Do you believe in souls?

Frank, I appreciate your impatience with theistic and atheistic expressions of certainty. But I do think your accusation that they are merely guessing is an overstatement. I don't think the theoretical conclusions resulting from thousands of years of study and meditation in Buddhism can be characterized as guesswork. Einstein's theory of relativity could not be characterized as guesswork even before it was verified empirically. Guessing suggests to me that one is choosing between alternatives each having a 50% chance of being correct. As I told you before in another thread my rejection of theism does not imply that there is a 50-50 chance that it may true. Your kind of agnosticism (assuming what I've said is correct) is a bit wimpy, even though you are clearly not a wimp. Laughing

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Frank, I appreciate your impatience with theistic and atheistic expressions of certainty. But I do think your accusation that they are merely guessing is an overstatement.

I get that, JL...and I think you are wrong.

There is almost no evidence for or against the existence of a God or gods...and any definitive statement that there is or that there are not...is a GUESS...pure and simple.

But it is a free country...and you certainly have the right to disagree.

Quote:

I don't think the theoretical conclusions resulting from thousands of years of study and meditation in Buddhism can be characterized as guesswork.

No you don't...but I do.

They are guessing on many of the things they posit just as surely as theists are guessing there is a God and what that God is like...and atheists are guessing there are no gods.

Not sure why you cannot see that...but....

Quote:

Einstein's theory of relativity could not be characterized as guesswork even before it was verified empirically.

Please! If you wanna discuss apples...let's discuss apples. If you wanna discuss tangerines, let's discuss tangerines.

Quote:

Guessing suggests to me that one is choosing between alternatives each having a 50% chance of being correct.

That is patently absurd...and you should dissuade yourself of it.

Many, if not most guesses are between items that are not close to 50/50.

Quote:

As I told you before in another thread my rejection of theism does not imply that there is a 50-50 chance that it may true. Your kind of agnosticism (assuming what I've said is correct) is a bit wimpy, even though you are clearly not a wimp.

There is absolutely nothing wimpy about my agnosticism or the way I present it...but there was something incredibly wimpy about that last paragraph you wrote. You should be ashamed of it.

If you are going to call someone a wimp...do it with balls, or don't do it.

0 Replies

Before I disappear entirely, what's the difference between an illusion and a reality? If I and the world are an illusion then what's a reality? I've never seen one because even the "illusions" which I feel could or may exist are anchored in my current state of organic time the kind that causes you to age or bleed to death in an accident whichever comes first. Anything subsequent to THAT is non-sequitur.

My conclusion is whenever you accept something without knowing or at least with a critical degree of understanding (which includes its own reality check) you submit to the "reality of an illusion". It's done all the time in a million different ways; "progress" implies trying to escape its demented iteration.

It's the "power of thought" salted by necessity which damns or redeems, makes war or grants peace, breeds civilization and its discontents including the THOUGHT OF ITSELF as some transcendent illusion when REALITY itself becomes its own FEVER.

Actually the either/or concept of BOTH illusion and reality invokes nothing; it explains zilch, because being HERE WE MUST decide which is which and when though many times not consciously, consistently or voluntarily. This includes every creature that does not depend purely on instinct for existence and survival. Ilusions on the other hand, do not need to make CHOICES.

In any event, "GOD OR ULTIMATE REALITY" is not what remains AFTER you rinse out so-called illusion and all of its EGO buttons. This kind of ignorance and pedantry which thinks it knows because it faithfully repeats the doctrine becomes tiresome and nauseating; either that or its VERY badly explained. It's a subject that requires NUANCE and there's none!

...or perhaps the INSIGHT is too great for most people's ability to adequately express?

0 Replies

Wow, Frank. I wasn't sure of my argument, but your anger suggests I am right. Is that ballsy enough for you, or do I have to say barbarisms like it is wimpy to live on a fence?

0 Replies

Wow! Whatever happened to Ego Theorem on the merits of Non-Ego. "Something" must have gone wrong!

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Wow, Frank. I wasn't sure of my argument, but your anger suggests I am right. Is that ballsy enough for you, or do I have to say barbarisms like it is wimpy to live on a fence?

