Atheist vs believer research

@igm,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5244156)
Your conclusion does not follow from my post but that's probably not the point of your post is it? I did say it would take you probably years to even understand the full import of what the Buddha taught on wisdom and I could not hope to convey it in a single post. You as usual have rushed to the wrong conclusion.

Let's not waste any more of our time. You can maintain that you are correct and then there's no harm done to your ego.

Also, I'm perfectly happy thanks for your concern.

If my style of debate seem 'testy' to you then I apologise I was just being direct and open with a Frank Apisa I know only too well... it saves time

And such an maneuver does save you from having to acknowledge the logical fallacy of the assertion...which preserves your ego and allows you to project that toward me.

Win/win for us.

The Buddha does come out looking bad, though.

As our old buddy, Ican, often noted: There's gotta be something about the air in the subcontinent to cause people to suppose that because someone there asserts something...that something has to be fact!

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I disagree... I know you'll want the last word... have a pleasant rest of the day... as the Buddha said (and I'm going to take his advice), 'Sometimes it's best to keep noble silence'.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5244177)
I disagree... I know you'll want the last word... have a pleasant rest of the day... as the Buddha said (and I'm going to take his advice), 'Sometimes it's best to keep noble silence'.

You made an assertion about an assertion the Buddha made. I questioned it.

Not sure why all the other comments are in here...but I questioned it in good faith.

And when you responded, I questioned the logic of the response.

Nothing underhanded here.

If you want to appear "noble" by "staying silent" rather than discussing what obviously is a difficult subject for you...completely fine with me. Normally I do not run away from a discussion...so it may seem like "wanting the last word" to someone who does.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

igm wrote:

Both science and western philosophy have not found any concepts which convey the absolute or ultimate truth. Every time we examine a concept it falls apart under scrutiny. The building blocks of a concept are the words that make up that concept. Each individual word has no independent meaning it relies on other words for its definition. If the building blocks are meaningless on their own then the collection of words are meaningless and so too the concepts that they represent but the illusion of meaning is created by their interdependence.

Ultimately all concepts are meaningless but conventionally they are useful in our ordinary lives therefore there is no ‘conceptual absolute truth’ and the Buddha knew this and I also have full confidence that this is correct.

Refute it Frank but don't just say it's wrong and move on and then say you have refuted it. You need to give reasons i.e. refute what I have said (reprinted above). Go through what I have said and refute it then I'll say, 'You’re correct Frank I've not shown that concepts are only conventionally true. '

If you say something like, 'it's obviously wrong' that is not refuting it but that's what you normally do. Please give a reasoned argument showing what I have said is wrong.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Please give a reasoned argument showing what I have said is wrong.

Okay…I will give a reasoned argument why the essential of what you (and the Buddha) assert is illogical…and if you want to interpret that as meaning “wrong”…then so be it.

It most assuredly IS illogical.

Here is the essential part of your assertion: “…therefore there is no ‘conceptual absolute truth’ and the Buddha knew this and I also have full confidence that this is correct. “

That is logically impossible. That simply cannot be. I have already called that to your attention twice before in this discussion…and no argument need to be made, because the assertion contradicts itself.

IF there were “no conceptual absolute truth”…then THAT assertion would be a conceptual absolute truth. If it is correct…it makes itself false.

Perhaps your devotion to Buddhism is standing in the way of your comprehending or acknowledging what I am saying. If so, I do not know how to get it across. But the bottom line is: There is no way to assert “there are no conceptual absolute truths”…because if that assertion is correct and true—it negates what it is asserting.

Let’s see if I can put it into different words to get it across:

If someone asserts, “there are no absolute truths”—the only way that can be true is if there are no absolute truths. But if the assertion is true…it has to be false, because saying there are no absolute truths requires that the assertion “there are no absolute truths” has to be false.

Not sure why you think the inclusion of the word “conceptual” makes a difference here, but I am willing to listen to why you do. Short of a convincing argument that the inclusion of the word “conceptual” makes a significant difference…then the truth of the assertion would make it invalid.

The assertion is illogical on its face.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I'm not British thank Odin and Thor. The percentage quotations were from Pro. Richard Dawkins and other respected lectures. Don't forget, Europe is turning a way from Christianity - Sweeden will probably be the first democratic country to probably be Christian free, in not too many years. I am not making anti-christian statements, I just require reactions/the otherside of the coin. I want to find the AMERICIAN origin of these statments. If you want a laugh at the English, if you do the research, you will find that the English church dressed up a pig in human clothes and put it on trial - charged with being anti-christian!!!

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Not sure why you think the inclusion of the word “conceptual” makes a difference here, but I am willing to listen to why you do. Short of a convincing argument that the inclusion of the word “conceptual” makes a significant difference…then the truth of the assertion would make it invalid.

It makes a difference because all concepts are only conventionally true and it is that which is being asserted. Now that I have reiterated that, this is what you need to refute:

igm wrote:

Every time we examine a concept it falls apart under scrutiny. The building blocks of a concept are the words that make up that concept. Each individual word has no independent meaning it relies on other words for its definition. If the building blocks are meaningless on their own then the collection of words are meaningless and so too the concepts that they represent but the illusion of meaning is created by their interdependence.

Ultimately all concepts are meaningless but conventionally they are useful in our ordinary lives therefore there is no ‘conceptual absolute truth’. Saying that conceptual truths are not ultimately true is not saying that therefore that statement must be an ultimate truth because it’s just a negation. The ultimate truth is beyond words and concepts but that does not make what I have said the Ultimate truth that can only be experienced directly. Obviously one cannot use words and concepts to express it as there is no ‘absolute truth’ that is conceptual. Just because you cannot understand this does not make me wrong. It means you fail to understand the ramifications of what I’m saying. There’s not fault in that.

This is how to proceed:
Show an example of how a concept doesn’t fall apart under scrutiny.
Show how a concept is not made up from words as building blocks and these words are not meaningless in isolation.
Show that individual words have a meaning without depending on other words for their definition.
Show that the building blocks of concepts i.e. words if meaningless on their own are nevertheless meaningful when collected together as a concept.
Show that the truth of concepts is not just an illusion based on their interdependence.

If you do this then you will have refuted what I have said and not just misunderstood what I have said.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm...allow me a couple of questions of you.

Do you agree that anything you say using words about the REALITY of what IS…is a conceptual rendering of the REALITY?

Do you agree that the statement, “there are no conceptual absolute truths”…is, in fact, a conceptual rendering of the REALITY of that issue…whatever it actually is?

Now I have to assume your answer to the first question is: YES…and to the second is: YES.

You are asserting that the statement “there are no conceptual absolute truths” is true…that the Buddha knew it to be true…and that you also know it to be true (although I will acknowledge that you hedge that last part a bit.)

That is illogical to an extreme…no matter what the Buddha said about it.

If that conceptual rendering of the REALITY is true…then it has to be false, because it states that there are no conceptual absolute truths. It CANNOT be true for the assertion to hold.

The problem here is not my lack of comprehension, igm…in fact, it probably is not your lack of comprehension either. The problem lies in the fact that you are absolutely committed to the notion that what the Buddha asserts has to be correct.

In saying, “The Buddha teaches that….”, you are doing the Christian equivalent of “Jesus teaches us to…”, or the Abrahamic theist’s equivalent of “The Bible tells us…”

It is disturbing for you to deal with the implications of what we are discussing…just as it is disturbing for for theists and Christians when they have to look their “beliefs” in the eye.

More than likely you will not get this now…but with any luck there may come a day where you will see it so clearly you will wonder how you managed to hide it from yourself in this conversation.

In the meantime, the questions hold. Was I correct about the answers I suspect you will give? If not…tell me you answers.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You have avoided answering my post.

I will answer your post when you answer mine. I will just say that your assumption is incorrect. I am not taking the word of the Buddha but examining phenomena and coming to my own conclusions: ultimate truth cannot be expressed in a concept.

Please answer my post or admit that you cannot or will not. What I have expressed in that post is just common sense reason, nothing else.

If someone else wants to pull apart my reasoning or affirm it please feel free to do so.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5244352)
You have avoided answering my post.

I will answer your post when you answer mine. I will just say that your assumption is incorrect. I am not taking the word of the Buddha but examining phenomena and coming to my own conclusions: ultimate truth cannot be expressed in a concept.

Please answer my post or admit that you cannot or will not. What I have expressed in that post is just common sense reason, nothing else.

If someone else wants to pull apart my reasoning or affirm it please feel free to do so.

We you are asking me (or anyone else) to do...is to refute an assertion you are making.

It is the equivalent of a theist asserting: There is a GOD...let me see you refute it!

Nonsense. The burden of proof falls on the person making the assertion.

You are asserting something. The burden is on you...not on me.

I have answered you post.

You are asserting that it is an absolute truth that there are no absolute truths. You are including the word "conceptual" to mean...that we can put into words...or that can be expressed.

But you are expressing your assertion in words.

Now...either back up your assertion or admit that you cannot.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Ladies and gentlemen I give you... Frank Apisa and all his usual tricks.

You cannot and do not want to answer my post.

You just want a vehicle for... whatever it is you want it for... I have no idea... Question

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Here is the post you've avoided:

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Not sure why you think the inclusion of the word “conceptual” makes a difference here, but I am willing to listen to why you do. Short of a convincing argument that the inclusion of the word “conceptual” makes a significant difference…then the truth of the assertion would make it invalid.

It makes a difference because all concepts are only conventionally true and it is that which is being asserted. Now that I have reiterated that, this is what you need to refute:

igm wrote:

Every time we examine a concept it falls apart under scrutiny. The building blocks of a concept are the words that make up that concept. Each individual word has no independent meaning it relies on other words for its definition. If the building blocks are meaningless on their own then the collection of words are meaningless and so too the concepts that they represent but the illusion of meaning is created by their interdependence.

Ultimately all concepts are meaningless but conventionally they are useful in our ordinary lives therefore there is no ‘conceptual absolute truth’. Saying that conceptual truths are not ultimately true is not saying that therefore that statement must be an ultimate truth because it’s just a negation. The ultimate truth is beyond words and concepts but that does not make what I have said the Ultimate truth that can only be experienced directly. Obviously one cannot use words and concepts to express it as there is no ‘absolute truth’ that is conceptual. Just because you cannot understand this does not make me wrong. It means you fail to understand the ramifications of what I’m saying. There’s not fault in that.

This is how to proceed:
Show an example of how a concept doesn’t fall apart under scrutiny.
Show how a concept is not made up from words as building blocks and these words are not meaningless in isolation.
Show that individual words have a meaning without depending on other words for their definition.
Show that the building blocks of concepts i.e. words if meaningless on their own are nevertheless meaningful when collected together as a concept.
Show that the truth of concepts is not just an illusion based on their interdependence.

If you do this then you will have refuted what I have said and not just misunderstood what I have said.

1 Reply

@igm,

You made an assertion...and now expect me to refute it.

You are obligated to substantiate it...I am not obligated to refute it.

No tricks involved...but I am not going to allow you to require of me a burden that is not mine.

It is yours.

0 Replies

@igm,

By the way...I have shown your assertion to be illogical.

That was gratis.

Now the work falls on you.

1 Reply

@igm,

Frank claims to be an Agnostic, but I've already initiatiated him into Cargo Cultism. I've strangled three weasels, two kittens, a gerbil and a Natterjack toad on his behalf, and I really scared the **** out of a grasshopper.

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

I think you are confusing atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
with nihilism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
Your implication that atheists are therefor nihilists is unfair and simply untrue.
If you feel as though you need to have a belief in some god in order for life to have meaning, that is a personal sentiment. It is a sentiment that is not generally shared by atheists.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Wouldn't you agree that their is a difference between a follower of a belief system committing a crime, and a follower of a belief system committing a crime as JUSTIFIED by that belief system?
Are you suggesting that any belief system bares all responsibility for how well it's practitioners practice the belief system?
The black marks on Christianity and Islam and Judaism are not simply due to some of their followers being imperfect in their respective practice of belief. It is that within those practices it is JUSTIFIABLE to behave horrifically. You can justify killing and slavery.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Are you implying that the teachings of Christian Fundamentalists and Radical Islamist DO prohibit those actions?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I am not really sure the utility of debating Buddhism.
Debate presupposes rationalistic dualism, and is dependent upon it for any utility. Buddhism rejects dualism. Where exactly to you expect to get in a dialogue when you can't agree to whether something can simultaneously both be and not be true?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

The Buddha does come out looking bad, though.

You believe on the basis of your 'head in the sand' approach and your philosophy 101 comments that you have refuted Buddhist Philosophy Laughing

Here is a search on Google for 'Buddhist philosophy' the results are:

About 23,400,000 results (0.18 seconds)

You are a genius!!!! keep telling yourself that...

2 Replies

Atheist vs believer research

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know