Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
for someone posting online, you can't possibly know what a person's experience and expertise is regarding paths of religion and spirituality.
Nor can you. But every time I ask you what expertise you have beyond armchair reading, you never answer.
I've asked you more than once what your expertise was regarding Buddhism, beyond just reading about it. You've never provided an answer.
Now I'm asking you what your expertise regarding quantum physics is, beyond just reading about it. Again, you refuse to answer the question.
How are we to judge the value of your posts when you feed us 'facts' based on almost no information from you about how you gain your perspectives on religion, science, and other topics? When I consider going to a lecture, I first want to know what the lecturer's expertise is. It's fine if he's just stating opinion. But I'll be more likely to attend a lecture if the presenter has some actual expertise. After all, I could just read a book, too. There was one time as a grad student at the University Of Maryland when I took a required course -- School Finance. There was one little problem. The professor had never worked in a school. Never worked in a school district. Did he have a background in finance? Yes. Did he know what principals (or even teachers) get involved with in school finance? No. And do you know what the entire course ended up being? A series of lectures about Reaganomics. Not one word about schools. It would have been very nice as a future principal who had to deal with multi-million dollar budgets (some aspects directly and some aspects indirectly) to learn about the actual topic of the course 'School Finance'.
I have told you about my experiences in Theravada Buddhism, and I talk about that. I don't talk about Zen Buddhism, because I have no expertise in that area. I talk very little about Mahayana Buddhism because, again, I have little expertise in that area. I make very few comments about Hinduism beyond a few things I have personally observed. When some discussions here get into geologic earth history and evolution as related to religion, I sometimes comment because I have two degrees in geology, including a focus on invertebrate paleontology (a key to understanding evolution). I don't talk much about physics or chemistry because those not areas of my expertise. I am more than happy to explain to anyone how I develop my perspectives on various topics and then they can take my comments...or leave them' that's their choice. I could read ten books about Hinduism, but I'm going to pretend that that gives me anything more than what my grandparents used to call 'book larnin'. You have every right to describe your perspectives. But we have every right to ask you how you gained those perspectives. Of course, you don't have to answer. And if that is the route you choose, we have the right to take your posts with a boulder of salt.
If you have read seven books about Theravada Buddhism, I'm happy. That's more than most have done. Good. You deserve praise. But that is still not the same as being a Theravada Buddhist. As living in a Theravada Buddhist society for a period of time. As visiting thousands of Theravada Buddhist temples. As tutoring Theravada Buddhist monks in English skills. As occasionally joining Theravada Buddhist monks in their evening chantings and meditations. As sitting and discussing topics related to Buddhism with several Buddhist monks. As having been invited to ordain by a Theravada Buddhist abbot (in Thailand, and not a Westerner). It doesn't mean that I'm an expert on everything about Theravada Buddhism. It doesn't mean that I'm right about everything. But I have a perspective that you simply don't. Which is okay. I'm still glad if you're interested in the topic. But as I explained in a post yesterday, one of the most common chants that Buddhists do is one of the most simple: "To the Buddha I go for refuge. To the Dhamma I go for refuge. To the Sangha I go for refuge". And the Sangha is usually considered to be the Buddhist community of monks and lay people, not 'book readers'. It doesn't mean that we don't respect you for reading about the topic. But it does mean that you are not the Sangha.
Saying "Wrong" and "No" does not change your illogical position working off a Argument From Ignorance.
Simply repeating your assertion and straw man does not make that assertion true. You need to prove my position is illogical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
You follow the LOBBUNE Doctrine...Lack Of Belief Based Upon No Evidence.
No, that is just a part of the Bayesian reasoning. I also include evidence FOR atheism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Your "brand" of Atheism is indicative of "Lacking".
Lacking Evidence
Lacking Belief
Lacking God Perception
Lacking Logic
And many times Lacking Control of one's obsessive & compulsive tendencies to rant about that which you lack.
Considering it is a Concept of Nothing...you'd think it was something other than a "Null Set" the way you all go off about it.
Ah, ah, attacking the dishonest straw man again. Try refuting my actual arguments, as I have refuted yours.
You can only use what YOU know not necessarily what is actually known.
But when I ask for what I allegedly do not know, you run away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
BTW, your little one-word refutations are NOT refutations at all just puerile "Nuh Uh"s. You need to learn what constitutes valid and useful explanations of your positions.
