Atheist vs believer research

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

You have not responded to reasonable questions.

Frank, however OT, it's possible that Igm isn't part of our immediate culture and so our q's don't make as much sense as we assume they do

However getting back to the subject, can't we reconcile believer w atheist:

http://able2know.org/topic/207840-1

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I didn't expect any more replies. Berty asked... I replied. I am still bored. A new topic from you is all that will get my interest. I will reply to people puzzled by our encounter if they ask... I hope they don't.

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Can you explain? I thought I made myself perfectly clear but obviously not in your eyes. Perhaps everyone thinks the same way, if so I would like to hear how you believe that it might be possible that I'm not part of yours and Frank's immediate culture, please explain?

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Can you explain?

Thought Frank perhaps misunderstood-or vv

Quote:

I thought I made myself perfectly clear

Perhaps Ig you did, and Frank simply doesn't understand, don't know, just speculating. No offense

Quote:

but obviously not in your eyes.

To the contrary, I make no attempt to follow this sort of thing. When it can't be expressed by minimal abstraction of ordinary words in a typical order, your Average Clod (me) won't even try

Quote:

….that it might be possible that I'm not part of yours and Frank's immediate culture, please explain?

Dunno. Maybe you're both the same age, same sex, same nationality, same ed., same socioeconomics, same EPL, same religion, etc, or maybe not. Dunno

But doubt it

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

What so difficult about this?

This is the text that made you question that:

igm wrote:

Here is what I said the Buddha knows as now agreed by you Frank:

So, that would make teachings on reincarnation a ‘provisional conventional truth’ in my opinion. Reincarnation would not be a ‘conceptual absolute truth’ because the Buddha taught that there is no such truth.

Then I explained the meaning of my post above:

igm wrote:

This means that the Buddha taught that reincarnation is not to be taken literally but has only a provisional meaning. He was teaching Hindus who believe that a soul or Atman is reincarnated life after life. He had to gently undermine this mistaken belief with a teaching that was ‘provisional’ by also teaching alongside that, that there is no soul or Atman. So, this was not the ‘absolute truth’ just a ‘provisional’ one. Taught at the beginning but later the deeper understanding of reality i.e. that no soul or atman can go from one life to the next was eventually taught. They could accept this later because they could see the benefit of letting go of the mistaken concept of Atman (the soul) in the light of all the other Buddhist teachings they now knew. Not to mention ‘no caste system’ which was a great bonus for those from a lower Hindu caste!

How do I know the Buddha knew this because it's published in his teachings.

What I mean by this statement will obviously have to be explained:

He knew that he had to teach Hindus in this way to help them to see there was no Atman.

Please be as brutally honest as you can be, I'm trying to learn something that introspection can't tell me.

2 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

Please be as brutally honest as you can be,

Brutally Ig, I wouldn't even try, the whole thing is far too abstract. yardwork calls. Forgive

Quote:

I'm trying to learn something that introspection can't tell me.

Sorry can't help much but you might examine the possibility that your differences are largely semantic

0 Replies

@igm,

Unlike Dale, igm, I certainly have no trouble being “brutally honest” with you.

No matter how you look at what you have said here (and throughout your posts in this thread) there is no doubt that you are asserting that the Buddha taught that there are no “conceptual absolute truths.” There is no way the comment can be made to apply just to “reincarnation” …no matter how you twist and contort what you wrote.

Your assertion that the Buddha “taught that there are no conceptual absolute truths” is independent of all the other material there. In any case, the balance of your post indicates that you mean it to be independent…and that the teaching is not directed only to the concept of reincarnation, but that it is a universal statement about conceptual absolute truths…specifically, you are asserting that teachings on reincarnation (and reincarnation as a concept) are provisional conventional truths (used just to further other teachings) BECAUSE the Buddha taught there are no conceptual absolute truths.

My question to you has always gone to whether YOU think the Buddha actually KNEW (somehow) that there were no conceptual absolute truths…or if he was just guessing that. (Advancing a belief!)

