Atheist vs believer research

@izzythepush,

My comment was not in reference to governments. It was in response to the examples that you mentioned: 911 terrorists and murderous anti-abortionist Christians. These aren't the actions of governments. I am not even sure how much sense it makes to refer to a government as having a belief system. Governments just like corporations are not people.
I was not and am not trying to "bait" you. I don't think defending the position of a Buddhist should be considered Atheist evangelism.
You are correct in that I am not a Nihilist.

(I am new to these forums. I'm not sure how to get notifications when someone responds to your comments. Not meaning to ignore you if this is in reference to some other comment.

1 Reply

@igm,

I think that most of this argument is hinging on a misunderstanding of non-dualism (at least on the part of Setanta and Frank).
Most Buddhist and some Hindu philosophies reject dualism.
Contradiction is accepted. Thinking in terms of distinctions is ultimately illusion. Such thinking is an obstacle to enlightenment. Most understanding in these traditions does not come from wrote learning or dogmatic teachings, because they cannot be conveyed through the dualistic lens of language. Instead allegory is used especially paradoxical allegories (see "koan").

"There is no absolute truth." cannot be true because if it is true then it must be an absolute truth, therefore creating a false statement.
However if we step outside the artifice of language and represent that statement in real world terms, what can you know absolutely? You can't even know the position and the momentum of a single particle at the same time.
This is a case of dualistic thinking and language being a poor model of reality.

To a complaint about contradictions in language, a non-dualist must respond: "Exactly! Now do you see how limiting your dualistic thinking is?"

3 Replies

@MattDavis,

Duellists might parry that what you wrote was rote learning if you get my

1 Reply

@laughoutlood,

the irony is not lost on me :^)

However my response did rely upon allegory in the form of quantum mechanics. Also I wrote that those specific spiritual traditions rely upon allegory. I don't contend that the point I attempted to make can't be illustrated using the tools of language (though there may be truths that cannot).
Logic itself was demonstrated to be incomplete in its ability to demonstrate all truths even within its own domain by Kurt Godel in 1931:
"Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory."
I am not claiming that logic has no virtue, but it is demonstrably incapable of recognizing ALL truth. In fact it was proven LOGICALLY.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Your point was that those in question acted because of religious teachings, as opposed to teachings that have been perverted from the original meaning. In many respects it's the opposite end of the scale to what IGM said. I think both extremes are wrong.

I don't know you, but there are a lot of preachy types on this forum who are all of the opinion that everything would be fine if we all embraced their particular ideology, whether that be Christianity/Atheism/Islam Judaism or whatever. I think the opposite, instead of trying to convert others we should be more tolerant of what others think/believe, as long as they're not preaching hate.

I've never viewed Buddhism as a type of evangelical Atheism. I would typify the type of Atheism espoused by the late Christopher Hitchens as Evangelical Atheism, although there are some on this forum who insist the term Evangelical can only be ascribed to Christianity. I'm not of that opinion.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

My point was that those actions were justifiable by their respective religious teachings. I made no claim that their teachings are not different than the teachings of other brands of Christianity or Islam. They ARE different. I don't feel qualified to comment as to which brands are closer to the "original" teachings. I don't think that is the salient issue.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

I didn't assume you thought of Buddhism as evangelical atheism.
I was curious as to why you accused ME of atheistic evangelizing. When my post was in defense of a Buddhist and had no mention of the existence of a deity. I am pleased that you disagree with the teaching of hate

0 Replies

i saw the posts about "angry atheists", and have to agree with (i think it was) setanta, who said that most don't care.
Dawkins has done a lot to muddy the reputations of atheists, and only helped to make things even harder for agnostics. his militant style of atheism is increasingly getting on the nerves of believers, atheists, the scientific community et al.
but hey, ALL religions have fundamentalist off-shoots, be it sharia, evangelical, zionist, or whatever. it's only natural for atheism to be the same.
however, just as sharia is not representative of islam as a whole, just as evangelism is not representative of christianity as a whole, and just as zionism isnt representative of judaism as a whole, Dawkinsism isn't representative of atheism as a whole.
bad apples.

