Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[bruto]

Tell me about side effects from true religions practiced by true peoplr, as you claimed above.

No one can deny scientifiç benefiting affects by keeping faith and by religious practíces are there. So it is lie in odd preceptión that religións have no scientific basis. Otherwise, if there would had been no religión, we would had vanished by this time. When children had no fear and control of parents, they become odd.

As I said before, side effects exist even when the net effect may be positive. I'm right now taking an antibiotic for Lyme disease, and it's doing its job quite well, as I was quite sick for a while and am now better. But it has some side effects that are also real. It is a bit nauseating for a while, and makes me sun sensitive. I'd be a fool not to take the medicine. It's a good cure for the disease. But it has side effects.

I certainly can deny scientific benefits to religion and its practice. It may be true at times that some religions sometimes allow such benefits to occur, and may even promote them for the wrong reasons, but religion is not science, and occasional agreement, practicality and coincidence do not make a religion true. Nor does it require any "odd perception" to note that this occasional agreement does not make science the basis of any religion. Divinity is the basis of most religions.

Your continued and insistent ignorance of both theology and history do you no favors at all. For, as Ecclesiastes noted, "a dream comes with much business, and a fool's voice with many words."

You keep bringing up undefined and undefinable modifiers in your argument. What is a "true" religion, and what is a "true" person? You made a statement that religion is good and has no side effects, but history is full of such side effects, many quite horrible. You cannot dismiss them by a wave of the semantic fallacy by saying retroactively that those religions aren't true or their practitioners are not true. Many religions have conflicting ideas which cannot coexist. They cannot all be true, and you can't just cherry pick the parts you like and say the rest is optional.

It is not, of course, anyone's duty to start educating you on basic issues of history and religion, but I would point out, for example, that according to Roman Catholic doctrine, the Pope is infallible in matters of faith. That means that, in terms of Church doctrine, no act of a Pope can be wrong. It is, by the very definition of the faith, "true" in that faith. Though the Church of today has been peaceable, in former years the Church, directly through the actions and resolutions of Popes, has waged wars and crusades. This is a side effect, and by any non-fallacious account, it is a side effect of the truest practitioners of a religion that are possible.

Current side effects can be argued plenty as well, but we can leave it at that.

 

[sackett]

I wonder:

Kumar, are you a Jain?

If you are, how long have you been one?

 

[Peregrinus]

I think, we underestimate óur true self. We have become góld ore from gold. But forget that we can still bécome gold be removing admixtures and attachments. Every being in its true gold form become highly valued abd infinité.

Your English, as pointed out before, is just not up to clearly delineated metaphor. Your reasoning is not even up to faulty logic. As someone pointed out above, you're way, way down the rabbit hole. (That's a metaphor; I'll explain. You are wrong.)

 

[Kumar]

As I said before, side effects exist even when the net effect may be positive. I'm right now taking an antibiotic for Lyme disease, and it's doing its job quite well, as I was quite sick for a while and am now better. But it has some side effects that are also real. It is a bit nauseating for a while, and makes me sun sensitive. I'd be a fool not to take the medicine. It's a good cure for the disease. But it has side effects.

I certainly can deny scientific benefits to religion and its practice. It may be true at times that some religions sometimes allow such benefits to occur, and may even promote them for the wrong reasons, but religion is not science, and occasional agreement, practicality and coincidence do not make a religion true. Nor does it require any "odd perception" to note that this occasional agreement does not make science the basis of any religion. Divinity is the basis of most religions.

Your continued and insistent ignorance of both theology and history do you no favors at all. For, as Ecclesiastes noted, "a dream comes with much business, and a fool's voice with many words."

You keep bringing up undefined and undefinable modifiers in your argument. What is a "true" religion, and what is a "true" person? You made a statement that religion is good and has no side effects, but history is full of such side effects, many quite horrible. You cannot dismiss them by a wave of the semantic fallacy by saying retroactively that those religions aren't true or their practitioners are not true. Many religions have conflicting ideas which cannot coexist. They cannot all be true, and you can't just cherry pick the parts you like and say the rest is optional.

