[split] It's Supernatural.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-12-2013, 07:54 PM
RE: [split] It's Supernatural.
(07-12-2013 07:52 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(07-12-2013 07:50 PM)Buvey Wrote:  Well, I disproved her to. Now, like I said, what is another "atheistic religion"?

Gwynnite. Tongue

Now why you over here starting shit, n00b?

Play nice with Buvey, he wants to converse with Vosur and doesn't want you to ruin everything. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 08:08 PM (This post was last modified: 07-12-2013 08:12 PM by kim.)
RE: [split] It's Supernatural.
(07-12-2013 07:47 PM)Buvey Wrote:  
(07-12-2013 07:43 PM)kim Wrote:  Buddhism is not about either believing or disbelieving in God or gods. Instead, the historical Buddha taught that believing in gods was not useful for those seeking to realize enlightenment. Buddhism does not address god - some sects may but, basic Buddhism based on the Buddha's original teaching, does not.

So basically there are two schools of thought, the traditional Theradevas and the reformed Mahayannas. The teachings of the historical Buddha were embodied in Theradeva, which recognizes Hindu gods as well as that Siddartha was a God in his samsara past. The Mahayannas are diluted by local culture to accept local eg Chinese gods, so they all believe in a God some way or another.

Now that Buddhism has been disproven, what is another example of an "atheistic religion".

From the original teachings, Buddha plainly said that he was not a god, but "awakened." The Buddha taught his disciples to cultivate devotional and reverential habits of mind to break the bonds of ego. Devotion is not a corruption of Buddhism, but an expression of it... perhaps this is where people are mistaken in their understandings of the original Buddha teaching. This may also perhaps be why people see these devotional habits to be worship.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 08:14 PM
RE: [split] It's Supernatural.
(07-12-2013 08:08 PM)kim Wrote:  
(07-12-2013 07:47 PM)Buvey Wrote:  So basically there are two schools of thought, the traditional Theradevas and the reformed Mahayannas. The teachings of the historical Buddha were embodied in Theradeva, which recognizes Hindu gods as well as that Siddartha was a God in his samsara past. The Mahayannas are diluted by local culture to accept local eg Chinese gods, so they all believe in a God some way or another.

Now that Buddhism has been disproven, what is another example of an "atheistic religion".

From the original teachings, Buddha also plainly said that he was not a god, but "awakened." The Buddha taught his disciples to cultivate devotional and reverential habits of mind to break the bonds of ego. Devotion is not a corruption of Buddhism, but an expression of it... perhaps this is where people are mistaken in their understandings of the original Buddha teaching. This may also perhaps be why people see these devotional habits to be worship.

But there is no religion based off of the Buddha in that way, unless you where to found one. The Pali Canon of the Theradevas specifically mentions Rama as a person conversing with Siddartha. The Mahayanna Nebbanna Sutta has a verse wear, after having defeated Mara (Hindu lord of desire), every God chants about the Buddha's conquering desire. Part of being any Buddhist means subscribing to these texts and that means believing in the Gods they contain. Also Mara is very important to Buddhism to.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 08:45 PM
RE: [split] It's Supernatural.
(07-12-2013 07:50 PM)Buvey Wrote:  Well, I disproved her to.
I'm going to address your response to kim because I don't think that you've shown her to be wrong.

(07-12-2013 07:47 PM)Buvey Wrote:  So basically there are two schools of thought, the traditional Theradevas and the reformed Mahayannas. The teachings of the historical Buddha were embodied in Theradeva, which recognizes Hindu gods as well as that Siddartha was a God in his samsara past. The Mahayannas are diluted by local culture to accept local eg Chinese gods, so they all believe in a God some way or another.
I would appreciate it if you could support your claims with reliable sources (i.e. citations) in the future.

I've done some research on the topic to check whether or not your claims are factually accurate and so far it doesn't look like they are. According to the popular Theradava (not Theradeva, by the way) Buddhism website "Access to Insight",

"Quite contradictory views have been expressed in Western literature on the attitude of Buddhism toward the concept of God and gods. From a study of the discourses of the Buddha preserved in the Pali canon, it will be seen that the idea of a personal deity, a creator god conceived to be eternal and omnipotent, is incompatible with the Buddha's teachings. On the other hand, conceptions of an impersonal godhead of any description, such as world-soul, etc., are excluded by the Buddha's teachings on Anatta, non-self or unsubstantiality.

