Theism and new atheism are on the same continuum. Both are realist (Buddhist definiti
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-12-2012, 11:31 AM
RE: Theism and new atheism are on the same continuum. Both are realist
Gotta say, this is one of the better threads on this section of the site... Drinking Beverage

BTW, if you're like me and SOL posting though 'Reply to thread' through your cell phone, that's 'cause the title is ginormous. Big Grin

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2012, 03:43 PM
Fuck this title thing.
This thread is hilerious. Listen, I get the fact that you thinking ASSUMING a reality is bad, but you must have to assume in order accurately make an observation. The best way to assume is to use logic.

The assumption in the scientific method is the HYPOTHESIS. It's not wrong to assume, it's only wrong to hold onto the assumption against all demonstrable proof. So far, reality has passed with flying colors on demonstrable proof. Drinking Beverage

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2012, 06:39 PM
RE: Fuck this title thing.
(10-12-2012 03:43 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  So far, reality has passed with flying colors on demonstrable proof. Drinking Beverage
How do you figure?

I point to quantum mechanics, the double slit experiment etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2012, 07:09 PM
RE: Fuck this title thing.
(10-12-2012 06:39 PM)enochian Wrote:  
(10-12-2012 03:43 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  So far, reality has passed with flying colors on demonstrable proof. Drinking Beverage
How do you figure?

I point to quantum mechanics, the double slit experiment etc.

First, you must understand that when I say there is demonstrable proof that supports the notion that there is a reality, we must conclude that proof is in itself subject to criticism of busing in that reality and thus can be spurious. The fact you pointed out Quantum mechanics as a way to undermine what I said is to miss the point of what I as saying. I did not make the claim that we UNDERSTAND reality. I made the claim that reality has provided evidence of itself. Sure, all the evidence could merely be an illusion, but if so, the for an illusion to exist there has to be a FORM of reality that has created, or is creating that illusion. I offer our objective sense of being. Sure, I have absolutely no way of CONCLUSIVELY proving that I am really talking to you, or that you are not merely an illusion in my mind, or me in yours. I have to assume based on the evidence provided, which is you and I discussing about such a topic.

Such is the same with viewing the world, we can only go on the evidence we have, which could be fraudulent, but it is not through our willful ignorance that the evidence is fraudulent, but the fact that we have insufficient tools to find out for sure. Therefore, the most logical conclusion is that we live in a actual place that EXISTS. The fact that I feel myself excited over the fact of posting, and I can feel the keys all are providing evidence that this is indeed real. Such a thing is true in science. Science DOES NOT CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THINGS. It can only show that this happens. We might never know how it happens, or why it happens. We will never conclusively, with one hundred percent certainty prove anything. To reject science, or existence Because it can't be conclusively proven is foolish. Asking for one hundred percent certainty is setting too high of a standard, and rejecting the evidence we have, or the perceived evidence because there is an idea that it might ALL be fake is to change out a reality that you can, with all senses, feel, touch, smell, observe, to a notion of a no reality which can never be proven simply because the measuring tools we could possibly create to try to measure that will be in the illusion and thus not work in the plane of no existence.

Tell me, why is positing existence seen as a bad thing to you? We perceive an existence, we feel, taste and observe it. Why not just say it exists, and leave the ideas that can never be proven right, or wrong away? Deal with what we can prove, see observe and hypothesis, gather evidence and form conclusions about.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
10-12-2012, 07:14 PM
RE: Fuck this title thing.
You are just a bundle of 5 aggregates (skandha), which themselves are not established.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2012, 07:17 PM
RE: Fuck this title thing.
(10-12-2012 07:14 PM)enochian Wrote:  You are just a bundle of 5 aggregates (skandha), which themselves are not established.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha
No, I am atoms, molecules, cells, subsystems, tissues, and so on.

For this we have evidence. For skhanda, none.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2012, 07:18 PM
RE: Fuck this title thing.
(10-12-2012 07:14 PM)enochian Wrote:  You are just a bundle of 5 aggregates (skandha), which themselves are not established.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha
Consider Consider Consider

I don't have a fucking clue as to what you are implying about me? So you follow Buddhism?

I don't care if we are living in an illusion, because if so, the illusion is OUR REALITY. We live in the illusion, so it is logical to assume we are part of the illusion as well. That means we will never be able o escape or prove that it is an illusion. You still haven't answered why assuming shit exists is a bad thing?

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
10-12-2012, 07:19 PM
RE: Fuck this title thing.
(10-12-2012 07:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-12-2012 07:14 PM)enochian Wrote:  You are just a bundle of 5 aggregates (skandha), which themselves are not established.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha
No, I am atoms, molecules, cells, subsystems, tissues, and so on.

For this we have evidence. For skhanda, none.
Tongue


What the fuck did I just get into?

Anyways Chas... What the hell do you make out of this?

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2012, 07:19 PM
RE: Fuck this title thing.
(10-12-2012 07:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-12-2012 07:14 PM)enochian Wrote:  You are just a bundle of 5 aggregates (skandha), which themselves are not established.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha
No, I am atoms, molecules, cells, subsystems, tissues, and so on.

For this we have evidence. For skhanda, none.
The point is not the skandha. In Madhyamaka, we use the analogy of the chariot.

The point is that you are just a bundle of parts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2012, 07:20 PM
RE: Fuck this title thing.
(10-12-2012 07:19 PM)enochian Wrote:  
(10-12-2012 07:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, I am atoms, molecules, cells, subsystems, tissues, and so on.

For this we have evidence. For skhanda, none.
The point is not the skandha. In Madhyamaka, we use the analogy of the chariot.

The point is that you are just a bundle of parts.
Real parts, or non-existent parts? That is the question.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: