Here you go...
- Thread starter swarm
- Start date
I think you miss the point.
If one is only pretending that they are ready to apply themself they're not really in a position to see what's there to be had ....
(doesn't matter whether we are discussing microwave cookery or particle physics)
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=96458
post 117
Its kind of an ongoing saga.
Swarm demands that god be evidenced.
I demand that any call of evidence has to be paralleled by being suitably qualified (IOW you have to get off your laurels), since nothing particularly sublime is self evidenced.
That would be your tired old argument that you're better than us.
Isn't he supposedly a Buddhist? Doesn't he know that enlightenment comes only with nirvana?
Only because you don't apply yourself.
For instance I am sure you don't belittle the authority of your doctor (or if you do, you do it in a respectful manner) simply because he is a better physician than you by dint of his having applied himself to the discipline.
It doesn't matter what we are discussing. Knowledge has concomitant factors of action.
This doesn't mean that the discipline is beyond critique. You just have to understand which aspects are within the public arena and which are not.
:shrug:
Like I said, the same old tired "fallacious" argument. You compare doctors to preachers. Preachers spin fairy tales and propagate indoctrination.
On the contrary, standard arguments require standard rebuttals.
Its clear you have issues with the general principles that knowledge works on aside from anything particularly religious )or perhaps more accurately, the issues you have religion cause you to overlook the general principles that knowledge operates out of)
:shrug:
Hey I loved nirvana they had some great tunes. Then Kurt had to go and get all messy.
LG
I disagree.
The difference is that you are equating the knowledge of a doctor, plumber or electrician, those that deal with real tangible issues and those who are claiming to be studying something that doesn't exist or there is no evidence of it's existence.
Now, if you want to claim that it's no different than the knowledge of a witch doctor than I can agree.
It's a false argument you make.
I could say that you are not trying hard enough to study bigfoot. And that is why you don't realize bigfoot exists.
You have nothing to study, nothing to pursue, only apply faith in.
If you are saying that we don't understand your religion then yes, that is an area that could be understood or knowledge about gained. But do you believe that God comes from the text or the other way around.
If god does not come from the text, then no need to study the book is there.
The texts, all religious texts are unnecessary with regards to the idea of or belief in a god. And no god should give a crap if you have studied them.
So then, why should we study the texts ?
I disagree.
The difference is that you are equating the knowledge of a doctor, plumber or electrician, those that deal with real tangible issues and those who are claiming to be studying something that doesn't exist or there is no evidence of it's existence.
Now, if you want to claim that it's no different than the knowledge of a witch doctor than I can agree.
It's a false argument you make.
I could say that you are not trying hard enough to study bigfoot. And that is why you don't realize bigfoot exists.
You have nothing to study, nothing to pursue, only apply faith in.
If you are saying that we don't understand your religion then yes, that is an area that could be understood or knowledge about gained. But do you believe that God comes from the text or the other way around.
If god does not come from the text, then no need to study the book is there.
The texts, all religious texts are unnecessary with regards to the idea of or belief in a god. And no god should give a crap if you have studied them.
So then, why should we study the texts ?
Perhaps to understand why the people who study these texts believe in God
But only if it interests you. For example, I learned a lot about Hinduism from studying their texts and now find much in common with them in my thoughts about God and religion. I learned much about Buddhism from reading their texts and find much to disagree with about religion and God with their notions. The idea that if people believe in God, they are static in their belief rather than exploratory is one which I have often encountered in atheists. Most people who believe in God have reasons for doing so.
Yes thanks.
The manner the Buddha preferred to describe it was that he awoke.
Enlightenment, satori, nivana, etc. are all interrelated and would make a nice thread, but none of them are related to deities in the Buddhist understanding.
LG had a laundry list of things he felt "required" luckily I've been around for a while and have already done the things he was looking for and as usual, he immediately got cold feet
I'm just trying to see if there was ever anything there or if its just been empty talk the whole time.
So far it has been my experience that people mainly believe in god because they were told to over and over and over when they were too young to question what they were told. They then back fill their rationals as they get older but by then the damage is done.
These "reasons" never seem to survive the light of day. Many find their way to atheism by actually sitting down and trying to understand their "reasons" for believing.
What are your "reasons?"
Perhaps you could put them in a thread on the subject?