Oh, please, you KNOW I know what constitutes valid and useful explanations of my position, and to pretend I do not is just dishonest. But do you really think I am going to waste my time playing Goldie's stupid and childish game? That I am going to explain my reasoning just so that he can ignore them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
See my extensive explanations of my views which you dismissively refer to as "jargon" and "blah, blah, blah"s, and other derogatory commentaries because you do not know enough to actually understand them.
No, I dismiss them because of what I do know, and what you show ignorance of.
So just like Goldie needs to do, instead of the usual ad hominems and straw man attacks, you need to provide that actual, credible evidence.
as this is "your atheism" it is based on what "you know." you can only use what you know.
there is no "we" when you are talking about "your atheism"
And the knowledge I know is based on what other people have discovered, hence the we.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
you have reasons for your own atheism and lack of belief.
just as each theist has reasons for their own belief.
despite your vaunted claims of being "intellectually superior" it is a level playing field.
No, that is presuming those reasons are equally valid. Obviously they are not, otherwise there would not be different religions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
atheism is a belief position. it is not a knowledge position.
from the CD sticky in the Atheism section of the forum, "We don’t know that there are no gods. Atheism is a belief position, not a knowledge position.
Correct, it believes there are no gods, it (rarely) does not claim to know there are no gods. But that belief is based on knowledge, subconscious or not, superficial or not. Instead of relying on definitions, try understanding how reality works, and how people come to their beliefs.
Simply repeating your assertion and straw man does not make that assertion true. You need to prove my position is illogical.
No, that is just a part of the Bayesian reasoning. I also include evidence FOR atheism.
Ah, ah, attacking the dishonest straw man again. Try refuting my actual arguments, as I have refuted yours.
You have no arguments...or, I've yet to see one.
Unless you think "Wrong!"..."Strawman!"..."No!"...>>Insert ignorant misinterpretation of what others said<<, is a argument.
Though, I realize why you do that...so, I don't blame you.
But when I ask for what I allegedly do not know, you run away.
Oh, please, you KNOW I know what constitutes valid and useful explanations of my position, and to pretend I do not is just dishonest. But do you really think I am going to waste my time playing Goldie's stupid and childish game? That I am going to explain my reasoning just so that he can ignore them?
No, I dismiss them because of what I do know, and what you show ignorance of.
So just like Goldie needs to do, instead of the usual ad hominems and straw man attacks, you need to provide that actual, credible evidence.
You know where the science section is.
Not cool trying to set someone up to get jammed.
You know they do not allow Religion to be discussed in the Science forum. And you'd be the 1st to report the post.
But Mystic has been onto you for a long time...and just told you so.
Tzaph just rolled over you too.
it would be hard to come up with a more superficial and simplistic mindset
than the one that dismisses the depth and breadth of wisdom in paths of religion and spirituality as "baseless assertions and wild guesses"
if you feel "horrible tension at not having simplistic answers for everything" then that is you.
don't paste that on others.
And once again we have text quoted out of context to make an argument no one made. And the whole quote is true, but you would rather attack a straw man than deal with what was actually said.
If religion provides a moral base, you need to find another religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
those are your beliefs.
No, those are facts.
Last edited by Harry Diogenes; 05-31-2022 at 04:00 AM..
Come on now. You post about religions that you have no expertise about...just what you've read. Earlier today you were posting about some deep science topics. What's your expertise there? And why to you keep complaining about kindness and they make comments like the bolded?
To be fair to Tzap, one does not need expertise in any science to know a university Professor with a PhD in physics, and a Master in theoretical physics, and who is Associate Head of Research with the Department of Physics is an actual scientist, not a philosopher.
and for someone to claim their chosen path of religion and spirituality is "intellectually superior" (an earlier post in this thread made that claim of superiority about atheism) well that mindset puts them square in the category of supremacists. it is the same mindset of those who claim that their race is "superior," or that their gender is "superior." that's what a supremacist is: "an advocate or adherent of the supremacy of one group : a person who believes that one group of people as identified by their shared race, ethnicity, sex, gender, or religion is inherently superior to other groups."
First you take my quote out of context, and then based on your dishonest straw man, compare me to neo-nazis, misogynists, and religious fundamentalists. You should be ashamed of such disgusting dishonesty.
Here is what I actually said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
I agree atheism can be described as a mind limiting existence, because we only use the evidence we have (consciously or subconsciously), we do not need to invent, nor do we deny the evidence that the religious need to do.
That make atheism intellectually superior to the assertions, ad hominems, ad hoc excuses, deny what you do not like, fallacies, and word games that the religious use.
Most of that has nothing to do with anyone's posts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
^more dishonesty above
