Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[Kumar]

What evidence have you presented on any topic here that can rightly be called "absolute and final?" As has been said, you're simply declaring your belief and then further declaring it to be beyond question. That's tantamount to insisting your beliefs must be self-evidently correct, which is laughable in the face of the contravening facts your critics bring to the table.



Absolute and final proof is an impossible standard of proof. You know this, because every time we point this out you, you use it as a premise to the argument that if nothing can be absolute and final then everyone must be equally wrong.

No, your beliefs are not "A&F" correct simply because your religion tells you so, or because you -- for whatever reason -- think your religious beliefs are somehow universal truths. That's a very immature approach to religion.



It is clear you're not competent at any form of argument that goes beyond stating your religious beliefs and insisting they are universally true and must be accepted without question. Which then raises the question why you're here among skeptics. You have a long enough tenure at a skeptics' forum to have learned something about how a logical, evidence-based argument proceeds. But in reviewing your threads I can't find any evidence that you've tried to learn anything.

As per my last post. Many of my tellings are A&F. May it be on Jainism about no creater god of this universe, seed dispersal etc. I do not understand how science has missed to document that type of seed dispersal by humans. Probably they have not felt is important to specifically document, since common A&F understanding like human drink water or sun emit sunlight.

 

[bruto]

This is modern approach. If this is true, whole natural mechnism will be under question mark because anyway seeds are dispersed. Do you suggest that seed dispersal nature's mechanism is a curse of nature to its inhabitants?

No, but you need to stop and think about what you are doing and saying because you cannot make sense when you say contradictory things. You have come out squarely against domestication. Most of the fruits and vegetables you eat are the products of domestication, and propagating them in the wild is contrary to your own expressed ideology. This is apart from the issues that have been repeatedly raised about whether wild propagation of such plants will result in useful and productive offspring, which it often will not anyway.

You have evinced a profound misunderstanding of many things, including the difference between domesticated, cultivated plants and wild ones, and the manner in which domesticated, cultivated (and often grafted) trees propagate in the wild. You are supposing that you do nature some great favor in imposing domesticated plants on the wild environment, but this is not necessarily the case. I have pointed out one egregious example of a common vegetable that is nutritious and beneficial when controlled, and a monstrous, environmentally destructive pest when it escapes, producing huge, ugly, invasive plants with useless roots and toxic sap. You think you are doing the world a favor by planting the seeds of domesticated fruits in the wild, but it is no favor if the offspring of those fruits give rise to scraggly plants that produce inedible fruit at the expense of native species. It may happen and it may not, but you in your blind ignorance will never acknowledge even the possibility.

 

[sackett]

Any poster can be in error occasionally, and some pretty frequently. But consider how unlikely it is, how difficult really, to be wrong about everything, every time! And then to reason from these wopperjawed beliefs incorrectly, even crazily, every single time! And to keep on being relentlessly wrong, ignoring correction, defying rational counter-arguments, for fifteen years! When you think about it, that’s remarkable.

I almost called it a remarkable performance, and so it would be if it was deliberate. Neither nature nor society could account for it; it would be an achievement driven by powerful egotism.

Or it could just be native talent.

 

[JayUtah]

As per my last post. Many of my tellings are A&F.

And as per my last post, they are not absolute proof. You have merely convinced yourself via the strength of your religious conviction that your beliefs are beyond question. You have admitted before that you consider your religious beliefs so strong as to use them to filter away uncomfortable facts. After such an admission you can't really expect people to accept that whatever you say must be held beyond question as self-evidently correct or universally true. Unless you can confront the facts that dispute your "tellings," your insinuations of omniscience and infallibility are simply things to laugh at.

May it be on Jainism about no creater god of this universe, seed dispersal etc.

Your religion does not teach you correct principles about nature. Seed dispersal is only one example we have presented that proves this.

I do not understand how science has missed to document that type of seed dispersal by humans.

Really? You can't figure out why science hasn't confirmed your religious beliefs? Do we really need to have that basic a conversation with you?

...since common A&F understanding like human drink water or sun emit sunlight.

Already addressed. The question is not simply whether humans do it. The question is about whether it (a) is the pattern followed by nature, and (b) produces a net benefit. You seem to think those conclusions are a matter of mere assertion. They are not. As I wrote some time ago, you have a serious cognitive deficit regarding what it means to actually prove something. You confessed that non-absolute evidence and argumentation is a mystery to you. Perhaps you should consider that the reason why you cannot make headway in discussions with skeptics, instead of insulting those skeptics by calling them egotists and irrational.

 

[Peregrinus]

Any poster can be in error occasionally....
Or it could just be native talent.

How about bull-headed stubbornness coupled with sheer inability to see reality.

