Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
New posts
All threads
Latest threads
New posts
Trending threads
Trending
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New ads
New profile posts
Latest activity
Free Ads
Latest reviews
Search ads
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Contact us
Latest ads
Colombo
RidhMathraa ’26 🎶✨
Tmadhusanka
Updated:
Wednesday at 11:58 PM
Ad icon
Colombo
PXN V10 Pro Direct Drive Racing Wheel (Under Warranty)
Abdur Rahman
Updated:
Wednesday at 10:23 PM
Ad icon
USDT ණය සේවාව - USDT Loan Service
පුරවැසියා
Updated:
Wednesday at 4:54 PM
Ad icon
🎮 INDIAN PSN GIFT CARDS AVAILABLE NOW! 🎮
madukaperera
Updated:
Tuesday at 12:57 PM
🚀 Google AI PRO – 18 Months | Rs. 850 Only
lkkolla
Updated:
Monday at 4:56 PM
Electronics
Vehicles
Property
Search
Reply to thread
Forums
General
ElaKiri Talk!
Aethist corner of Elakiri
Get the App
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ela_eluwa120" data-source="post: 12333904" data-attributes="member: 193664"><p><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Actually, the "do it and verify" argument used by you in this context is quite different from the testing done and being done in science because science involves the third person perspective. The type of </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua'"><span style="font-size: 12px">"do it and verify" argument you used is exclusively devoted to the first person perspective. So, when you were saying "verify" in that context, you really meant something different than when scientists are saying "verify". I was using the word "verify" in <em>that</em> sense in my previous post.</span></span> <span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Therefore, the quasi-inconsistency is in fact a merely verbal dispute. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua'"><span style="font-size: 12px">Actually, traditions like Christianity, Islam, African religions too have "explicitly stated recipes" for things like union with Jesus and so-on. Some of them involve dancing, beating drums and some of them involve enduring extreme pain and so-on.</span></span><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua'"><span style="font-size: 12px"> Your argument can be used to justify any tradition that you now label as "religions, i.e. pure myth". Thus, although you believe that having explicitly stated recipes exclude Buddhism from other religions, it really does not.</span></span></p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua'"><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ela_eluwa120, post: 12333904, member: 193664"] [FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=3] Actually, the "do it and verify" argument used by you in this context is quite different from the testing done and being done in science because science involves the third person perspective. The type of [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=3]"do it and verify" argument you used is exclusively devoted to the first person perspective. So, when you were saying "verify" in that context, you really meant something different than when scientists are saying "verify". I was using the word "verify" in [I]that[/I] sense in my previous post.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=3]Therefore, the quasi-inconsistency is in fact a merely verbal dispute. [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=3] Actually, traditions like Christianity, Islam, African religions too have "explicitly stated recipes" for things like union with Jesus and so-on. Some of them involve dancing, beating drums and some of them involve enduring extreme pain and so-on.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=3] Your argument can be used to justify any tradition that you now label as "religions, i.e. pure myth". Thus, although you believe that having explicitly stated recipes exclude Buddhism from other religions, it really does not.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=3] [/SIZE][/FONT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Payakata winadi keeyak tibeda?
Post reply
Top
Bottom