Morality and Agnostic Atheism

[Novum]

Re: statistics

The lay folk worship buddha but the monk and nun do not.

Gentle forum reader, before you blindly accept JM's anecdotal stories as truth, I advise you to do some reading yourself from a more reputable source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism

As can clearly be seen, the overwhelming majority of Buddhists do not hold a belief in a god.

 

[JM]

Re: statistics

The lay folk worship buddha but the monk and nun do not.

Gentle forum reader, before you blindly accept JM's anecdotal stories as truth, I advise you to do some reading yourself from a more reputable source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism

As can clearly be seen, the overwhelming majority of Buddhists do not hold a belief in a god.

Gentle forum reader, before you blindly accept Nov's popular "Western" view of buddhist "truth", I advise you to consider what I wrote and do some reading yourself from a more reputable source.
http://seasiancrafts.com/spiritworld/spirit.htm
http://countrystudies.us/mongolia/47.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_folk_religion [Nov's own source]
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/066313.htm [Some buddhist believe in God some don't...read more/]
http://www.myss.com/worldreligions/Buddhism.asp

 

[JM]

Hogwash.

Fiddlesticks?

"Dr." Bahnsen has now joined JM in the uncomfortable task of explaining how atheists in non-Christian nations still "know things", plus the awkward task of explaining how atheists in general still "know things".

Notice how Nov surrounds Dr. with quotations, this is a logical fallacy, a personal attack on a well known [accepted by atheists as well] doctor. Nov is trying to create doubt in the mind of the reader by calling into question the validity of Bahnsen's status as a doctor.

Flip-flopping is fun!

The mind is hostile toward God. :wink:

Bzzt!

Ahhhhh, shucks! :wink:

I can't say I've ever seen a "defense" of the laws of logic as argued from the scientific method. This website is really off its rocker.

No proof is offer to support this claim.

How do we know it exists? For the same reason that we know philosophy exists: it's been around for thousands of years, it's a critical part of rationality, and heck, you can even buy books about it.

False logic and dodged noted, fallacy of tradition.

More horsecrap.

: nice choice of words...you seem to be sitting deep in it and trying to flood the forum with it.

Please, JM, before you dig your hole any deeper, define what you mean by "Christian world view" and please explain how billions of people get by without it.

Read Romans 2 if you'd like to learn about how the pagan "gets by without it."

Please explain how billions of people get by using logic, define it in accordance with how you view morality and then we'll talk.

JM

 

[JM]

Is logic material or immaterial?

Did not answer, dodge noted.

What is logic and how do you know it exists?

Did not answer, dodge noted.

:wink:

 

[Novum]

Re: statistics

Gentle forum reader, before you blindly accept Nov's popular "Western" view of buddhist "truth",

I invite you to demonstrate how a neutral point-of-view encyclopedia like Wikipedia somehow endorses a "Western" view of buddhist "truth". In fact, how about you start by even defining what you mean by "Western view of buddhist truth"?

You're making things up again, JM. It shows.

I advise you to consider what I wrote and do some reading yourself from a more reputable source.
http://seasiancrafts.com/spiritworld/spirit.htm

Does not indicate that all Buddhists believe in god. This site is also fully in agreement with Wikipedia about the devas of Buddhism.

It looks like you didn't read your own source.

http://countrystudies.us/mongolia/47.htm

Not a single mention of "god", "deva", or "deity", and is also in agreement with Wikipedia. Once again, it looks like you didn't read your own source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_folk_religion [Nov's own source]

This is information about Chinese folk religion and some of the deities that are prevalent in these smaller groups. You will notice that the deities cited are not those of Buddhism, as BUddhism has no deities.

For a third time, you just didn't read your own source. You're not even trying anymore, are you JM? Hilarious! :smt082

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/066313.htm [Some buddhist believe in God some don't...read more

Holy crap JM - you couldn't even finish reading the first sentence on this website! :o Here's the full first paragraph:

"Some Buddhists believe in gods, some don't - but belief in gods is not at all required by Buddhism and, arguably, is actually recommended against. This makes Buddhism an atheistic religion - both in practice because of the Buddhists who are also atheists and in theory because of the lack of any defining teachings about the existence of gods."

My god JM, have you lost it completely? :o

http://www.myss.com/worldreligions/Buddhism.asp

Once again, does not claim Buddhism to be based on deities, and once again, in complete agreement with Wikipedia.

JM, my good friend, you have thoroughly, completely, and utterly made a better fool of yourself than I ever could have done. Not reading your own sources? Priceless! Thanks for the laugh! :smt082

 

[Novum]

Please explain how billions of people get by using logic, define it in accordance with how you view morality and then we'll talk.

JM

Etc etc etc. :D

I'd gladly respond, but I'm still laughing too hard from the hilarity that ensued in your latest post about Buddhism websites. Perhaps we can get back to discussing once you've demonstrated some base level of reading comprehension - after all, given your latest post, how can I be sure anymore that you understand what I'm saying?

I mean...not reading the full first sentence of a website you offer as an argument against me? Especially when the website fully supports my position? You can't make this stuff up, folks! :smt082

 

[Drew]

My thoughts:

Logic is a system of principles (as I will elaborate on later). While it is interesting to think about the "ontological" status of logic - what "category of being / existence" it falls into, it is certainly clear from centuries of human experience that it works and is useful in the world.

So of course, logic is "immaterial" - many things that are clearly "real" are immaterial (in any reasonable sense of the word "real"). God (who I believe to be real) is also immaterial, although I admit that I have some philosophical concerns about this. But lets agree for the sake of argument that God, if He exists, is immaterial.

My point is that the question of the existence of such an immaterial God seems to be completely decoupled from the question of the existence of immaterial laws of logic. I think the existence of the laws of logic is pretty much obvious while the existence of God is not so easily seen (in my opinion). So I guess I am saying that while logic's reality is "in our face", the same appears to not be the case for God. Why I think God's existence is more "difficult" to see is a question I can get into if someone asks me to.

Logic, on the other hand, is more easily seen to be real since the principles of logic are, in my opinion, really just an abstraction of the content of empirical experience (the "empirical experience" for God is more fuzzy).

The world we live in is such that if something is A, it cannot also be (not A), if A necessitates B, and B necessitates C, then A necessitates C, etc., etc.. I think that the "laws" of logic, while real in an operational sense, are not otherwise real. The way the world works is such that we can abstract general principles of logic from certain reliable patterns in nature and use these principles to make sense of the world and do useful things in it.

 

[Novum]

I would also add that the entire "immaterial" tactic is nonsense. Why? Because all concepts and ideas are also immaterial.

Like what? Well, these are all immaterial:

Love, logic, hate, chair, speaker, computer, unicorn, horse, dragon, photosynthesis.

Some of them are things that exist in the real world - chair, speaker, computer, horse.

Some of them do not exist naturally, but we can draw pictures of them - unicorn, dragon.

Some of them are the words we give to complex brain processes - love, hate.

Some of them are the words we give to complex systems - logic, photosynthesis.

But they are all immaterial - all concepts and ideas are. This is why I don't feel it's at all useful to this discussion to worry about material/immaterial concerns.

 

[Drew]

But they are all immaterial - all concepts and ideas are. This is why I don't feel it's at all useful to this discussion to worry about material/immaterial concerns.

I think I agree with this. The fact that a certain "thing" is immaterial should be not be taken as evidence againts its "reality". The principles of logic are obviously "real" even though we cannot point to a collection of "physical" entities and say "there are the laws of logic".

I have an intuition that if we can wrench ourselves free of this distinction, we might be able to construct a more coherent picture of the world, including the "ontological" status of God - what He is "made of". I am inclined to think that distinctions such as "material / immaterial" or "physical / spiritual" are really just apparitions. I suspect that the best model of the world will involve a single underlying reality.

But, as the lawnmower said, I degrass....

 

[JM]

I wrote: The lay folk worship buddha but the monk and nun do not. With over 15 years in martial arts I've spoken with many buddhists about their beliefs as it relates to martial training. The Pureland schools do in fact worship buddha, it's been put forward that Christian missions to China by the Nestorians influanced buddhist belief, who knows. It should also be pointed out that buddhist in general mix beliefs, since Japan was mentioned, Shinto and buddhism are often mixed together. You get nature worship, nature diety and buddhist thinking in one pot.

In the context of what I wrote concerning the mixing of folk religion and how Buddhism in Japan is a mixed bag, the links are valid. We can also see how you avoid this, dodge noted and the use of a straw man also noted. Please read my posts before you make your mind up.

After reading your posts with all the rhetoric, I can tell I’m testing your faith, your belief is science that is.

When you squeeze a lemon you get lemon juice, you’ve been squeezed. I’m glad that your faith is being rocked, that said, I’ll give you time to cool off a little…it seems the more I post the more you resort to rhetoric, name calling and you can’t seem to stop from setting up red herrings.

I ask that those following this thread re-read what I wrote and then see for yourself if Nov is changing what I wrote or appealing to humour instead of making a valid reply.


JM

 

[Novum]

I wrote: The lay folk worship buddha

And I wrote - and demonstrated - that you are wrong to overgeneralize like this.

You may resort to all the ad hominems you wish. In the end, the links you posted simply do not support your claim - and most people following the discussion should see your posting of them as fairly humorous.

After reading your posts with all the rhetoric, I can tell I’m testing your faith, your belief is science that is.

You have odd beliefs about, well, my beliefs.

I’m glad that your faith is being rocked

Wishing does not make it so, JM.

When you're ready to continue a rational dialogue, I'll be around.

 

[JM]

How does the immaterial concept of logic materialize itself Nov [hint: social convention]?

If morality is based on social convention and not...say...a Law from God how does good become good and remain good?

Why is Hitler considered a "bad man" if all he was doing is acting within the social convention of the Nazi party?

Back to the Bible, the Bible declares atheists as fools, because they see that logic is universal and have an understanding of uniformity in nature but still deny the source, GOD.

Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

 

[Drew]

How does the immaterial concept of logic materialize itself Nov [hint: social convention]?

If morality is based on social convention and not...say...a Law from God how does good become good and remain good?

Why is Hitler considered a "bad man" if all he was doing is acting within the social convention of the Nazi party?

Back to the Bible, the Bible declares atheists as fools, because they see that logic is universal and have an understanding of uniformity in nature but still deny the source, GOD.

Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

Any notion that an atheist is forced to argue that morality is merely a social convention does not seem correct to me. It is entirely coherent for the atheist to argue that morality is not arbitrary (as social conventions are by definition) since he can show that certain systems of morality produce end states that are universally considered desirable: peace, freedom, happiness, etc.

Hitler is considered to be a "bad man" because his system of morals produced chaos, misery, anguish, death, etc. It simply did not "work well in the world". While I believe in God, I can imagine a universe without God in which moral systems come into being that work well to bring order and desirable end states to a society.

 

[Novum]

How does the immaterial concept of logic materialize itself Nov [hint: social convention]?

In logical proofs and reasoned arguments. Not sure what you mean by "social convention".

If morality is based on social convention and not...say...a Law from God how does good become good and remain good?

Why is Hitler considered a "bad man" if all he was doing is acting within the social convention of the Nazi party?

I direct you to Drew's answer, with which I'm in full agreement.

Back to the Bible, the Bible declares atheists as fools, because they see that logic is universal and have an understanding of uniformity in nature but still deny the source, GOD.

Once again, atheists do not and, by definition can not "deny" your god. I would have hoped you'd understand atheism a little better by now based on our conversations.

Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

I've really no idea what you're saying here.