personally i think dawkins problem is that he doesnt understand faith. faith is an unerring belief in something despite a lack of evidence. that's not to say it doesnt exist or it's wrong, just we can't prove it one way or the other. it's not impossible (and indeed it happens A LOT) for men of science to also be men of faith. dawkins personal points of view, are blinkered, emotionally and spiritually shallow, and uncompromising. he needs to recognise that men of science can be men of faith, and the two can co-exist, until at least the proven non-existence of a higher power.

for the record, i'm agnostic, leaning heavily on the atheist side of things.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

I understand so-called "non-dualism." I reject the implications, which you explicitly describe, to the effect that so-called non-dualism can describe an ultimate truth or reality, at the same time that it denies that there is any ultimate truth or reality. As is so often the case, people make haughty remarks about non-dualism in situations in which they allege something which they cannot demonstrate. Igm practices a superstition: he cannot demonstrate that Siddartha was a "Buddha," someone who was "awakened," he cannot demonstrate that anything which Siddartha is alleged to have said was actually something he said; he cannot demonstrate that Siddartha knew of an ultimate truth or reality. When you believe things which you cannot demonstrate, you are taking them on blind faith, you are embracing a superstition.

1 Reply

By the way, the concept of non-dualism comes from an eastern religious tradition even older than Buddhism. Contrary to popular belief, it is not a philosophical concept with a sound epistemological underpinning. It is in fact, entirely the product of the hermeneutics of Hindu mysticism.

1 Reply

another point Dawkins frequently glosses over is this. God is the creator. He created the universe, he created life. all monotheistic religions agree with this. why can God not exist in science as the big bang?
Dawkins needs to look away from organised religion, and examine personal spirituality if he is to understand what he himself is talking about, and to clarify his own position as an atheist. the world does not revolve round the established western world religions, and science alone. he never seems to say much about bhuddism. cherry picking to suit his own agenda perhaps?
most christians nowadays (most) agree the bible is not a literal account of life in those times. they are teachings, parables, moral guides. Dawkins needs to listen to them, and stop focusing on creationists, and intelligent design (which could still hold water.....intelligent design has yet to be disproven, and should not be confused with creationism which asserts the literal truth of the bible.)

it makes me laugh that a man of science, a man who believes in the uncertainty principle, cannot deal with faith. the whole of modern physics is based on the assumption that nothing (at the quantum level anyway) is provable. we do experiments and look for evidence that agrees with the PROBABILITY we are looking for. e.g. we only THINK the higgs boson exists because experimental results suggest a high probability it does. they in no way irrefutably prove it.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Re: igm (Post 5245197)
I think that most of this argument is hinging on a misunderstanding of non-dualism (at least on the part of Setanta and Frank).

Matt...I understand non-dualism. That, most assuredly is not the reason this discussion is occurring.

Quote:

Most Buddhist and some Hindu philosophies reject dualism.

Terrific. Do so if you choose. But if you are going to assert that the Ultimate REALITY is non-dualism...you should be prepared to come with lots of ammunition...unless you are doing it just for laughs.

ME: I have no idea of what the Ultimate REALITY is...what it must include...and what is not to be included.

Quote:

Contradiction is accepted. Thinking in terms of distinctions is ultimately illusion. Such thinking is an obstacle to enlightenment. Most understanding in these traditions does not come from wrote learning or dogmatic teachings, because they cannot be conveyed through the dualistic lens of language. Instead allegory is used especially paradoxical allegories (see "koan").

"There is no absolute truth." cannot be true because if it is true then it must be an absolute truth, therefore creating a false statement.

"What is there about the air of the subcontinent...and why is the condition contagious"...really has got to be explored more carefully.

If, in fact, the language actually is the problem...rather than the concept being conveyed...then you people should simply stop using language.

But...the problem is not in the language or the difficulty of communicating about "the REALITY"...it IS in the absurdity of the notion.

Quote:

However if we step outside the artifice of language and represent that statement in real world terms, what can you know absolutely? You can't even know the position and the momentum of a single particle at the same time.
This is a case of dualistic thinking and language being a poor model of reality.