 

[JayUtah]

How about bull-headed stubbornness coupled with sheer inability to see reality.

Indeed; I live in one of the most religious areas of the United States, and even so it's rare to see someone who has gone so far down the rabbit hole.

 

[JayUtah]

Because I could niether follow true religion nor naturality due to predispositions and social odds.

Isn't it rather hypocritical of you to accuse your critics of being "greedy" when they don't subscribe to the ascetic lifestyle you're advocating, yet excuse your illness by confessing your own inability to remain ascetic?

Draconian rules almost always lead to such hypocrisy in religion. We find that priests who advertise that they are celibate are in fact secretly guilty of the worst kinds of sexual impropriety. We find that unscrupulous evangelists preach modesty and yet accumulate obscene amounts of wealth. And on and on. Here we find a religion holding up yet another impossible standard of behavior.

 

[Peregrinus]

...a religion holding up yet another impossible standard of behavior.

From the (admittedly not universal) understanding of religious/spiritual frames of mind of which I am aware, few seem able to measure up to that of the Inuit.

 

[sackett]

But let's remember that the poor old Jains can't answer for the attitudes of (sorta) converts. They didn't ask to be dragged down this rabbit hole. I would be delighted if a Jain would come to the forum and give us his views and those of his coreligionists, as far as he cared to speak for them.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I feel you didn't understood. However, you can repost your question.

No reason. I have asked several times and you evade the answer. That is your choice, I don't care. I know what the answer is, and I suspect, so do you.

Hans

 

[Kumar]

No reason. I have asked several times and you evade the answer. That is your choice, I don't care. I know what the answer is, and I suspect, so do you.

Hans

Really no.

 

[Kumar]

Isn't it rather hypocritical of you to accuse your critics of being "greedy" when they don't subscribe to the ascetic lifestyle you're advocating, yet excuse your illness by confessing your own inability to remain ascetic?

Draconian rules almost always lead to such hypocrisy in religion. We find that priests who advertise that they are celibate are in fact secretly guilty of the worst kinds of sexual impropriety. We find that unscrupulous evangelists preach modesty and yet accumulate obscene amounts of wealth. And on and on. Here we find a religion holding up yet another impossible standard of behavior.

You are mixing religion with faults of individuals. It is like a doctor give wrong treatment in greed. Individual faults can not taken as religion fault. You should always keep in mind. We can get many med negligence on internet search. It does not mean we should ban black list med treatments. Moreover exceptions are not right examples. Majority should be respected.

 

[JayUtah]

You are mixing religion with faults of individuals.

The faults of individuals are exactly what hypocrisy is about. We don't follow your religion. We don't believe in it. And for that, you label us greedy. But you don't follow your religion either -- except you profess it and advocate belief in it. Yet somehow you expect no consequences. Hypocrisy is exactly to say one thing and do another. This is what you're doing, and it's extremely offensive.

 

[bruto]

You are mixing religion with faults of individuals. It is like a doctor give wrong treatment in greed.

If those two sentences bear any meaningful relation to each other, it can only be that you are admitting that your deviation from religion is caused by your own greed. It is ill becoming under the circumstances to harp on the imagine greed of others, especially when your examples are so often far-fetched, if not downright zany.

Individual faults can not taken as religion fault. You should always keep in mind. We can get many med negligence on internet search. It does not mean we should ban black list med treatments. Moreover exceptions are not right examples. Majority should be respected.

Your individual faults are indeed your own, which is why you should not be so uncharitable to others, and so sanctimonious about promoting a religion that you yourself cannot follow. And once again your example is not a good one for your own cause. It is true that we may get much bad medical advice on the internet, and of course that does not mean we should ban medical advice, but that we should be cautious of its source. We should know that there is bad advice out there, and apply good judgment rather than swallowing it blindly.

Likewise, there are many competing and incompatible religious views, some outrageously silly, some hateful and offensive, others filled with factual error, others with wishful nonsense and so on. You yourself would undoubtedly not wish to reject religion because of that. Though we may get much bad religious advice, we must also be discriminating, and cautious of its source even if we truly seek religious inspiration and guidance. One of the ways to accomplish this is to determine whether its apologist finds it practicable to live by it, is competent to communicate it, is coherent and logical, and is careful not to make egregiously false statements and howling errors. If one applies those standards here, the religious opinions so far expressed with regard to Jainism fall very far short.

 

[Kumar]

The faults of individuals are exactly what hypocrisy is about. We don't follow your religion. We don't believe in it. And for that, you label us greedy. But you don't follow your religion either -- except you profess it and advocate belief in it. Yet somehow you expect no consequences. Hypocrisy is exactly to say one thing and do another. This is what you're doing, and it's extremely offensive.

