Discussion in 'Religion' started by Syne, Oct 15, 2013.
:roflmao: Don't you just love this guy?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
It's so easy for you to ignore facts, evidently.
Hurt my feelings?
Yes, this is how I feel when you hurt my feelings ---> :roflmao:
How much do you know about his philosophy?
From reading the Pali Canon myself, I don't think there'd be many changes if he'd lived today, and the changes would mostly be in introducing modern analogies (because few people nowadays know what a "wheel" may refer to or what "kneeding washing powder" is about).
Are you suggesting that the doctrine of dependent origination would be different today?
It's still not clear what is "mystical" about those.
Or a shit wiping stick. I've read several Buddhist references to one of those. The book had to explain that before other alternatives, people used to wipe with wooden sticks.
You have not been arguing "relationships", you have been arguing equivalencies.
If anyone else wants to engage me without conflating so many distinct terms, I will happily answer. You have proven you own inability to differentiate simple terms, and it would be foolish to waste the time on you.
Now if you can demonstrate some intellectual honesty...who am I kidding.
Only what I’ve accumulation through navel contemplation while sitting under a tree.
You haven’t shown how you can demonstrate a functional application of your concept of god without incorporating the aforementioned terms.
What does detailing a functional model of your concept of god have to do with my perceived understanding of it? I’m sure others would be interested in seeing what you have to offer. Just conceive of a concept of inerrancy and stop worrying about your detractors.
All of this stems directly from your inability to differentiate terms. If you could do so, you would already have your answers, as they already exist in this thread. The independent and abstract concept of god is just too foreign to an atheist, I guess.
what is "it" in this sentence? If you are saying that people judge philosophy based on its relative conformity to being able to be objective about it, that is not true. If you are saying that philosophy is judged by analysis of empirical data, you are way off. "To the degree possible" is very little or not at all, depending on what it is we are discussing within philosophy. Unless you are talking about using logic, and not empirical data, in which case I agree, although people in general are not very logical. Edit - I think logic is like many other things in life, in that, once you reach a certain threshold of basic logical consistency, it is very hard to make qualitative differences between ideas and it becomes more of a choice and no longer a "no-brainer".
most social behavior does not at all contain the elements necessary. A religion of "I went to the movies" is not meaningful, unless other criteria are attached. A religion of showing up at a theater and watching a movie is not a religion due to context. If someone wanted to create a religion of movies where they showed up on Sunday and studied movies, saying that is where all the meaning in life lies, cool for them. But it is the context of religious behavior that is important, although most often there is discussion and supposed interaction with the numinous and yes mystical. If your point was that most religion has aspects of the mystic within it, then yes, but you didn't say that. If someone wants a non mystical religious practice, which is actually the case in our actual world, let them. If people want to worship someone or something, it can be a religion. If they have rituals, it can be a religion.
My point to you was that processes don't take the place of a god, because nobody is talking about their relationship with dancing around a tree, they talk of their relationship to nature or whatever. And if Buddhists talk about their relationship to the process instead of to a god, then let's not say they are the same type of religion as ones with god in them, it is a different focus.
But here you basically talk about their spiritual and psychological technology as mystical, although we don't talk about interpretations of the unknown that Freud has as mystical, although his detractors did. Your implication with Buddhism seems to be that it's beliefs are mystical because they are not backed up with testable data (although a buddhist might disagree as to what qualifies as data), whereas when Freud does it, he is doing something different, and that distinction is not really fair.
no, I am saying that human ignorance is more widespread than you imply with your use of the word mystical for some processes you probably don't use, and although you probably think your processes are more rational, I would suggest you are incorrect that your other processes are all based in empirical data. I am not saying we should be ignorant, I am just saying we are largely ignorant of much of what we do and why we do it, and we make a great many decisions as humans without being able to back them up with data, and we should acknowledge that. NOT that we always have to strive to not find out what is going on. Also please forgive me if I am reading an anti-mystical bias of yours that isn't actually there.
LOL. The pot calling the kettle. So, are still backing the claim Buddhism has no gods?
