• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

JayUtah said:
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?
Click to expand...
It does not restrict reactions and défence. It símply resist first hand odd actíons and offence. I only reacted in defence. Mostly Jainism is compared with A&F science só look bit odd tó you. Ít ís A&F bécause it simply benefits to its followers withóut úndue sidé éffécts and change. Non A&F ànticipatión ís like to get licençe tó kíll with caveat and without accountability.
 
bruto said:
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.
Click to expand...

Non A&F entity can be like a person got a lícence to kill with çaveat with out accountabílíty.
 
Becoming sockpuppet is not a good idea. One can loose his identity and individuality. Behave independently.
 
Kumar said:
Yes, therefore no end of aurguments. Only A&F can end.
Click to expand...
It is sort of trivially true that there will be no end of arguments, but that does not mean that there is no difference between what is true and what is false, what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. It is still possible to know things and still possible to be an ignorant fool, and though there will always be growth and change and improvement in our knowledge its incompleteness is not an excuse for ignorance and nonsense. It is simply not true that all viewpoints deserve equal credence simply because none are absolute.

Think for a moment about the foolishness of believing that. Even before there were uniform measurement standards accurate to ridiculous numbers of decimal places (which are themselves not quite absolute either, just very close) - even long before that, only a fool would have called an inch a mile. Relative values do not stop being values by being relative. Not knowing everything is still a whole lot different from knowing nothing. Not knowing every last truth is still a whole lot different from knowing that many many things are false. A stupid argument will remain a stupid argument even if the alternatives are imperfect. As the old saying goes, in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

There never will be an "absolute and final" answer to the world until the world ends. If you are disposed to believe in a god, then the only absolute and final thing that ever could be would be the god that existed before it created the world, or the god that exists after the world is obliterated (and even the former of those is debatable, or that god would have had little reason to make a world and arguable means to do so). Neither is of any use to us in trying to figure out what is reasonable and appropriate to do with the world that actually exists.
 
Last edited:
bruto said:
It is sort of trivially true that there will be no end of arguments, but that does not mean that there is no difference between what is true and what is false, what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. It is still possible to know things and still possible to be an ignorant fool, and though there will always be growth and change and improvement in our knowledge its incompleteness is not an excuse for ignorance and nonsense. It is simply not true that all viewpoints deserve equal credence simply because none are absolute.

Think for a moment about the foolishness of believing that. Even before there were uniform measurement standards accurate to ridiculous numbers of decimal places (which are themselves not quite absolute either, just very close) - even long before that, only a fool would have called an inch a mile. Relative values do not stop being values by being relative. Not knowing everything is still a whole lot different from knowing nothing. Not knowing every last truth is still a whole lot different from knowing that many many things are false. A stupid argument will remain a stupid argument even if the alternatives are imperfect. As the old saying goes, in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

There never will be an "absolute and final" answer to the world until the world ends. If you are disposed to believe in a god, then the only absolute and final thing that ever could be would be the god that existed before it created the world, or the god that exists after the world is obliterated (and even the former of those is debatable, or that god would have had little reason to make a world and arguable means to do so). Neither is of any use to us in trying to figure out what is reasonable and appropriate to do with the world that actually exists.
Click to expand...
I think, you anticipate A&F is end and you do not want end. But I think it is wrong thinking. Why we can not enjoy A&F as best like a fully riped fruit? A&F is not an end but is end of all odds.
 
Kumar said:
I think, you anticipate A&F is end and you do not want end. But I think it is wrong thinking. Why we can not enjoy A&F as best like a fully riped fruit? A&F is not an end but is end of all odds.
Click to expand...

We cannot enjoy a/f because it does not exist.

Hans
 
I am bit odd, why we are avoiding Deception angle should be involved in this topic sense. Is it true but less digestable?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom