Inconvenient facts

PostmodernProphet said:
poor sad atheists....drowning in irrelevancy.....
Click to expand...

The more education the less christinsanity

The nation’s religious makeup has shifted dramatically in the past 15 years, with a sharp drop in the number of Americans who say they’re members of a Protestant denomination – still the nation’s most prevalent religious group – and a rise in the number who profess no religion.

On average last year, 36 percent of Americans in ABC News/Washington Post polls identified themselves as members of a Protestant faith, extending a gradual trend down from 50 percent in 2003. That includes an 8-point drop in the number of evangelical white Protestants,

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pro...ng-religious-landscape-poll/story?id=54995663 an important political group.
 
guno said:
Christianity as default is gone': the rise of a non-Christian Europe

Figures show a majority of young adults in 12 countries have no faith, with Czechs least religious

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...christian-europe-young-people-survey-religion
Click to expand...

do you think there is no link between the fact that Europe has grown more non Christian, more socialist and more irrelevant in the world at the same time?......they've become so weak they are a target for Muslim takeover.......
 
RB 60 said:
Uh, your many posts on the subject?
Click to expand...

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

Aso-deska Frank-san.
Click to expand...


Frank Apisa said:
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.
Click to expand...


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/Catuṣkoṭi

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




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

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




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

Marsey dotes and dosey dotes and liddlelamsy divy. A kiddley divy too, wooden you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top