That has its counterpart in Christianity. All you have to do to be sure GOD EXISTS...is to have "faith."

You are dressing up guesses...that is all you are doing.

Quote:

To a complaint about contradictions in language, a non-dualist must respond: "Exactly! Now do you see how limiting your dualistic thinking is?"

Yup...tell the other guy his thinking is wrong....and that your blind guess about the Ultimate REALITY is spot on.

1 Reply

@Berty McJock,

Berty McJock wrote:

it makes me laugh that a man of science, a man who believes in the uncertainty principle, cannot deal with faith. the whole of modern physics is based on the assumption that nothing (at the quantum level anyway) is provable. we do experiments and look for evidence that agrees with the PROBABILITY we are looking for. e.g. we only THINK the higgs boson exists because experimental results suggest a high probability it does. they in no way irrefutably prove it.

I think you misunderstand Dawkins' arguments if you think he isn't addressing "God" as a concept of the supernatural. And there's a big difference between the Uncertainty Principle and Faith.

Science doesn't have any objection to someone redefining "God" as an element or aspect of Nature. Those are just semantic arguments and are of no concern to scientific principle.

What science, and most scientists object to (and rightly so) is any attempt to logically deduce (with scientific methodology) that a supernatural entity exists within the natural world. Any such deduction is irrational within the scientific context.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, I'm willing to try to answer your question to this post if you'd like? I wanted to go through it step by step but I'll answer 'your' concerns about the post you questioned.

Here it is, with the text 'you' enlarged in order to draw my attention to it:

Quote:

Set, I stand by my reply to Max above and only by that reply; everything I said last year or in previous years is superseded by that reply. 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 and to believe that there is, can be extremely problematic. At least, that is how I now understand it. I don’t speak for other Buddhists; I am only speaking about my personal understanding of the Buddha’s teachings.

Let's start afresh and just stick to the subject itself leaving out any peripheral comments about Buddhism or ourselves... I await your reply...

1 Reply

@igm,

I agree to your terms, igm, and I am delighted we are going to discuss the issue.

Let's have at it.

And I think a great place to begin would be for you to deal with the question I asked about the text you quoted (which was your text, with my emphasis).

My question was:

Quote:

Do you have any idea of how the Buddha KNOWS this...or do you suppose the Buddha was just guessing?

If, by the way, you think that not the best place to start...start where you will...as long as you agree that we will come back to that question--which is the primary reason I came to this thread in the first place.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I agree to your terms, igm, and I am delighted we are going to discuss the issue.

My question was:

Quote:
Do you have any idea of how the Buddha KNOWS this...or do you suppose the Buddha was just guessing?

Here is what I said the Buddha knows:

igm wrote:

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.

Do we agree?

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Here is what I said the Buddha knows:

Quote:
igm wrote:

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.

Do we agree?

I am not really sure.

Are you asking if I agree that you wrote that...or are you asking if I agree that the Buddha knows there are no conceptual absolute truths?

If the former...I agree.

If the later...not on a bet. That, obviously was the reason for my original question.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

no no you're quite right, it just makes me laugh that an intelligent man writes off one unprovable "theory", indeed rails against it, yet happily accepts probability in science. both are a matter of faith, since neither is provable.

i do totally agree the case for science is more solid, and that dawkins argues against a "supernatural" God, i just think he needs to re-examine faith, and not label all believers as cranks.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Here is what I said the Buddha knows:

Quote:
igm wrote:

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.

Do we agree?

I am not really sure.

Are you asking if I agree that you wrote that...

I’m asking you to confirm that when I say that the Buddha ‘knows’ something that it is that passage that I’m referring to.

The reason I’m asking is that you said:

Quote:

Do you have any idea of how the Buddha KNOWS this...or do you suppose the Buddha was just guessing?

We are just agreeing on what you meant by ‘KNOWS’ as you didn’t specify.

So we are agreed… yes?

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

So we are agreed… yes?

I've already answered that. Please go on to whatever point you are trying to make.

2 Replies

Atheist vs believer research

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know