I guess some would consider it wimpy to live on a fence...but it takes a rather stupid person to suppose someone is "living on a fence" because he has the guts and ethics to tell the truth when he does not know something and has not got enough information to make a meaningful guess...

...rather than make uninformed guesses like you do and try to pretend you are sharing some special knowledge of REALITY when you spew your guesses.

Said another way: Take the fence sitting charge and cram it up your ass.

Gad...you believers really are a joke.

0 Replies

I think the problem of God our Soul has nothing to do with proofs. First, it's necessary to define what we mean by God. If you think God is a transcental entity, that means you cannot reach it with your reason or senses. So you are not able to predicate God: you can not say what God is. In this case, in my opinion, any proposition about God has no meaning.
The same with the concept of soul.
If you cannot give a definition of something - that means, give a predicate, like a tree is green, Beethoven's Sonatas are beautiful - all your statements about that entity have no meaning.
I think the concept of God, of the Soul, are nothing more than words - and paraphrasing Macbeth - "signifying nothing".

Greetings.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Said another way: Take the fence sitting charge and cram it up your ass.

I, for one, certainly missed Frank's witty banter and clever repartee. Don't ever leave us again, Frank!

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Said another way: Take the fence sitting charge and cram it up your ass.

I, for one, certainly missed Frank's witty banter and clever repartee. Don't ever leave us again, Frank!

That was over the top...and I apologize to JL...and to everyone who had to read it.

"Wimpy" and "fence sitter" are like bamboo shoots under my fingernails...but I could have handled it better.

Hey...I'm a jerkoff at times...so you gotta cut me a bit of slack.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Said another way: Take the fence sitting charge and cram it up your ass.

Quote:
I, for one, certainly missed Frank's witty banter and clever repartee. Don't ever leave us again, Frank!

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

Quote:

That was over the top...and I apologize to JL...and to everyone who had to read it.

"Wimpy" and "fence sitter" are like bamboo shoots under my fingernails...but I could have handled it better.

Hey...I'm a jerkoff at times...

I concur.

Quote:

so you gotta cut me a bit of slack.

Yes, a little slack.

How about the ones at the receiving end of your ****? Do they get some slack too?

0 Replies

Val, I agree with your statement "... any proposition about God has no meaning." That is why I call myself--when asked to choose between theist, agnostic and atheist--an atheist. I am not an atheist because I have "evidence" for the non-existence of God, only because the theistic proposition is TO ME meaningless.

Frank, and please accept my apologies for my passive aggression. You can be a sublime jerk-off, however. They must have loved you over at Abuzz before you caused them to commit collective suicide. Laughing

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Said another way: Take the fence sitting charge and cram it up your ass.

Quote:
I, for one, certainly missed Frank's witty banter and clever repartee. Don't ever leave us again, Frank!

In the future, I'll have to remember to subtitle my posts for the benefit of the humor impaired.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Said another way: Take the fence sitting charge and cram it up your ass.

Quote:
I, for one, certainly missed Frank's witty banter and clever repartee. Don't ever leave us again, Frank!

Wrong!

Telling someone to ‘cram it up your ass’ is neither witty banter not cleaver repartee.

It’s debasing.

Cleaver? May I assume it's an unintenional pun?

0 Replies

Joe, you might just end the comment with a laughing face emoticon, as I did above, in reference to Frank's sublimity. But one can't attain assurance that the other will not be angered. My reference to fence sitting and wimpiness did strike a sore spot with Frank (as he acknowledged), so no gesture--even my statement that he was NOT a wimp (the passive side of my passive-agression)--would have averted his anger. When I'm angered I just feel it while it lasts. That gives me a opportunity to be intimate with myself (pardon the expression).

BTW, I too missed Frank, mainly for his passion and honesty. His intelligence would be more enjoyable if he didn't use it so often as a weapon. But, I guess, different tools for different folks. If my fellow A2Kers can live with my dark side, I can live with theirs.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

If my fellow A2Kers can live with my dark side, I can live with theirs.

You have a dark side? I've been waiting (impatiently) for it to emerge. Bring it on! Twisted Evil

0 Replies

Thanks, but you just wait.

