Q is not a god of any kind. Q is an incontinent elderly man who blogs from a nursing home. His nurses think he is a pain in the ass, and have to wipe his ass once a day.
:roflmao: Don't you just love this guy?
Q is not a god of any kind. Q is an incontinent elderly man who blogs from a nursing home. His nurses think he is a pain in the ass, and have to wipe his ass once a day.
It is easy to ignore you when you make it so obvious that you do not pay any attention to the context of a discussion.
Do you think I hurt Q's feelings? :bawl: Poor Q.
If Gautama Buddha existed today I’m sure his philosophy would be more reflective of the current state of knowledge.
In Buddhism, it’s not so much the deities but the traditional tenets of cyclical rebirth, reincarnation, and eternal release that are the prominent mystical qualities.
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.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).
Funny how you can’t seem to comprehend the relationship of the terms you listed.
In other words you’re taking the fifth on the questions I asked. I expected as much.
Only what I’ve accumulation through navel contemplation while sitting under a tree.wynn said:How much do you know about his philosophy?
You haven’t shown how you can demonstrate a functional application of your concept of god without incorporating the aforementioned terms.Syne said:You have not been arguing "relationships", you have been arguing equivalencies.
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.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.
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.
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".But in reality philosophies or anything else are judged to the degree possible through objective analysis and their relative conformity to it.
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.Since most social behavior contains the elements necessary for religious designation, where do you suggest we draw the line?
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.I did clarify what I consider a religious practice and how particular concepts fit that definition. That said the question moves from the definition to its applied consistency.
A case can be made that LaVeyan Satanism originated with mystic attributes that seem to have withered away over the years through reorganization of the church. On its face, today’s Church of Satan appears to be generally lacking mystical concepts.
In Buddhism, it’s not so much the deities but the traditional tenets of cyclical rebirth, reincarnation, and eternal release that are the prominent mystical qualities.
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.So you’re arguing that because ignorance and illogic may exists in one area, we should excuse it everywhere else.
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.
So I'm a bad person for trying to come up with a gravity drive using redshift in reverse? Wow! I guess creativity is not tolerated by the intellectual elite.
LOL. The pot calling the kettle. So, are still backing the claim Buddhism has no gods?
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.
So god is equivalent to religion, even though some religions do not include a concept of god? There is even a real world example, in Buddhism.
LOL. That's like saying Hitler was a great man because he created the Volkswagen.
You mean when you said this...
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.
Only what I’ve accumulation through navel contemplation while sitting under a tree.
The independent and abstract concept of god is just too foreign to an atheist, I guess.