Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

@igm,

Quote:

Everything you've said Oli shows that because understandably you know nothing about the subject in any depth you are wrong about almost everything you've said in this post. If you want to understand, ask questions, don't show how little you know about a subject by posting it as if you knew what you are talking about... unless it is purely rhetoric or bluff.

What I said was about you and other posters' behaviour here on A2K, not about Buddhism, so try and focus on what was actually said. Your lack of patience and respect for other opinions is precisely what I am pointing to as a major issue in your interaction with others.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

That's empty rhetoric unless you can show an example that clearly shows I'm definitely being impatient and not showing respect where it is due.

My style of posting doesn't mean that I'm truly impatient or disrespectful... it is your subjective belief that I am or you wish to say that I am when I'm not... either way you can't know my intention.

If I changed my worldview to yours would it offer me a greater benefit than I already have? If not there is no reason to listen to your opinions other than to wonder why someone would hold such views.

Show me when I've been impatient with you that could not be just your subjective mistaken take on my words... we have exchanged posts only a few times... and recently hardly at all... you want to see me in a negative way so that is how I appear to you... simple as that and not correct in any way.

1 Reply

@igm,

Well, you did call me ignorant of Buddhism right now, just because I had criticized a posting style.

Quote:

If I changed my worldview to yours would it offer me a greater benefit than I already have?

And how would you know the answer to that question, other than by trying to understand my worldview? Besides, philosophy is not supposed to be of short term benefit. It's supposed to be about the pursuit of truth.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I have all that I could wish for and have no wish to have anything else... so that is why I understand to some extent your worldview and don't want it. You should ask yourself why you don't want what I've got... it's yours innately... you just avoid having it.

Philosophy and logic (for me) are used to transcend both... a boat that crosses a river and then is discarded... if one is not going back why carry the boat?

If you don't like what I've got to say don't ask me questions and I will never ask you any... you started this exchange... remember?

1 Reply

@igm,

Okey dokey... Shocked

I'll let you alone then... Sorry to disturb.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

1 Reply

@igm,

well this is just boring. someone start arguing again.

1 Reply

@carnaticmystery,

If you're bored that could be a sign of a problem... you shouldn't be able to become bored IMO.

2 Replies

@igm,

Cm is just another impatient Buddhist... It's been a constant wonder, since I arrived on A2K: impatient Buddhists, angry determinists, hateful Christians... People don't seem aware of their internal contradictions. Or perhaps they are aware of them and come here to deal with them?

Anyway, as much as I would want some dialogue between the western and eastern philosophical traditions, it doesn't seem to work in practice. I'd wish we focused on the similarilities, on how the same problem was dealt with differently or similarly in the east and west, etc. But this would take a less dogmatic and more positive approach.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Fact one: he's not a Buddhist.

Fact two: ask the correct question in the correct manner and you'll get somewhere (or may get somewhere) in your apparent quest...

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Fact one: he's not a Buddhist.

My bad, he's Hindu.

Quote:

Fact two: ask the correct question in the correct manner and you'll get somewhere (or may get somewhere) in your apparent quest...

Mine is a quest for dialogue. If you want to make the questions and the answers, be my guest, but it won't be much of a dialogue.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

I'm trying to work out how a dialogue can happen without the conversations being mostly questions and replies to those questions, especially if the quest is to find out something one does not already know?

2 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

If you're bored that could be a sign of a problem... you shouldn't be able to become bored IMO.

this is the difference between religion and non duality. no matter what you say about buddhism, it still is essentially a bunch of 'shoulds' and 'shouldn'ts'. i shouldn't be bored, one shouldn't need any external things for happiness, one should meditate always, etc etc.

non duality is the opposite, a complete acceptance of everything as it is, without any identity with the process. therefore, should and should not is not possible, because there is nobody that SHOULD do anything.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Anyway, as much as I would want some dialogue between the western and eastern philosophical traditions, it doesn't seem to work in practice.

why do you want it?

Quote:

I'd wish we focused on the similarilities, on how the same problem was dealt with differently or similarly in the east and west, etc. But this would take a less dogmatic and more positive approach.

see look at you. you claim you want to resolve east vs west philosophies, but the problem to you is too much dogma. and who do you define as dogmatic? eastern people. and you are western. but no, you have the ultimate solution to resolve it all, as a westerner who already defines easterners as having the problem.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

igm said:

Quote:

Fact two: ask the correct question in the correct manner and you'll get somewhere (or may get somewhere) in your apparent quest...

i agree with this

Quote:

Mine is a quest for dialogue. If you want to make the questions and the answers, be my guest, but it won't be much of a dialogue.

you sabotage your own quest by defining anybody who is willing to have a dialogue with you as dogmatic or an impatient buddhist or this or that.

0 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

I'm trying to work out how a dialogue can happen without the conversations being mostly questions and replies to those questions, especially if the quest is to find out something one does not already know?

a dialogue happens when there is mutual benefit to the two parties. if the quest is to find out something that one does not already know, firstly, the quest must be mutual. is that olivier's quest?

in my case, i would say we need to define knowledge. to find out something you do not already know, you are assuming you already know something. therefore, if you honestly take the quest to find out things you don't know, you need to first look at current knowledge, and assess it. all knowledge is an assumed truth based on memory and beliefs. so is there anything we don't know? there is everything, and we don't know any of it. the only thing anybody knows is their own existence as some conduit for awareness. and even that knowledge can be tested infinitely, which in time appears as the process of individuality dissolving into timeless non duality.

0 Replies

@igm,

We, all should visit Italy.

0 Replies

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

igm wrote:
If you're bored that could be a sign of a problem... you shouldn't be able to become bored IMO.

this is the difference between religion and non duality. no matter what you say about buddhism, it still is essentially a bunch of 'shoulds' and 'shouldn'ts'. i shouldn't be bored, one shouldn't need any external things for happiness, one should meditate always, etc etc.

non duality is the opposite, a complete acceptance of everything as it is, without any identity with the process. therefore, should and should not is not possible, because there is nobody that SHOULD do anything.

Hi cm, if you want to discuss my reply to you (in blue above) then we can. The quote is not religious nor can it be identified as Buddhism. What Buddhism is...is beside the point when it comes to my reply above (although I don't agree with your view but I don't want to discuss that).

I haven't said you're bored I've said, 'If' you are bored... there is a very big difference. Also I've said that 'if' you are bored that 'could' be a sign of a problem... I haven't said that it is. I've said you shouldn't be able to become bored but what is 'boredom', who is there to be bored and what is there that can create that boredom? Is boredom a label attached to a feeling but incorrectly? Etc... etc.. I also said IMO which means I am replying with relative/conventional truth i.e. as if there was an 'I' and there was 'other' and what you said had a conventional meaning that seemed to contradict my understanding of how the ultimate could attempt to be explained in words.

We can discuss my reply and you can explain why you said you were bored and that does not contradict you non-dual stance... up to you... but I want to stick to what I've said in my reply and nothing else... it could be interesting...

1 Reply

@igm,

Argument and counter argument I suppose.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Argument and counter argument I suppose.

Oli... if you have something you want to ask me or you have something you want to say that is worthwhile saying... go ahead... I suggest that we continue with whatever you say and only base our replies on that post and replies to that post... forget about what we 'think' we know about each other from our subjective memories of the past posts we have read about one another... just a suggestion.

1 Reply

Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know