"There are hundreds of gods in the Buddhist pantheon. Many have been borrowed from the Hindu pantheon to serve a particular purpose in Buddhist cosmology. Some have a humanlike appearance. Others look like monsters. Many have multiple arms and heads and hold various objects and display certain body positions and hand gestures that have symbolic meaning. At temples some serve as guardians and protectors at the entrance gates. Images found in temples vary according to sect and the period in which the temple was constructed. Gods, goddesses, and other celestial being tend to play a bigger role in Mahayana Buddhism than Theravada Buddhism. Mahayana Buddhism introduced a number of female deities."
LOL. That's like saying Hitler was a great man because he created the Volkswagen.
If you had paid attention, you would know that I was specifically refuting the type of god (authoritative accountability) Capracus insisted on existing in Buddhism. I assume you have a similar problem making such distinctions though.
You mean when you said this...
I don't understand what you're saying.
Gautama Buddha rejected the existence of a creator deity, refused to endorse many views on creation and stated that questions on the origin of the world are not ultimately useful for ending suffering.
The Theravada Abhidhamma tradition did not tend to elaborate argumentation against the existence of god, but in the Abhidharmakośa of the Sarvāstivāda, Vasubandhu does actively argue against the existence of a creator, stating that the universe has no beginning.
In the pramana tradition, Dharmakīrti advances a number of arguments against the existence of a creator god in his Pramāṇavārika, following in the footsteps of Vasubandhu.
While Buddhist traditions do not deny the existence of supernatural beings (e.g., the devas, of which many are discussed in Buddhist scripture), it does not ascribe powers, in the typical Western sense, for creation, salvation or judgement, to the "gods". They are regarded as having the power to affect worldly events in much the same way as humans and animals have the power to do so.
Though not believing in a creator God, Buddhists inherited the Indian cosmology of the time which includes various types of 'god' realms such as the Heaven of the Thirty-Three, the Four Great Kings, and so on. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism
Much of the "god" mythology in Buddhism was merely existing cultural and Hindu influences.
Hinduism and Buddhism have shared parallel beliefs that have existed side by side. The influence of Upanishads, the earliest philosophical texts of Hindus, on Buddhism has been a subject of debate among scholars. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Hinduism
Gautama Buddha did not deny the existence nor forbid the worship of the popular gods, but such worship is not Buddhist and the gods are trapped in the same samsaric [suffering] cycle as other beings but are in no way guides to religion, since they need instruction themselves. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Hinduism#God
Or can you provide reference to support the notion that religion is equivalent to a concept of god?
Turns out my notion of a concept of god being relevant to conscience is not unique to me. As it relates to ethics, it is called ideal observer theory.
The main idea [of the ideal observer theory] is that ethical terms should be defined after the pattern of the following example: "x is better than y" means "If anyone were, in respect of x and y, fully informed and vividly imaginative, impartial, in a calm frame of mind and otherwise normal, he would prefer x to y." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_observer_theory
And to answer Capracus, Q, Balerion, and anyone else doubting the independence of this notion from religion, this theory is opposed to divine command theory.
This makes ideal observer theory a subjectivist yet universalist form of cognitivism. Ideal observer theory stands in opposition to other forms of ethical subjectivism (e.g. divine command theory, moral relativism, and individualist ethical subjectivism) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_observer_theory
It cannot be made any more clear than that. Even some of the language used to describe ideal observer theory is identical to my own (even though I was not previously aware of this theory).
There's no God in that equation, which contradicts your original claim. Secondly, because there is no God in that equation, there is no requirement of any sort of dogma. All anyone has said to you is that there is no practical application of God as an observer without religion, which you've still failed to show.
What's the point? You're just going to whine about conflated terms and contrived arguments so you don't have to admit defeat.
I already argued that the concept of god is only an abstract, idealized observer. So what is your point? That observer has the same characteristics associated with a god. And I have already shown the concept of god to be distinct from religion. Chalk it up to confirmation bias or phobia to religious terminology.
IOW, you need to use the toilette, immediately and thoroughly.
Which is strange, given that they do call themselves atheists - which is a general term. If they would really believe any concept of G/god is strictly linked to a particular religious tradition and cannot be thought outside of it, they would have to call themselves a-Christians, a-Muslims, a-Hindus, a-Greek-pantheonists etc.
Separate names with a comma.