Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 52 of 52

Thread: Inconvenient facts

  1. #46 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,859
    Thanks
    13,250
    Thanked 40,795 Times in 32,158 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by guno View Post
    The U.S. Is Retreating from Religion

    By 2030, say projections, a third of Americans will have no religious preference


    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...from-religion/
    lost souls, a sad commentary......

  2. #47 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Central New Jersey
    Posts
    23,253
    Thanks
    13,544
    Thanked 12,185 Times in 7,629 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,051 Times in 998 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RB 60 View Post
    Uh, your many posts on the subject?
    I frequently respond to you...and couldn't care less about you.

    In any case, calling attention to the fact that what others call "beliefs" (in a religious context) are actually just blind guesses...is a form of discussion of the issue.

    If you do not want to participate...or if you do not want to read what I post as part of my participation...

    ...just don't do it.

  3. #48 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    1,929
    Thanks
    62
    Thanked 266 Times in 217 Posts
    Groans
    7
    Groaned 19 Times in 19 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bhaktajan
    Very Buddhist [koan-ish-esque] is your borrowed logic.

    Aso-deska Frank-san.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    I have no idea what you mean here, B.

    If you want to be less circumspect, I'll reply.

    The "borrowed logic" comment seems off base.

    I don't know either Frany, I am not a Buddhist scholar, but I guess I recognise it when I see it.

    So I will google...hmm... "Buddhist negation logic" ---and this is what I found:

    YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

    Catuṣkoṭi (Sanskrit; Devanagari: चतुष्कोटि, Tibetan: མུ་བཞི, Wylie: mu bzhi) is a logical argument(s) of a 'suite of four discrete functions' or 'an indivisible quaternity' that has multiple applications and has been important in the Dharmic traditions of Indian logic, the Buddhist logico-epistemological traditions, particularly those of the Madhyamaka school, and in the skeptical Greek philosophy of Pyrrhonism.

    In particular, the catuṣkoṭi is a "four-cornered" system of argumentation that
    involves the systematic examination of each of the 4 possibilities of a proposition, P:

    P; that is, being.
    not P; that is, not being.
    P and not P; that is, being and not being.
    not (P or not P); that is, neither being nor not being.

    P stands for any proposition and Not-P stands for the diametrical opposite or the contradiction of P
    (in a relationship of contradistinction); P and Not-P constitute a complementary bifurcation of
    mutual exclusivity, collectively constituting an exhaustive set of positions for any given (or determined) propositional array.

    Brahmajala Sutta: The Supreme Net (What the Teaching Is Not)
    'What is the fourth way? Here, an ascetic or Brahmin is dull and stupid. Because of his dullness and stupidity, when he is questioned he resorts to evasive statements and wriggles like an eel: "If you ask me whether there is another world. But I don't say so. And I don't say otherwise. And I don't say it is not, and I don't not say it is not." "Is there no other world?..." "Is there both another world and no other world?..."Is there neither another world nor no other world?..." "Are there spontaneously-born beings?..." "Are there not...?" "Both...? "Neither...?" "Does the Tathagata exist after death? Does he not exist after death? Does he both exist and not exist after death? Does he neither exist nor not exist after death?..." "If I thought so, I would say so...I don't say so...I don't say it is not." This is the fourth case.'

    If we focus on the doctrinal agreement that exists between the Wisdom Sūtras[27] and the tracts of the Mādhyamika we note that both schools characteristically practice a didactic negation. By setting up a series of self-contradictory oppositions, Nāgārjuna disproves all conceivable statements, which can be reduced to these four:

    All things (dharmas) exist: affirmation of being, negation of nonbeing
    All things (dharmas) do not exist: affirmation of nonbeing, negation of being
    All things (dharmas) both exist and do not exist: both affirmation and negation
    All things (dharmas) neither exist nor do not exist: neither affirmation nor negation

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catu%E1%B9%A3ko%E1%B9%ADi

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^




    Aso-deska Frank-san [trans from Japanese: Oh now I see Franky]

  4. #49 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Central New Jersey
    Posts
    23,253
    Thanks
    13,544
    Thanked 12,185 Times in 7,629 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,051 Times in 998 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bhaktajan View Post
    I don't know either Frany, I am not a Buddhist scholar, but I guess I recognise it when I see it.

    So I will google...hmm... "Buddhist negation logic" ---and this is what I found:

    YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

    Catuṣkoṭi (Sanskrit; Devanagari: चतुष्कोटि, Tibetan: མུ་བཞི, Wylie: mu bzhi) is a logical argument(s) of a 'suite of four discrete functions' or 'an indivisible quaternity' that has multiple applications and has been important in the Dharmic traditions of Indian logic, the Buddhist logico-epistemological traditions, particularly those of the Madhyamaka school, and in the skeptical Greek philosophy of Pyrrhonism.

    In particular, the catuṣkoṭi is a "four-cornered" system of argumentation that
    involves the systematic examination of each of the 4 possibilities of a proposition, P:

    P; that is, being.
    not P; that is, not being.
    P and not P; that is, being and not being.
    not (P or not P); that is, neither being nor not being.

    P stands for any proposition and Not-P stands for the diametrical opposite or the contradiction of P
    (in a relationship of contradistinction); P and Not-P constitute a complementary bifurcation of
    mutual exclusivity, collectively constituting an exhaustive set of positions for any given (or determined) propositional array.

    Brahmajala Sutta: The Supreme Net (What the Teaching Is Not)
    'What is the fourth way? Here, an ascetic or Brahmin is dull and stupid. Because of his dullness and stupidity, when he is questioned he resorts to evasive statements and wriggles like an eel: "If you ask me whether there is another world. But I don't say so. And I don't say otherwise. And I don't say it is not, and I don't not say it is not." "Is there no other world?..." "Is there both another world and no other world?..."Is there neither another world nor no other world?..." "Are there spontaneously-born beings?..." "Are there not...?" "Both...? "Neither...?" "Does the Tathagata exist after death? Does he not exist after death? Does he both exist and not exist after death? Does he neither exist nor not exist after death?..." "If I thought so, I would say so...I don't say so...I don't say it is not." This is the fourth case.'

    If we focus on the doctrinal agreement that exists between the Wisdom Sūtras[27] and the tracts of the Mādhyamika we note that both schools characteristically practice a didactic negation. By setting up a series of self-contradictory oppositions, Nāgārjuna disproves all conceivable statements, which can be reduced to these four:

    All things (dharmas) exist: affirmation of being, negation of nonbeing
    All things (dharmas) do not exist: affirmation of nonbeing, negation of being
    All things (dharmas) both exist and do not exist: both affirmation and negation
    All things (dharmas) neither exist nor do not exist: neither affirmation nor negation

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catu%E1%B9%A3ko%E1%B9%ADi

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^




    Aso-deska Frank-san [trans from Japanese: Oh now I see Franky]
    Marsey dotes and dosey dotes and liddlelamsy divy. A kiddley divy too, wooden you.

  5. #50 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    1,929
    Thanks
    62
    Thanked 266 Times in 217 Posts
    Groans
    7
    Groaned 19 Times in 19 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    Marsey dotes and dosey dotes and liddlelamsy divy. A kiddley divy too, wooden you.
    And how do you confirm this? You ask the author!

  6. #51 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,997
    Thanks
    12,116
    Thanked 14,177 Times in 10,395 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    and yet here we are, you and I, disproving that very claim.....
    "If it's in the Bible, it happened."

  7. #52 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    86
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 18 Times in 15 Posts
    Groans
    10
    Groaned 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default

    Damn why do atheists always have to run out and start arguments with Christians - leave them alone :P

Similar Threads

  1. Inconvenient Facts
    By cancel2 2022 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 137
    Last Post: 02-08-2018, 03:13 AM
  2. Four inconvenient facts about global warming at #COP21 display
    By cancel2 2022 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 12-10-2015, 10:16 PM
  3. Some inconvenient facts for Deshy
    By canceled.2021.1 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 11-02-2013, 09:40 AM
  4. APP - Facts are so inconvenient sometimes, hmmmm, Hannity?
    By tekkychick in forum Above Plain Politics Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-26-2013, 06:17 AM
  5. Obama leaves out inconvenient facts
    By USFREEDOM911 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-08-2012, 10:10 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •