Atheist vs believer research

@Frank Apisa,

I have answered it in that post and Set was being 'woolly' not you. My reply was to Set but I thought you may be interested because this is my explanation of what the Buddha means by 'absolute' or 'ultimate truth. Take it or leave it... the burden of proof is with you.

1 Reply

I've got your "woolly" right here, you silly little bitch. You're playing the favorite game of the Christians again--make an assertion and then defy people to disprove it. It is tedious to have to repeat this again and again, but people who make claims, or assertions, bear the burden of proof, no one has to disprove the horseshit they're peddling.

We cannot even know what Siddhartha actually did say, let alone be confronted with a silly challenge to "disprove" any such claims.

By the way, as well as being lame in your rhetorical attempts, your writing sucks. Your post clearly reads that you were calling Frank's post woolly, not mine. I have no problem with you floundering around, putting pejorative judgments on what others write, but it would help if you could keep track of the members to whom you are responding, and make it clear who you are talking about. You truly are pathetic.

0 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

Take it or leave it... the burden of proof is with you.

In other words...you can make an assertion...and the burden of proof falls on the person to whom you make the assumption to prove the assertion correct or incorrect?????????????????????

Are you just joking here?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Why you think in any way that I am saying the Buddha is wrong IS BEYOND ME.

I have no idea if the Buddha is correct or incorrect on most of this stuff...and I dare to suspect that neither does the Buddha. But I am willing to acknowledge that I do not know...and apparently the Buddha was not able to do so...so he "taught" that the stuff he guessed to be so...actually is so.

You do make me laugh Frank! In the first sentence you say what you say and then in the next you contradict yourself... Laughing

As an aside: How's the Apisa blog going? Nice story about the dog. Smile

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Take it or leave it... the burden of proof is with you.

In other words...you can make an assertion...and the burden of proof falls on the person to whom you make the assumption to prove the assertion correct or incorrect?????????????????????

Are you just joking here?

This is my reply it explains what you think I said:

The Buddha said that there is no self, ego, Atman, soul (all are synonymous for the purposes of this discussion). Please prove that there is a self. The burden of proof is with you because the Buddha is saying 'you say there is a self, show me where the self is located'.

Now if you can't do that then that removes the subject from subject/object dualism. So unless you can show there is a self then how are you going to show that dualism is correct? The self must either be in the body, mind, both or some other location. If not then you cannot assert a self or dualism because if you don't have self then you can't have other.

They (subject/object) are merely ‘dreamed up by the mind’ concepts we use to communicate; that’s fine but the self is just a useful fiction, as is dualism. If you can’t find a truly existing self then the other side of the coin 'other' is also not found because the concepts depend on one another.

Buddha isn’t saying there is something else, he's just saying dualism is a fiction based on the mistaken belief there is a truly existent self. When we look for it the self cannot be found. The absence of dualism, the mere negation of it or the letting go of it is the absolute is ultimate reality. So it’s not something it’s the absence of mistaken views based on the subject/object dualism that cannot be proved.

The burden of proof is with anyone who says there is a truly existing self. The Buddha just says OK find it and I'll believe in it; if not then I won’t believe in dualism.

Abosolute truth is the mere absence of the belief in dualism.

1 Reply

You constantly assume more burdens of proof with unsubstantiated assertions, and the try to shift the burden to others to disprove you. You're a complete waste of time, you're deluded, and you're superstitious.

Bye.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Another wooly reply with no substance. Where is the self? How can dualism stand if it's just a fiction?

0 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

You do make me laugh Frank! In the first sentence you say what you say and then in the next you contradict yourself...

Point out the contradiction...although that is not going to be easy for you to do...because there is no contradiction.

0 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

As an aside: How's the Apisa blog going? Nice story about the dog.

I do not know what you are talking about here?

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

This is my reply it explains what you think I said:

The Buddha said that there is no self, ego, Atman, soul (all are synonymous for the purposes of this discussion). Please prove that there is a self. The burden of proof is with you because the Buddha is saying 'you say there is a self, show me where the self is located'.