Nothing above all other than lie or egoistic diversion. No doubt to A&F level, principles and advices of Jainism are higher and auspicious, natural but it does not mean other religions do not have these. Few such:

Lesya, according to the Jain theory of karma, is the coloring of the soul on account its association with the karmic matter. The colour of leśyā varies from person to person depending on the psychic states and mental activities behind an action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesya
English Translation

My prayer

He, who has subdued his passions and desires, who has realized the secret of Universe in entirety;

Who has discovered upon the teaching of Right Path of liberation for the benefit of all in a quite unselfish manner;

Who is variously termed Budha, Mahavir, Jina, Hari, Hara, Brahma and self;

In Him, imbued with deep devotion, may this mind (of mine) eternally
http://www.jainpushp.org/meribhavna-pdf.htm[1

Understand above My prayer. Higher standard of it which Jains usually follow.

 

[Kumar]

If those two sentences bear any meaningful relation to each other, it can only be that you are admitting that your deviation from religion is caused by your own greed. It is ill becoming under the circumstances to harp on the imagine greed of others, especially when your examples are so often far-fetched, if not downright zany.

Your individual faults are indeed your own, which is why you should not be so uncharitable to others, and so sanctimonious about promoting a religion that you yourself cannot follow. And once again your example is not a good one for your own cause. It is true that we may get much bad medical advice on the internet, and of course that does not mean we should ban medical advice, but that we should be cautious of its source. We should know that there is bad advice out there, and apply good judgment rather than swallowing it blindly.

Likewise, there are many competing and incompatible religious views, some outrageously silly, some hateful and offensive, others filled with factual error, others with wishful nonsense and so on. You yourself would undoubtedly not wish to reject religion because of that. Though we may get much bad religious advice, we must also be discriminating, and cautious of its source even if we truly seek religious inspiration and guidance. One of the ways to accomplish this is to determine whether its apologist finds it practicable to live by it, is competent to communicate it, is coherent and logical, and is careful not to make egregiously false statements and howling errors. If one applies those standards here, the religious opinions so far expressed with regard to Jainism fall very far short.

Sorry, I think your are just telling odd.

When individual faults are there on both sides, one side only should not be blamed. Moreover side affects from any system also matter much for making odd claims. Which system has more side effects harm more for odd prescriptions and negligences than other which have least side effects. Probably, these are only to be cared/claimed most. Yes they can also provide better and quick real effects butside effects & negligences in it matter most.

 

[JayUtah]

Nothing above all other than lie or egoistic diversion...

No, it is not egotistical to call you out on the propriety of the personal insults you seem to issue with alarming frequency. If you are telling me I'm greedy if I don't live the ascetic lifestyle, then I want to know what saves you from the same condition for not living the ascetic lifestyle.

Higher standard of it which Jains usually follow.

Other Jains didn't call us greedy and egotistical. You did. Therefore I am holding you responsible.

 

[JayUtah]

When individual faults are there on both sides, one side only should not be blamed.

The fault is not equal on both sides. Your critics don't profess to live a righteous and holy life. They don't profess ascetism. You're the one lording your supposedly superior lifestyle over others and chiding them with insults if they decline to obey it. You are the only one who is advocating one thing and yet doing another. Therefore only you are the hypocrite.

 

[Kumar]

No, it is not egotistical to call you out on the propriety of the personal insults you seem to issue with alarming frequency. If you are telling me I'm greedy if I don't live the ascetic lifestyle, then I want to know what saves you from the same condition for not living the ascetic lifestyle.



Other Jains didn't call us greedy and egotistical. You did. Therefore I am holding you responsible.

Give me evidences that I said YOU greedy or insulted first. I might have reciprocated since you are constantly insulting me, Jainism and all religions in your wrong perception. Non A&F skepticism or science are not GOD so can not be made a standard to all.

 

[Kumar]

The fault is not equal on both sides. Your critics don't profess to live a righteous and holy life. They don't profess ascetism. You're the one lording your supposedly superior lifestyle over others and chiding them with insults if they decline to obey it. You are the only one who is advocating one thing and yet doing another. Therefore only you are the hypocrite.

Similarly, believers do not believe in non A&F skeptics & science. So neither should insult, blame or consider inferior to each other since odds & evens are on both sides.

Moreover when you can discuss one specific type or understanding of science, anyone can also discuss about one specific religion. I can not make issue that you are preaching chemistry or physics or newton law etc. It is all science part. Similarily, any specific religion or its understanding is also a part of religion so should not be individualized. If one can discuss on specific religion other is also entitled to discuss any other specific religion. Universally, true religion and true science can be discussed.