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, 08:06 PM
RE: Fuck this title thing.
(10-12-2012 08:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-12-2012 08:03 PM)enochian Wrote:  Let me get this straight.

So you think they preface every sentence in med school with some reference to evolution?

You don't make any sense to me.
Now, that is a non sequitur.
I'm just building on your non sequitur.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2012, 08:10 PM
RE: Fuck this title thing.
(10-12-2012 08:06 PM)enochian Wrote:  
(10-12-2012 08:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  Now, that is a non sequitur.
I'm just building on your non sequitur.
You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.

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, 08:16 PM
RE: Theism and new atheism are on the same continuum. Both are realist
I'm still confused why you brought up evolution.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2012, 08:19 PM
RE: Theism and new atheism are on the same continuum. Both are realist
(10-12-2012 08:16 PM)enochian Wrote:  I'm still confused why you brought up evolution.
Because of your inaccurate analogy that we are a mere collection of parts.

We are no such thing. We are an interacting system of parts that is complex by virtue of an algorithmic process of selection.

The chariot analogy is misleadingly simplistic and not useful.

That is why.

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, 08:24 PM
RE: Theism and new atheism are on the same continuum. Both are realist
(10-12-2012 08:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-12-2012 08:16 PM)enochian Wrote:  I'm still confused why you brought up evolution.
Because of your inaccurate analogy that we are a mere collection of parts.

We are no such thing. We are an interacting system of parts that is complex by virtue of an algorithmic process of selection.

The chariot analogy is misleadingly simplistic and not useful.

That is why.
Have you ever done a whole body dissection of a cadaver? Have you studied evolution at the grad school level?

Well I have.

I don't see the pertinence to Madhyamaka.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2012, 08:28 PM
RE: Theism and new atheism are on the same continuum. Both are realist
(10-12-2012 08:24 PM)enochian Wrote:  
(10-12-2012 08:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  Because of your inaccurate analogy that we are a mere collection of parts.

We are no such thing. We are an interacting system of parts that is complex by virtue of an algorithmic process of selection.

The chariot analogy is misleadingly simplistic and not useful.

That is why.
Have you ever done a whole body dissection of a cadaver? Have you studied evolution at the grad school level?

Well I have.

I don't see the pertinence to Madhyamaka.


I was commenting on your analogy.

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, 08:31 PM
RE: TLDR title
I'm lost. In all the arguing, I've lost what the original point of this discussion was in the first place.

OP, what is your point? As to the chariot analogy, what is it supposed to be an analogy of?

Further, if life is an illusion, what use is this information to humans? What do we do with such info? How does one even go about proving it?

And honestly, what have the practitioners/developers of Madhyamaka done to prove their position rather than simply posit?

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2012, 08:40 PM
RE: TLDR title
(10-12-2012 08:31 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  And honestly, what have the practitioners/developers of Madhyamaka done to prove their position rather than simply posit?

We don't put forth a philosophical position. Madhyamaka is a system of nonimplicative negations.

A nonimplicative negation is a simple negation that implies nothing else.

The opposite is an affirming negation such as "That mother has no son", which implies a daughter etc. etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2012, 08:43 PM
RE: TLDR title
(10-12-2012 08:40 PM)enochian Wrote:  
(10-12-2012 08:31 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  And honestly, what have the practitioners/developers of Madhyamaka done to prove their position rather than simply posit?

We don't put forth a philosophical position. Madhyamaka is a system of nonimplicative negations.

A nonimplicative negation is a simple negation that implies nothing else.

The opposite is an affirming negation such as "That mother has no son", which implies a daughter etc. etc.
OK.....and this helps us how?

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2012, 08:45 PM
RE: TLDR title
(10-12-2012 08:43 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  
(10-12-2012 08:40 PM)enochian Wrote:  We don't put forth a philosophical position. Madhyamaka is a system of nonimplicative negations.

A nonimplicative negation is a simple negation that implies nothing else.

The opposite is an affirming negation such as "That mother has no son", which implies a daughter etc. etc.
OK.....and this helps us how?
It helps defeat various extinct religious systems of ancient India.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: