Myrtonos said:Sparhafoc said:Did you mean to say that something in one of those articles supported something you had previously said? If so, why didn't you quote it? A label alone doesn't actually convey much of an argument. Also, I wasn't aware that a random site on the internet is meant to be authoritative. Have you decided these sites are valid authorities? Or are they just some dude's soapbox?
I didn't think I needed to quote it, and as for that page on secular Buddhism, it's quite long and I don't think I can find anything to quote.
Well yes, that's rather the point. You linked to a very long article presumably in support of your point. But how am I to divine what that support is if you don't tell me? It can't be the whole article as the majority of the article has nothing to do with anything we've discussed.
Further, if you can't find anything to quote, doesn't that mean you were just citing it because of the title?
How then did we get to this being an example of 'pure Buddhism'? I am more than a little lost as to what you're saying.
Myrtonos said:Sparhafoc said:With regards to their role in supporting your argument, a cursory glance suggested nothing of the sort to me, not least because 'Secular Buddhism' is like 'Secular Christianity' as in, not really Buddhism at all. The clue for that would be in the fact they need to add an additional adjective to show their belief is distinct from just plain old Buddhism.
"Plain old" Buddhism is more common and better known. The word 'secular' is needed to show that it's not the same as the Buddhism more widely practiced. But indeed the teachings of "secular"
Ergo, not 'pure Buddhism' as it's got a bunch of predominantly post-19th century political ideals in it?
Myrtonos said:Sparhafoc said:Do you actually believe these articles to be 'true' in terms of them being 'pure Buddhism' as per your wording?
Oh yes, one mentions Buddhism in its pure form.
So let me just clarify here.
Some article you found by typing in 'pure Buddhism' to Google contains the words you typed in... and that was the entirety of your point?
Someone said these words, so job done?
As I said after you posted these:
Sorry to be difficult here, but you've added no more actual information with all those words.
The point still stands. There's no real meat to your argument here. You could type in just about any combination of 2 words and find a link on the internet, but that doesn't then mean that the content of the search engine justifies an argument.
So one of these articles mentions Buddhism in its pure form, and that's that? What about the 99.9999% of Buddhists who don't share the same belief as the espouser of this and would consider him to be the one adulterating their religion?
Further, for your contention to make any sense at all, you must be agreeing with the writer that this represents a 'pure form of Buddhism' - so can you please specify what it is in the article that you found convincing in that respect?
Myrtonos said:Sparhafoc said:And why are we to believe that 'Secular Buddhsim' is the 'pure form of Buddhism' when secularism is a phenomenon 2500 years after the death of Buddha?
It actually depends on what secularism really means. It may have not been called Secular Buddhism, but it seems it did exist.
One never needs to wonder about what a word means unless the person using it expressly defines it as something else. Everyone knows what the word 'secular' means, it's not ambiguous in the slightest.
But please actually address my question. Buddhism predates secularism by thousands of years, so how can 'secular Buddhism' be 'a pure form of Buddhism'? Surely logic alone negates that argument?
Further, if you look at the history of Buddhism it has *never* been secular - the very people who maintained Buddha's teachings sufficiently long so that the chap writing that article could even have heard of Buddhism were all clergy in one of the oldest religions in the world!
Myrtonos said:Sparhafoc said:As I said, there's not much meat here to your arguments. Can you point to something specific in either of those articles that you found convincing?
Not really but I have found a better description on one of the sites.
Are we playing hide and seek? :|
Can you cite this better description, please? You've linked me to the front page of a website with dozens of internal links, so I have no idea what it is you read that you are citing for me to read.
Myrtonos said:Sparhafoc said:Plus, as I've pointed out before; your notion of 'superhuman' here is a bag that catches too much and too little. The fundamental forces are 'superhuman', ergo science is a religion?
I didn't define 'religion' let alone a superhuman order.
I already addressed this. You are defining religion as being fundamentally based (no less) on a 'superhuman system' - that IS a definition of a religion.