You have never answered that question.

Let me be further brutally honest with you: I think the reason you are not answering it (and will probably slough it off this time with “start a new thread”) is that the answer puts you in the uncomfortable position of having to acknowledge that the Buddha was just guessing…and not very accurately at that.

The statement is self-contradictory…logically an impossibility.

Continue this charade of “just answering questions” put to you by others if you like…but anyone truly following this thing (cannot image there are many) realize that you are dodging the question like you did from the very first moment it was put to you.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

decided to look up absolute truths, to try and get my head around your arguement. all it did was show me you two could go on forever like this lol.

this quote to me, says that buddha could only have guessed.
hope i'm getting the gist of this.

"It’s difficult to disprove the concept of absolute truth, since saying that there are no absolute truths - that it is absolutely true that no absolute truth exists - is itself an absolute truth."

taken from wisegeek.com - a very rudimentary description, but about right for my simple brain.

1 Reply

@Berty McJock,

Thanks for the interest, Berty.

Quote:

"It’s difficult to disprove the concept of absolute truth, since saying that there are no absolute truths - that it is absolutely true that no absolute truth exists - is itself an absolute truth."

That essentially is what a couple of us here have been saying over and over again. The assertion is itself contradictory.

0 Replies

so...if i'm right, if buddha says he knows there are no absolute truths, that in itself is an absolute truth, and contradicts that there are none. therefore, he can only guess, as nothing is absolutely true?

1 Reply

i had to familiarise myself with what defines an absolute truth. was it exactly that, or was it some jargon for something else. now i know that it is exactly what it says it is, it seems obvious.

0 Replies

@Berty McJock,

Quote:

so...if i'm right, if buddha says he knows there are no absolute truths, that in itself is an absolute truth, and contradicts that there are none. therefore, he can only guess, as nothing is absolutely true?

Yeah...that is one way to look at it.

Another would be that he simply was wrong...that there are absolute truths. That could be even though we could acknowledge the tremendous difficulties to communicate anything about those truths using language.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

igm may have something to say about the "differences" between "absolute truths" and "conceptual absolute truths."

3 Replies

this is deep. wow.

there must be absolute truth, as i am self aware, and know i exist. if there are no absolute truths then my very existence is questionable.

however, i'm now questioning if i even exist. christ! anyone got any paracetomol Razz

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

but if it's conceptual, can it be absolute?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

Etymology and definition

The two truths doctrine states that there is:
Relative or common-sense truth (Sanskrit samvṛtisatya, Pāli sammuti sacca, Tibetan kun-rdzob bden-pa), which describes our daily experience of a concrete world, and
Ultimate truth (Sanskrit, paramārthasatya, Pāli paramattha sacca, Tibetan: don-dam bden-pa), which describes the ultimate reality as sunyata, empty of concrete and inherent characteristics.
The Sanskrit term for relative, "samvṛti", also implies false, hidden, concealed, or obstructed, as well as other nuanced concepts.
The conventional truth may be interpreted as "obscurative truth" or "that which obscures the true nature" as a result. It is constituted by the appearances of mistaken awareness. Conventional truth would be the appearance that includes a duality of apprehender and apprehended, and objects perceived within that. Ultimate truths, are phenomena free from the duality of apprehender and apprehended.[1]

0 Replies

or more to the point, if it's conceptual, it's the idea of absolute truth, which in the context of the question makes no difference, as if we dont know there are no absolute truths, then the whole idea of absolute truth is conceptual anyway.

1 Reply

@Berty McJock,

See my new post above (we posted about the same time) and comment if you like.

1 Reply

@igm,

lol yeah thanks for that...just as i was getting my head round it you throw in another 547734 varieties of truth. i'm gonna concentrate on plain old absolute truth for now, conceptual or otherwise Razz

1 Reply

"do you, berty mcjock, promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"

"i don't know" Razz

0 Replies

Atheist vs believer research

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know