It is not, of course, anyone's duty to start educating you on basic issues of history and religion, but I would point out, for example, that according to Roman Catholic doctrine, the Pope is infallible in matters of faith. That means that, in terms of Church doctrine, no act of a Pope can be wrong. It is, by the very definition of the faith, "true" in that faith. Though the Church of today has been peaceable, in former years the Church, directly through the actions and resolutions of Popes, has waged wars and crusades. This is a side effect, and by any non-fallacious account, it is a side effect of the truest practitioners of a religion that are possible.

Current side effects can be argued plenty as well, but we can leave it at that.

No, faith and religious practices, whích I indicated, do have scientifically acceptable benefittíng affects withoút undue side àffects. Basically true relígíons sre méant to benefit its fóllowerers but if some misinterpret or misuse it, it càn not be religion faults. Such odds can alsó happen everywhere. If I say, it is your nstural duty or religion to disperse seeds ftom fruits after takíng it, than no odd but if you destruct those seeds by misusing those for some únnatural purpose due to which that fruít become éxtinct, it is oúr fault not nature or religion fàult.

 

[Kumar]

I wonder:

Kumar, are you a Jain?

If you are, how long have you been one?

Simply, I can say its suggestións are unique, natural, extreme of morality and soméwhat scientifíc & A&F.

 

[Kumar]

Keeping faith in a religion and being motivated by it to practices that, according to some, bring good has absolutely nothing to do with scientific validity. Faith, in fact, is the absence of science. Scientific validity is achieved by rigid attention to observable fact and logically valid inference.



You are not a scientist and you know only of your tiny religion, not any others. You are hardly the authority on whether religion has a scientific basis. But no matter, you have claimed that faith and good works constitute scientific validity, such as of the specific claims put forward by Bhangchandra Jain. That is simply a fantasy. Those concepts -- either specifically or generally -- have nothing to do with each other.



What evidence shows this?



What evidence shows that religion is the only means by which parents can control their children?

I noted, you are neither A&F scientist, nor religious nor ratiónal skeptic but simply a non A&F scientist, enemy of faiths by scattered knowledge and an irratíonal egoistic skeptic. Fix it. Sorry.

 

[JayUtah]

I noted, you are neither A&F scientist, nor religious nor ratiónal skeptic but simply a non A&F scientist, enemy of faiths by scattered knowledge and an irratíonal egoistic skeptic. Fix it. Sorry.

What does Jainism say about insulting people?

 

[JayUtah]

Simply, I can say its suggestións are unique, natural, extreme of morality and soméwhat scientifíc & A&F.

He didn't ask you to extol the supposed virtues of Jainism. He asked if you were a Jain. That's a pretty straightforward question that can be answered yes or no. Why are you avoiding it?

Most individual religions are unique. Sure, they may fall into broad categories, but you will always be able to find something about each individual sect that makes it unique. Jainism is not unique in claiming to be unique.

Jainism is not natural in the sense that it follows from nature. Jainism imagines a model of nature, the same way Mr Tokien imagined a world that resembled pre-industrial Europe and included magic. The Jain model doesn't model actual nature. Just because you can imagine it, and because it corresponds superficially with what you can observe, doesn't make it true and correct in all respects.

Jainism is surely ascetic, but don't confuse a draconian lifestyle with moral rectitude. As we have pointed out, Jainism certainly hasn't taught you how to be a moral person such as in how to respect others, so I question its claim on that basis.

The claim that Jainism is scientific has been examined and rejected. We found that Jain scholars are simply willing to lie about what science is and what scientists have concluded. I surmise none of the intended audience for that writing knows much about science or is motivated to learn, hence it's a lie that can be told with relative impunity. We have seen all manner of dishonesty and evasion from Jains as they squirm under the examination of actual scientists. There is obviously a strong desire for Jains to portray themselves as scientifically justified, but the facts simply don't show that.

But the question remains: Kumar, are you a Jain?

 

[Peregrinus]

... soméwhat scientifíc & A&F.

Like the woman who's "somewhat" pregnant?

 

[Mojo]

What are the features of "true gold form? How does one achieve it? What are "admixtures and attachments," be specific?

Attachments are what those small things with a sort of raffia-work base have. The ones that nobody knows where they are.