Myrtonos said:A superhuman order alone is not a religion, but a religion must be founded on belief in one.
MUST is what you're supposed to be arguing and expressly what I am contesting, not something that is taken here as an axiom. You cannot support your argument by repeating your argument numerous times and using words that mean 'must' - that doesn't even amount to begging the question.
Myrtonos said:Nobody in their right mind would claim it is forbidden to torture, murder or steal simply because it violates any law of science.
Another completely different argument, coupled with an appeal to incredulity.
We never talked about moral proscriptions prior to this, and your argument so far has not entailed science, religion, ideology or anything else needing to be able to define right and wrong.
So does your argument now entail that religion is about justifying the prohibition of certain behaviors?
Myrtonos said:Sparhafoc said:Also, your argument's changed dramatically. You've now moved onto a particular agent, and as an agent they can move, change, and evolve over time. Any believer in a god would allow their god to change their mind on a whim, and that contradiction would now be 'good' - so there's no actual 'superhuman system' there at all, just a supernatural agent.
Well, okay, let me make myself clearer; Gods, according to theists, have power not only over flesh-and-blood beings (over machines too), they also have powers over nature, they can control the weather, for example. They can reward or punish flesh-and-blood beings even after they die, that is beyond the capabilities of any flesh-and-blood ruler.
Well, this is even further away from being universal to religion as a phenomenon.
Again, to me you're just extrapolating the Abrahamic religions and pretending their theologies are necessary formats for all religions. This I reject completely and I would doubt very much you could persuade me otherwise when I could list dozens of religions both past and extant which do not posit such a god.
Myrtonos said:There have been numerous cases throughout history of people of chiefdoms revolting against repressive chiefs, by the way, just so you all know, chiefs ruled many non-Eurasian societies before colonisation by European powers.
Ok. Can you cite some, please?
Myrtonos said:Similarly, people of state societies have revolted against repressive monarchs.
Probably the most famous example of such a revolt is the French revolution, where the people of France revolted against a repressive King, and upon executing their royal family, they were a republican democracy with elections.*
But anyway, humans who believe in a common God cannot revolt against a God, no matter how repressive that God may be.
And yet in exactly the same way, there have been dozens of historical examples of this.
For example, the fact that Europe was once not Christian but then became Christian and is now becoming not-very-Christian-at-all.
You could take literally thousands of examples of populations changing religious beliefs - in your analogy, revolting against their sanctioned God. I struggle to believe you have never heard of ANY of these events - history is rife with them. Look at a map. Anywhere you see Christianity or Islam - that happened. People who were previously pagans or polytheists or Zoroastrians or any number of other religions revolted against their own belief system and installed new ones.
Myrtonos said:Sparhafoc said:You've moved your goalposts. You declared there was no such thing, yet here is an example which shows that there is such a thing; ergo, your initial contention was in error.
Yes but no human can change a superhuman order.
Manifestly untrue and trivial to show. The environment is a 'superhuman order'. Humans can change it by disrupting the contents of that environment.
I would perhaps rather too familiarly suggest you either change the degree of confidence you have in these erroneous assertions, or at least acknowledge your omission when shown wrong. No disrespect to yourself, and if I offend then please say and I will be happy to leave you in peace, but it's beginning to be like nailing jelly to a wall here. You can't support your confident declarations, then when I really drill down and try to get you to follow through, your argument changes direction dramatically and you make yet more confident declarations which are also trivially shown wrong. Sorry if I am being an arse here, but for me an idea has to be able to stand up to criticism or it's probably not an argument worth lending credence to; it's not personal.
Myrtonos said:Sparhafoc said:Also, you're contradicting yourself in another way, because you've already noted that to the religionist, it's their God (magic man) who makes the decrees, so now we're talking about an agent, not about a 'superhuman' system. That God could change their mind too, at least as far as believers are concerned.
Yes but that God could conceivable change any natural phenomena, even ones that flesh-and-blood beings can't, Gods can control the weather, perhaps depending on their mood.
