking withot support from others can get lonesome.

Cheers!
Don't let the Statlers and Waldorfs of the boards get you down.
__________________

"That's the thing with eggs: It's all about chicks and getting laid." - Wuschel
"A hen is only an egg's way of making another egg" - Samuel Butler
“When arguing with a stone an egg is always wrong” - African proverb
“A true friend is someone who thinks that you are a good egg even though he knows that you are slightly cracked” - Bernard Meltzer
Egg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2018, 12:15 AM   #453
David Mo
Master Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 2,693
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
I agree with you that Advaita is an empty idea of God,(...)
The point was -- again, as I’d explained in that post I’d referenced to you -- that one cannot directly disprove this idea, like you might the idea of a Zeus-God or a Yahweh-God. One dismisses it, certainly, but only by asking for evidence and, finding none, setting this idea aside. Which is soft atheism. My point was, that Advaita does not allow of hard atheism -- because it is not falsifiable, and therefore does not allow of direct disproof. It does allow of atheism though, but by the soft-atheism route.


I’m sorry, but in what sense do you say it is "empty"?
Do you find any utility in discussing a proposition that says nothing? I like discuss reasons not claims of faith= empty.

"Bula bula todo pij". Are you agnostic about this?

Off topic: I am curious: where are you read that psychology and neuroscience confirm budhist's rejection of the existence of Self? I am truly interested in your answer
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2018, 02:03 PM   #454
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 42,513
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Okay if your whole angle here is that there is some sort of "belief" that isn't religious but isn't just functionally an opinion, that dog ain't gonna bark.
Still haven't checked the word "belief" in the dictionary, have you? I'm not the one who came up with the meaning of that word.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2018, 10:27 PM   #455
David Mo
Master Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 2,693
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post

Off topic: I am curious: where are you read that psychology and neuroscience confirm budhist's rejection of the existence of Self? I am truly interested in your answer
OBVIOUS CORRECCION:

...where are have you read...
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:49 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.