0 Replies

JL and Frank - I think I can pose it another way. What evidence do the buddhists have for thier 'god' (in scare quotes because ultimate reality as I understand it is nothing like the Western conception of a personal God) that has some sort of epistemological preference over say the thousands of years the Jews have studied and written an prayed about thier God?

I take a different tack than Frank with this - I am fairly sure Frank would say that they all have thousands of years of 'evidence' but it is all ambigious and therefore equally invalid. My tack is that believers need to account for the thousands of years of evidence in other beliefs.

One Option: My religion is right - all others are wrong - which seems awful egocentric.

Second Option: None are valid - the Frank option. Wink

Third Option: All are valid - which seems equally hard to swallow as option one.

So where do you rest on this JL. I have some ideas - but I want to know what you think.

TTF

p.s. Frank - oppology accepted - my eyes were not burned - actually I chuckled because I could tell this is the point in the conversation where your buttons get pushed.

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

JL and Frank - I think I can pose it another way. What evidence do the buddhists have for thier 'god' (in scare quotes because ultimate reality as I understand it is nothing like the Western conception of a personal God) that has some sort of epistemological preference over say the thousands of years the Jews have studied and written an prayed about thier God?

I take a different tack than Frank with this - I am fairly sure Frank would say that they all have thousands of years of 'evidence' but it is all ambigious and therefore equally invalid. My tack is that believers need to account for the thousands of years of evidence in other beliefs.

Given enough time, Jason, I try to steer the conversations away from discussions about gods and beliefs (which often are merely details)...and see if we can hone in on the real question being discussed in these kinds of threads...which I see as:

What is the nature of Ultimate REALITY?

That is what people are talking about when discsussing Christianity, Islam, Hindi, Buddhism, Atheism...etc.

Atheists...(the kind that say "I believe there are no gods" as opposed to the kind who simply say, "I do not believe in God") think they know the answer to the nature of the Ultimate REALITY...even if just defining it by what is NOT contained in that REALITY.

Theists...think they know the answer to the nature of the Ultimate REALITY by positing gods of various kinds...with a personal God being the most popular currently.

Buddhists think they know the answer to the nature of the Ultimate REALITY...and often claim (besides their belief claims) that they are in touch with the Ultimate REALITY in various ways.

All I am saying is that I do not know any of the answers about the nature of the Ultimate REALITY...and I do not see enough evidence to persuade me in any of the directions being touted.

I do not rule out anything...even the Christian take on things...although I do find some much more far fetched than others.

And I make some guesses, based on what others say to me...and among those guesses is one that says: No one else knows anything more about the Ultimate REALITY than I do...which is to say, we know virtually nothing about it....and the speculation (beliefs) are pulled out of the air.

I also guess that this "personal experience" thing should be held very, very, very, very, very suspect by everyone...including the people who claim to have personal experience which afford them insights into the Ultimate REALITY.

Quote:

One Option: My religion is right - all others are wrong - which seems awful egocentric.

Second Option: None are valid - the Frank option.

Third Option: All are valid - which seems equally hard to swallow as option one.

The second option is not stated in a way that I think expresses how I, personally, feel.

I certainly am not saying that none are valid...but that none appear to me to be based on knowledge...and in fact, all appear to be based on nothing more than wild guesses and/or blind acceptance of other people's wild guesses.

Quote:

p.s. Frank - oppology accepted - my eyes were not burned - actually I chuckled because I could tell this is the point in the conversation where your buttons get pushed.

I was very inappropriate...and I regret that I said what I said the way I said it.

I understand there are several people here in A2K who consider me to be rude...and crude.

I never mean to be either.

I tend to be colorful in my language...and have done so since grammar school. In fact, grammar school teachers were the first to call me on it...and at age 68, I doubt I will change significantly in that area.

As for rude...well, I am known to be very direct and blunt...and that often translates into rudeness. I don't sugar coat things...and I'm not likely to begin doing so soon.

It is not intended as rudeness...but if it comes off that way...what can I tell ya! (Perhaps a sentence that is an example of what I mean.)

0 Replies

Do you believe in souls?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know