In Buddhist literature, the belief in a creator god (issara-nimmana-vada) is frequently mentioned and rejected, along with other causes wrongly adduced to explain the origin of the world; as, for instance, world-soul, time, nature, etc. God-belief, however, is placed in the same category as those morally destructive wrong views which deny the kammic results of action, assume a fortuitous origin of man and nature, or teach absolute determinism. These views are said to be altogether pernicious, having definite bad results due to their effect on ethical conduct."


It would perhaps be more accurate to call Buddhism a non-theistic religion, but that is merely a minor semantical difference. It doesn't change the point I made that religions do not have to incorporate the belief in God or gods and that the same applies to individuals by extension.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 09:49 PM
RE: [split] It's Supernatural.
(07-12-2013 07:13 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  I can't help noticing that you don't spend much time or energy finding out what people believe, and why they believe it.

No because I don't need to know the dog breed that produced the shit I stepped before I decide to scrape it off.

Quote:You seem permanently on the offensive which even when your facts are grounded is not persuasive, fails to effectively communicate, and is not conducive to community or good cheer.

I take it for granted that any post regardless of its quality will attract idiotic and ignorant responses.

All that matters to me is that my "facts are grounded" and my arguments sound. That is all I that can really control. I'm not going to concern myself with how someone may react. Even the most accurate information and sound argument will still attract an idiotic response because that's what idiots do, namely, react idiotically.

If I can present systematic reviews and meta-analyses (e.g. that find no therapeutic benefit in mega-doses of vitamins and minerals and also consistently find an increased mortality rate) and someone that doesn't even understand what a systematic review or a meta-analysis are sees fit to crticticse then I can be fairly confident that I am not in the domain of rational discourse. There is no point in even pretending I am dealing with a rational or educated audience. Yes there are rational and educated audience members but they are in the minority. They quietly take mental notes and bookmark sources so that they can carry the fight against stupidity to new frontiers--and I do the same. It is for them and for the Google indexing robots that I post. That is why my posts are often heavy with citations.

Quote:This is also not the only thread where I have observed a disconnect between the argument you are making and the person you are making the argument to. So if as it seems you do not intend to effectively communicate with the target of your argument, what is the purpose of your communication?

1. Are you trying to make a compelling argument to a person who seems to have beliefs you do not share, or at least to convey some useful information?
2. Are you trying to make some kind of "more sceptical than thou" case and build a reputation in that respect?
3. Are you trying to maintain a high signal to noise ratio on the board, a high ratio of sense to nonsense, etc?
4. Are you more or less coming on to the board to let off some steam?

Option (3) most accurately reflects my motive. It doesn't really matter what WitchSabrina thinks of my posts. She is nothing more than a foil or pretext to present a case for the utter stupidity of Wicca. That will be her most valuable contribution to rational skepticism. That notwithstanding I remain convinced that anyone that has the capacity to believe in Wicca is essentially foolish. The doublethink that it demands is special. Someone that stupid also isn't going to make a substantive contribution to the forum so I have no concerns about discouraging valuable input. If anything they will contaminate the forum with their stupidity.

Am I troubled by using an idiotic and ignorant member of the forum as a pretext or foil? No, not really. Anyone that lives in the developed world in the 21st-Century that can embrace superstition that is patently confected obviously has no concern for personal integrity, civic duty or even of humanism. Wicca is nothing more than another example of post-modern nihilism; the distinction between truth and falsehood is blurred, everyone makes up their own "truth". That is cultural vandalism and the least such a person can do is contribute--even if unconsciously--to a re-assertion of Enlightnemnt values.

Quote:If (3), I understand perhaps not wanting to let threads lie in a state where the least competent contribution to a thread ends up being the last word. Perhaps I'm too quick to regard a person as not ready to accept new information on a subject, and leave threads in that state too often. I understand a perspective where you want truth to dominate discussion and to consistently have the last word. I can't sit in judgement over you if this is your intent, but wonder if another tact could achieve the same outcome.

