Present Evidence Here II

[Minimalist]

Well, B, xtians operate under the proposition that 1+1+1 = 1

Hard to get much more illogical than that!

[Unbeliever]

Yeah, when it comes to religion the numbers don't always add up:

Numerical contradictions and errors in the Bible

[Baruch]

Arik -

Watched the first video.  It was very good.  I was already familiar with Paramhansa Yogananda (Autobiography of a Yogi), so I look forward to listening to more talks.

[Arik]

Arik -

Watched the first video.  It was very good.  I was already familiar with Paramhansa Yogananda (Autobiography of a Yogi), so I look forward to listening to more talks.

If you like that particular yoga then you can find many more talks about that.
Although is not my guru I agree with many of his teachings.
After all He is a nice and sincere guy.

Good luck with that.



https://www.ananda.org/video/the-power-of-the-master/

[Baruch]

If you like that particular yoga then you can find many more talks about that.
Although is not my guru I agree with many of his teachings.
After all He is a nice and sincere guy.

Good luck with that.



https://www.ananda.org/video/the-power-of-the-master/

You missed reading my quote regarding Yoga from the Gita?

[Simon Moon]

2+2=4, therefore .... atheism is logical?  Logic doesn't get you much if your axioms are wrong.  I think we can trust arithmetic, but not much else.

No...

Atheism is a logical position, as long as theists continue to fail meet their burden of proof. As soon as theism is evidently demonstrable, then atheism becomes an illogical position.

As far as I can tell, since the existence of gods are not supported by demonstrable evidence, and valid and sound logical arguments, theism is the illogical position. And yes, I am quite familiar with all the so called 'logical' arguments (ontological, teleological, cosmological, TAG) for the existence of a god.

But speaking of axioms...

I am sure, for the most part, we both share many of the same axioms. I.E., there is an external reality, we share the same external reality, other minds exist, the past exists. There seems to be evidence for these, since we all seem to experience them. Unless, you are a solipsist of course, then this entire discussion is moot.

But you and other theists are adding other axioms, that do not seem to be in evidence, i.e., the supernatural exists, a god exists, said god interacts with the physical universe. We don't all experience these theistic axioms.

Please let me know why your additional axioms, besides the ones we both agree on, are reasonable to hold, and I will alter my atheist position.

[Baruch]

Logic is foolish, as I have demonstrated repeatedly.  Nerds LARPing as Vulcans.  A futile semantic game.

[Unbeliever]

So, illogic is not foolish?

[Baruch]

So, illogic is not foolish?

You are being binary.  In a Venn diagram, for you, there is only set A, set B .. no other sets, and the sets don't overlap (both A & B).  Also in some languages (smarter than English) ... a double negative doesn't return you to "start".  Not (Not (A) isn't equal to A.  Exclusive 19th century European culture, plus general ignorance of a technical subject (don't ask me to fix your car) ...

All logical systems, except toy systems (binary numbers is a toy system) are semantically ambiguous.  Aka ... unreasonable.  This applies to all the classic word problems in Greco-Roman philosophy and law.  This wasn't clear until the later 19th century (and set theory (Venn diagrams)).  A good example is false dichotomy ... foolish isn't the opposite of wise.  Un-wise is the opposite of wise.  Un-foolish is the opposite of foolish.  Irrational is the opposite of rational.  Un-reasonable is the opposite of reasonable.  Illogical is the opposite of logical.  But it is "begging the question" to equate foolish with un-wise with un-reasonable with illogical.  These are commonly confabulated, because ... rhetoric.  When done for dishonest or political reasons, combining synonyms is Newspeak.

In my empirical (not rational) analysis ... humans are illogical, irrational, un-reasonable, foolish, un-wise creatures.  There isn't any choice if you are referring to human beings.  To "err" is human, and what an "err" it is!

[Sal1981]

Atheism is just a default position.

Same as asking before someone becomes a stamp collector (or even know about stamps for that matter), they're essentially a-stampeists.

Of course, I know (in analog) about the existence of stamps, but this isn't the same about gods. I know about various concepts of gods, but they aren't even tangible (which is where the analogy breaks down).

[Baruch]

Atheism is just a default position.

Same as asking before someone becomes a stamp collector (or even know about stamps for that matter), they're essentially a-stampeists.

Of course, I know (in analog) about the existence of stamps, but this isn't the same about gods. I know about various concepts of gods, but they aren't even tangible (which is where the analogy breaks down).

One can choose that, or something else.  I choose to have humanity as my default position.  Not materialism.

Your analogy involves people.  The stamps don't spontaneously appear.  Love isn't tangible either.  So is your default position indifference or hate?

[Sal1981]

One can choose that, or something else.  I choose to have humanity as my default position.  Not materialism.

Your analogy involves people.  The stamps don't spontaneously appear.  Love isn't tangible either.  So is your default position indifference or hate?

Indifference, obviously.

You need an object of love to love someone or something. The starting position is then first indifference.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[Baruch]

Indifference, obviously.

You need an object of love to love someone or something. The starting position is then first indifference.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Indifference is the true opposite of love, hate is not.  Sad ;-(

[Blackleaf]

Indifference is the true opposite of love, hate is not.  Sad ;-(

Nope. Hate is the opposite of love. Love motivates you to protect someone. Hate motivates you to harm them. Love motivates you to want to be around someone. Hate motivates you to avoid being around someone. Those things are, obviously, opposed to one another. Indifference is the neutral position, where you just don't care much either way.

[Mike Cl]

Nope. Hate is the opposite of love. Love motivates you to protect someone. Hate motivates you to harm them. Love motivates you to want to be around someone. Hate motivates you to avoid being around someone. Those things are, obviously, opposed to one another. Indifference is the neutral position, where you just don't care much either way.

I disagree--sort of.  I don't hate my ex.  It took awhile, but I did not want to hate her, for that would have entailed thinking of her and hoping harm to befall her--I did not want to expend the energy.  I clearly, don't love her.  So, I am indifferent--I don't think of her, I don't care if she is well or ill; I don't care if she is happy or not.  I don't care if she lives or dies.  I don't care--I'm indifferent to her.