PLANET EARTH CALLING IGM...come in please.

I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA OF WHAT THE REALITY IS...so I have never suggested that anything HAS TO BE included or HAS TO BE excluded.

You are making a proactive assertion (in the name of the Buddha)...so the entire burden of proof of the assertion falls on you.

If you honestly do not understand that, then you probably should not be involved in this kind of discussion.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Bye Frank, I've created a topic I'm bored with this it's all semantics a problem with semantics and your initial misunderstanding about my post to set... I'm finished don't hold your breath for my return to this topic… it’s never going to happen even if Set continues to call me a ‘silly little bitch’.

1 Reply

@igm,

I guess running away makes more sense than trying to show a contradiction that doesn't exist. This makes about five times you've bowed out of this discussion. All things considered, I consider abandoning the discussion your best move. Hope you actually do stick with it this time.

0 Replies

if buddha "taught" these things, then nothing says he "knew" anything. maybe he only made such assertions as a way of getting poeple to think about it.

the best way to teach these things is to get people to try to work it out for themselves. whether or not it can be answered is by the by, it's the thought process that matters.

sorry to keep this going, it's just a thought that occurred to me while i was catching up with the thread.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

I thought that from the context of my example it was clear that it was merely a hypothetical to make clear the type of argument in question.

MattDavis wrote:

For example: If I were to point out to a Jew/Christian/Muslim that his or her monotheism stems from a cross-pollination of Semantic tribes with Zoroastrianism, and Zoroastrians thought of God as being the sun which is obviously just a ball of plasma, is this an effective refutation of monotheism?

I was not attempting to advance the claim used as an example.

Quote:

(Oh man, you crack me up--the word you wanted was Semitic, not Semantic.)

Yes the word I wanted was Semitic, you do a much better job of proofreading my posts than the simple spell check algorithm which autocorrects to the closest properly spelled word.

In most of our back and forth you seem to latch on to something other than the point that is trying to be made. You also seem more preoccupied with shutting down discussion than with having one.

For me a debate is a way of working through issues in order to make them more clear. As a way of getting at the truth. It is not my objective to convince someone else as to my current way of thinking. What in terms of knowledge would I gain by simply bullying those I debate with to my way of thinking. I stand to gain much more when through debate I see a way in which my thinking should change.

As an aside:
Do you see the irony in

Setanta wrote:

you silly little bitch

given your current profile picture?

http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/469fe2bfa4efee6e9f1d81adce8869ee?r=R&d=identicon&s=180

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Getting back to the point I was trying to make:
Attacking the reasons why someone holds a belief does not necessarily attack the truth or falsity of that belief in regards to reality.
For example:
[WARNING!!!! The following is merely an example used to illustrate a point. No claim is being made as to the truth of the claims used in this example. By proceeding to read this example, you are agreeing to enter into the realm of hypothetical thinking. If you do not agree to these terms, please stop reading.]

Someone claims that a certain group of atheists have adopted a belief that there are no gods merely because they happen to hate the people who do believe in God.
Even if this claim is substantiated or proven to be true, it does not follow that gods must then exist.
:End example.
[You may now suspend hypothetical thinking exercise. Thank you for your participation.]

The truth or falsity of a claim is not dependent upon the reason a certain person believes it to be true.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I suspect that the implication for this discussion is that it MAY NOT BE sufficient to point out that a statement is paradoxical to establish its falsity...not that it IS NOT sufficient.

What I meant when I used the term "sufficient" was in reference to a "sufficient condition"

Quote:

a proposition whose truth assures the truth of another proposition

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sufficient+condition?show=0&t=1360376456
Adding the qualifier "MAY" adds nothing to the meaning of not "NOT sufficient". If their is any maybe about it then it is NOT sufficient.
Saying "MAY NOT BE certainly true." has the same logical meaning as "NOT certainly true."

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

If you are going to use examples, it behooves you to use genuine examples, and not false ones. The merit of any claim rests upon the accuracy of the premises of the proposition. It is not true that those religions were monotheistic because of having borrowed from Zoroastrianism. It was not true that Zoroastrianism was based on sun worship. Therefore, the example is invalid and need be given no more consideration. Don't try to fault me because you cannot construct a valid analogy. You also needn't suggest that i don't address issues because i point out the falsity of your attempts at analogy. You were suggesting that my point about the origin of the concept of "non-dualism" was invalid because of some tortured statement you make about why people believe something. My point was that it was not underpinned by anything more convincing that a religious ipse dixit claim, which is sufficient reason to dismiss it. No argument was advanced to substantiate that either dualism or non-dualism are valid concepts, it was just posited in scripture devoted to mysticism.

I am bemused that you think debate is not intended to convince someone else of one's point of view. I suggest to you that that is a rather unique assertion. In my experience, convincing others of one's point of view is the entire point of debate.

You use some loaded terms, such as bullying, and then there's that slimy reference to my profile picture appended to a slur i intentionally leveled at someone else, not at you. If you would like to raise this to the level of personal insult, be assured i have a great deal of experience and skill available to apply to you in a pejorative manner.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

I was not "attacking" anything. Nor did i address the reasons why someone holds any belief. Rather, my point was about the validity of the concepts posited. The concept of "non-dualism" was borrowed from a text on Hindu mysticism, and that text does not offer any substantiation for its claim. From my point of view, that is sufficient to dismiss it. Unless and until someone makes a plausible argument based on more than ipse dixit claims, i will consider remarks about dualism and non-dualism to have no merit.

Your example is not germane because i made no allegation about why someone chooses to believe that there is "dualism." That is immaterial to me--absent a good reason to accept the claim, i will dismiss it. Cutsy tricks with different colored texts and coy remarks which are veiled insults don't further either your position, nor my regard for you. I become more and more convinced that you're not very good at rhetoric.

Your position that i am "attacking" an idea because of why someone believes it is completely without merit, and does not follow from anything i have posted on the subject. I didn't allege that anyone believes it because it was the product of scriptures about mysticism, rather, that it is a proposition without substantiation. Your entire line of debate here is just an elaborate straw man fallacy.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5247430)
Frank Apisa wrote:
I suspect that the implication for this discussion is that it MAY NOT BE sufficient to point out that a statement is paradoxical to establish its falsity...not that it IS NOT sufficient.

What I meant when I used the term "sufficient" was in reference to a "sufficient condition"

I usually respond to what a person actually says-- rather than what they later say they meant. That is what I did in this case.

I stand by my contention, as explained below that quoted line in the original post, that the inclusion of “may” seems to be appropriate.

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
a proposition whose truth assures the truth of another proposition
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sufficient+condition?show=0&t=1360376456

Adding the qualifier "MAY" adds nothing to the meaning of not "NOT sufficient". If their is any maybe about it then it is NOT sufficient.
Saying "MAY NOT BE certainly true." has the same logical meaning as "NOT certainly true."

There may be times, in my opinion, where it is not sufficient…and there may be times where it is.

In the discussion at hand, igm, CHOSE to make the assertion which is self-contradictory. This was not an occasion of philosophical contemplation where the situation is being discussed as an example of paradoxical content in discussion. This is an example of an individual introducing a self-contradicting statement into a discussion.

I think the change I noted is correct for the reasons I gave right after mentioning the change…and I stand by all that.

Without making that change, I might at some future time be charged with agreeing to it (to the disadvantage of the point I am trying to make)…just as igm has charged, incorrectly, that I agreed with some of the things he claims I have agreed with…apparently simply because I stopped actively disagreeing with them.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I believe that Igm's nasty little trick was that he asked you if you agreed that what he had quoted was his original remark that you were referring to--when you agreed that that was what you referred to, he then began saying that you agreed with him in the sense that you agreed with the idea embodied in that remark. We're not dealing with a very mature, nor a very honest person here.

1 Reply

Atheist vs believer research

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know