Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

44928Re: A short episode in the pursuit of truth, or, how society fails to work

Expand Messages
  • nitaisundara
    Aug 7 8:07 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
      >
      > Nitai
      >
      > "... Both theists and atheists are persons of faith. For either view to
      > be adhered to one is committing the logical fallacy of "negative proof"
      > (X is true because X can not be proven to be false, and visa versa).
      > Agnosticism is the only strictly rational stance in this regard. I am
      > interested to here (sic) others' thoughts on this point."
      >
      > Response: That mode of argument is at best facile. I do not have to
      > prove that six-armed gods do not exist or that cows are not former
      > relatives. You have to prove they do and are. It is called "the burden
      > of proof". Look it up.


      I acknowledge that you are most likely capable of taking me in an
      intellectual battle, however only one of your responses addressed the
      point and/or was meaningful, additionally, you conveniently did not
      address certain points. Your argument above is good and addressing
      would involve in depth analysis into logical evidences of metaphysical
      realities. I have no time nor do I see such an exercise as plausibly
      fructifying, however there are rational arguments for theism. To
      consider all theistic thinkers as idiots is, well, idiotic.

      > ---
      > "Furthermore, as an adherent to a monotheistic Vedantic tradition, I
      > can say, at least in regards to my own practice, it is not inherently a
      > problem that my tradition requires some trans-rational adherence. This
      > is so on account of the concept of grace. How might an atheist
      > harmonize their deviation from reason, considering the phenomenal world
      > is the all-in-all?"
      >
      > Response: I reject your notions of grace and harmony.

      Thats fine if you reject my notions but the question I posed was
      neither refuted as being an illegitimate one, nor addressed in any
      attempt to make the act a strictly rational one. Your rejection was
      completely irrelevant.


      > ---
      > "Vedanta in particular I find to be an incredibly rich and analytical
      > philosophy and theology... ."
      >
      > Response: So what? I bet you love your mother as well. Should I, then,
      > love your mother too?

      This is childish condescension at best. You took the single least
      essential (and admittedly unnecessary) statement to the point I was
      making and clipped the rest of the paragraph.

      > ---
      > "Logic and reason are not objective, they are colored by our own
      > desires."
      >
      > Response: Like the desire to believe in god?
      >

      Again, a selective, reactionary, condescending remark that skirts the
      point; but to answer: yes that is quite possibly a desire, as is not
      wanting to believe in god and all the possibly attractive implications
      of god-less reality. The point was that your mental capacity is not
      infallible so in the least some humility and self-suspicion should be
      in order. If one agrees that logic is colored by desire (not only the
      logic of those they disagree with), than a *logical* next step would
      be to introspect as to what one's desire truly is. This is no easy
      task but theoretically, to the extent one is seeking objective truths,
      objective perception and inference will develop correspondingly.

      Nitai
    • Show all 17 messages in this topic