 

[bruto]

I noted, you are neither A&F scientist, nor religious nor ratiónal skeptic but simply a non A&F scientist, enemy of faiths by scattered knowledge and an irratíonal egoistic skeptic. Fix it. Sorry.

There is no such thing as an "A&F Scientist," as has been made explicit many many times. If anyone were as great a fool as to claim that he was an "A&F Scientist" or to claim that such a thing exists as an "A&F scientist," the one thing in addition to his foolishness that would be evident would be the utter disqualification of the person in question to be called a scientist at all. Get it through your head. There is no such thing. Never was, never will be, never can be.

 

[bruto]

No, faith and religious practices, whích I indicated, do have scientifically acceptable benefittíng affects withoút undue side àffects. Basically true relígíons sre méant to benefit its fóllowerers but if some misinterpret or misuse it, it càn not be religion faults. Such odds can alsó happen everywhere. If I say, it is your nstural duty or religion to disperse seeds ftom fruits after takíng it, than no odd but if you destruct those seeds by misusing those for some únnatural purpose due to which that fruít become éxtinct, it is oúr fault not nature or religion fàult.

You are utterly, absolutely, completely and ridiculously wrong. Redefining religion to mean something that suits your argument, rather than what it actually is, is an elementary logical fallacy, a mistake that disqualifies your entire argument from making any sense whatever. Religion is what it is and what it does, not what you think it ought to do. It gets tedious repeating such things, which ought to be old news to a fifth grader here. Religion is not what you define it as, and not what you decide a proper religion ought to be. Religion is what people who are not you, and who do not believe what you believe, and do not do what you do, practice, and have practiced all over the world throughout recorded time. You do not get to say what religion is.

 

[JayUtah]

What are the features of "true gold form? How does one achieve it? What are "admixtures and attachments," be specific?

This might help.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevala_Jnana

 

[JayUtah]

There is no such thing as an "A&F Scientist," as has been made explicit many many times.

Nor can there be, if I'm reading correctly. Jambuswami was the last kevalin, and there won't be any more omniscients. So it's pretty disingenuous for Kumar to demand that that's all he'll accept. Also makes it pretty silly for him to rely on Bhagchandra Jain's article, the thesis of which was how great it was that Jain doctrines are supposedly upheld by these inferior inferential proofs. Sort of a "have your cake and eat it too" scenario.

But of course his critics don't subscribe to the Jain model of knowledge, where inferential knowledge takes a distant back seat to this long-lost omniscience. His critics subscribe to the scientific method, which makes the best of the inferential model and draws conclusions only insofar as they are supported by testable data and sound inference. Kumar can stamp his feet and whine all he wants about how we'll never have "A&F" knowledge again, but he would have to conceded that even in his model inferential knowledge is all anyone will ever have, including Jains.

Redefining religion to mean something that suits your argument, rather than what it actually is, is an elementary logical fallacy, a mistake that disqualifies your entire argument from making any sense whatever.

Or put more succinctly, I think we found the Jain version of Paul Bethke.

 

[Mojo]

Or put more succinctly, I think we found the Jain version of Paul Bethke.

More succinctly, you're playing chess with a pigeon.

 

[Mojo]

Nor can there be, if I'm reading correctly. Jambuswami was the last kevalin, and there won't be any more omniscients. So it's pretty disingenuous for Kumar to demand that that's all he'll accept.

In another thread he's claiming that it is his critics who demand that he should be "A&F". For some reason he's completely unable to state which posters have done this, or to link to posts where they did it.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

This might help.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevala_Jnana

Ta. More circular bollocks, spoken by parasitic aesthetes claiming to be omniscient, but only nodding sagely when challenged to actually deliver something with their knowledge

 

[Kumar]

What does Jainism say about insulting people?

Voilence from first person.

 

[Peregrinus]

Voilence from first person.

This is apparently some new use of "violence" for us to ponder - and then reject.

 

[bruto]

Voilence from first person.

That is not a very useful answer. Does Jainism consider your increasing level of insult to other posters here a good thing or a bad thing? The answer quoted here is devoid of intelligible hints as to that question.