But you've just contradicted yourself, and as I've said, you are now appealing to agency which is not just 'a superhuman system' as per your original argument; you're now positing a very particular format of god belief: a theology.
Myrtonos said:Humans of a given society can revolt against a ruler, but believers in a common god can't revolt against that god, that god being all-powerful, which human rulers aren't.
And yet, as I've said, we've seen that happen throughout human history, which is why a map of modern religion is not an exact copy of the geographical religions of the ancient world. In fact, they have nothing in common.
Myrtonos said:Sparhafoc said:Before you claimed that social stability couldn't exist without the ideology, now the argument is 'more'?
What does the part after the comma mean?
It means exactly what it says. Previously you were arguing that religions must provide social stability via their 'superhuman systems'. Then when I challenged it, your argument evolved to saying that they provided 'more' social stability. The word 'more' is in quotes because you used that word in the quotation of yours I was citing.
Myrtonos said:Sparhafoc said:Still doesn't make it a religion, though, because all humans across the world are obliged to follow numerous laws, rules, and customs which produce social stability yet aren't deemed to be components of religion.
But there has to be a superhuman legitimacy to laws, rules and customs in order for them to be perceived as beyond challenge, and this perception ensures social stability.
Has to be?
That's really the only argument you've formulated: must, needs to be, has to be... but you can't show that it's right, just repeat your assertion that it is.
No, there doesn't have to be a superhuman legitimacy to laws, rules, and customs in order for them to be perceived as beyond challenge, nor does a superhuman legitimacy necessarily ensure that people consider them as beyond challenge. Both of these ideas have already been explored in this thread.
Myrtonos said:Sparhafoc said:So you are arguing that chemistry is a religion/ideology?
Chemistry is neither of those, see below.
Except of course, according to your own argument, it is - that's why I am using it to contend your argument: it's called reductio ad absurdum - I take your claim beyond where you wanted it to be seen as relevant to see whether it does actually work coherently with other things.
So, when you add something more to your argument then Chemistry is not a religion, but if you leave your argument as per your previous statements then there's no way to exclude Chemistry from it. That's exactly what I've said to you, what Nesslig has said to you, and what perhaps the only other person in this thread has said to you: your contention doesn't really work; it's flawed.
A belief based on a 'superhuman order' is not necessarily a religion, and a religion does not necessarily posit a 'superhuman order'. Sometimes these may be the case, but one cannot use them as a guiding principle towards understanding 'what is a religion?'.
Myrtonos said:Sparhafoc said:I refer you back to a previous thread of discussion where you said that the 'laws of nature' were not 'superhuman' as per your paradigm. If 'superhuman system' just means things not caused by humans, then can you explain why/how physics cannot be a religion.
I think I have explained why physics is not a religion, and that is because no rules, laws of customs are founded on belief in laws of physics.
Nothing to say on your guess.
I believe in physics, and my much-practiced custom is not to throw myself out of a 3rd floor window based on my belief that the laws of physics operate in such a way as to produce undesirable repercussions for contravening them.
Myrtonos said:Sparhafoc said:What an odd definition. Can you cite where it says that because it's not on the actual link you gave.
It's actually mentioned in Sapiens in the chapter called Law of Religion.
Citation, please? The link you gave was to the home page, not to the article you're appealing to.
Myrtonos said:Sparhafoc said:Scanning through other humanist pages, I see nothing that employs any notion of 'sacred'.
They might not word it like that but that's the belief the really express, but not in those words.
No, it's exactly the opposite as they very clearly say.
Myrtonos said:I assume this means rejection of theist religions.
I would say that's irrelevant.
Myrtonos said:– Collins Concise Dictionary
A non-religious philosophy, based on liberal human values.
This is liberal humanism, also known simply as liberalism.
No, it's not. Liberalism is about protecting the rights and the freedoms of the individual, whereas they are clearly espousing an ideal greater than the individual. Liberal, in the sense they are using it, is about being open to new opinions, discarding traditions, broadening knowledge and experience.
Liberal humanism =/= liberalism
Myrtonos said:Are you religious, Myrtonos?
Does this have anything to do with it? I am agnostic.
I believe I am entitled to ask you - it's hardly rude, is it? - just as you are not obliged to answer if you don't want to.
For me personally, it is beginning to look like 'it' has something to do with it because many of the forms of your arguments are most commonly espoused by theists, particularly at least in my experience, by Protestant Christians. To me, it seems like you are mired in a confusing system of beliefs that is obscuring your ability to see clearly as to why your arguments are not finding traction.
Myrtonos said:Sparhafoc said:You've repeated it again. Please add more clauses explaining why it 'needs' to be or 'must' be. Just saying it a lot isn't very persuasive. If you can't offer any substantiation as to why it must be, is there a possibility that the argument isn't standing up to skeptical inspection because it's flawed?
Do you acknowledge that this isn't me speaking, Dr. Harrari has said this.
Wait.
What?
No, it's you speaking. Unless you're channeling 'Dr Harrari', which I assume not. You are writing these arguments in response to my words.
You wrote this:
Being founded on a belief in a superhuman order is something a religion needs to be to ensure social stability in large groups of humans, see that series by Dr. Harrari where he explains why this is so.
I replied regarding your use of NEEDS TO BE as you can see from my reply you cited.
What Dr Harrari said or didn't say is wholly irrelevant.
Incidentally, by Dr Harrari do you mean Yuval Noah Harari?
And by 'series' do you mean one of his books / online course on human history?
Incidentally, is this what this thread is about? Discussion on Harari's Homo Deus? If so, this might become a lot clearer to everyone - certainly to me.
Myrtonos said:Sparhafoc said:The term 'breast' doesn't mean boobies, but rather means a mammary gland which is what produces the milk, and factually all female mammals have this gland. It may be larger or smaller between different species, but it's necessarily there as it's what produces the milk.
No, breasts are protruding parts with nipples, such as those of a human female. I've never heard of a mammary gland as a "breast".
Breasts are specifically apocrine glands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast#Glandular_structure
The breast is an apocrine gland that produces the milk used to feed an infant. ... The basic units of the breast are the terminal duct lobular units (TDLUs), which produce the fatty breast milk.
Yes, there is varying amounts of tissue and a layer of subcutaneous fatty deposits (no requirement of protrusion) around the mammary gland, just as there tends to be a nipple but neither nipple nor specific quantities of tissue or fatty deposits are 'the breast'.[/quote]
If a woman possesses no tissue whatsoever (micromastia) other than the gland, they're still called 'breasts' in medical terms because she still possesses the apocrine gland and can produce milk.
Similarly, one can have a subcutaneous mastectomy (breast removal surgery) which spares the nipple, but the retention of the nipple does not then mean she's still got a breast as that tissue was removed.
Neither quantity of tissue nor nipple make a breast.
Myrtonos said:But surely monotremes are still have mammalian skeletons.
A list of differences would necessarily include:
Elongated rostrum - bird-like skulls
Formation of an egg-tooth
Lack of teeth in adults
Wholly different jaw anatomy as per Nesslig's point
Fused inner ear bones
Splayed pelvic girdle (reptilian gait)
Epipubic bones
Different number of bones in the shoulder, such as the anterior coracoid and interclavicle
So no, they don't have 'mammalian skeletons' - but both obviously share the majority of gross skeletal features as they do with all other bilateral tetrapods
Myrtonos said:*A gorilla or chimpanzee band can revolt against their alpha male (this being the leader of band of Gorillas and common Chimpanzees) but then another male band member automatically becomes the alpha male, they cannot declare that all band members will be treated as equals upon the alpha male being overthrown.
This just says: Gorillas and chimpanzees aren't humans, nothing more. It's actually a point about cognition, not about what a religion is.