No, I don't think there is a better approach that is is consistent with my temperament. The intelligent people will take my arguments and sources and reuse them elsewhere when they encounter superstition, pseudoscscience, ignorance, anti-intellectualism and just plain crassness (and I will do the same in relation to their arguments and sources).

There is no shame in saying that (ex-)Wiccans and (ex-)Scientologists etc. are idiots. No need to tip-toe around the truth. If someone tells you that they are an ex-Wiccan you should question their judgement. Anyone that is capable of doublethink should be held in suspicion.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 10:13 PM
RE: [split] It's Supernatural.
(07-12-2013 01:50 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  And *we* obviously don't care what *you* think.

And?

Quote:You have your hands firmly over your ears and refuse to hear anyone else's side of this matter, but you're asserting that everyone else is supposed to care about your "comprehensive disgust" with that same subject matter.

Where have I asserted that "that everyone else is supposed to care about...[my]..."comprehensive disgust" with that same subject matter"?

Quote:(You want to be heard but refuse to hear others. Fantastic!)

You have the option of not reading my posts. I'm not forcing you to read them or to answer them. Have I PMd you?

Quote:On top of it all you are using language suggestive of a victim complex; people disagreeing with you is not "intimidation" or "shaming." It is simply disagreeing.

No, it's not "simply disagreeing" it is an attempt to shame and intimidate and it isn't working.

Quote:All the things you are asking about have already been answered. You are ignoring the answers, restating your own opinion, then pretending that nobody is answering. Great.

No, none of my questions have been answered.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 10:20 PM
RE: [split] It's Supernatural.
(07-12-2013 06:16 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 01:08 AM)Chippy Wrote:  And unfortunately I am related to a former Wiccan...

Aha! So... you're projecting. Tongue

What you are after is transference which is distinct from projection. Tongue

And no. Bring me an ex-Scientologist and I'll do the same and I have no relatives that are ex-Scientologists.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
08-12-2013, 01:42 AM
RE: [split] It's Supernatural.
Wow. I'm actually surprised that I'm not bored with this yet.

Ok, are you up for a fun little game? I'll answer one of your questions if you answer mine.

(07-12-2013 10:13 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Where have I asserted that "that everyone else is supposed to care about...[my]..."comprehensive disgust" with that same subject matter"?

You continue to state the same opinion over and over again, despite the fact that we've all explained numerous times why we disagree with it and find the logic faulty. I don't understand why you would continue this unless you are trying to change minds because you have a personal vendetta against Wicca. (Not to make it sound like a contest, but I promise you beyond the shadow of any doubt that *I* have more of a right to despise that religion than you do. I chose not to because I'm a fucking adult who can remove my own personal experiences from the concept.)

My question: Why do you think people here are trying to shame or intimidate you? How does this differ from simply disagreeing?

THIS USER IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. THANK YOU, AND HAVE A GREAT DAY! http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...a-few-days
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cephalotus's post
08-12-2013, 02:25 AM
RE: [split] It's Supernatural.
(08-12-2013 01:42 AM)Cephalotus Wrote:  My question: Why do you think people here are trying to shame or intimidate you? How does this differ from simply disagreeing?

The nature of the disagreement suggests that. The points I have raised are avoided and instead there is a "How dare you..." inflection. I don't mind that but it should be called what it is and I will be unmoved regardless.

You haven't addressed the requirement of doublethink in Wicca, i.e. it is made up by Garnder and it is also true. That aspect of Wicca distinguishes it from any mainline religion and even from many cults. Orwell offers doublethink as a product of "brainwashing" by totalitarian regimes that is achieved through a process of enculturation. What is to be said of a person that leads themselves into normalising doublethink of their own volition? That doesn't even mention this grossly aberrant manner of thinking? That apparently doesn't even recognise that this grossly aberrant manner of thinking was taking place. That feature of Wicca is the most salient from both a psychological and philosophical perspective.

Doublethink (at the foundation level) is not normal and it doesn't matter how many people insist that Wicca is just like any other religion. I submit that many people are incapable of doublethink.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 02:32 AM
RE: [split] It's Supernatural.
(08-12-2013 02:25 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Blah blah blah....

My prediction is that you are going to ultimately spend the balance of whatever is left of your time here in the "Viper's Pit".

So be it.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: