I’ve started reading up on Jainism recently as I have a Jain work colleague.
As a belief system it seems quite nice. I particularly like the central tenant of non-absolutism.

Nayav?da is the theory of partial standpoints or viewpoints.[27] Nayav?da is a compound of two Sanskrit words: naya (“partial viewpoint”) and vada (“school of thought or debate”). It is used to arrive at a certain inference from a point of view. Every object has infinite aspects, but when we describe one in practice, we speak only of relevant aspects and ignore the irrelevant.[27] Nayav?da holds that philosophical disputes arise out of confusion of standpoints, and the standpoints we adopt are “the outcome of purposes that we may pursue”— although we may not realize it. While operating within the limits of language and perceiving the complex nature of reality, M?hav?ra used the language of nayas. Naya, being a partial expression of truth, enables us to comprehend reality part by part.[28]

Non-absolutism (an?k?ntav?da) is more formally stated by observing that objects are infinite in their qualities and modes of existence, so they cannot be completely grasped in all aspects and manifestations by finite human perception. Only Kevalins (omniscient beings) can comprehend objects in all aspects and manifestations; others are only capable of partial knowledge.[29] Accordingly, no single, specific, human view can claim to represent absolute truth.[21]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism#Non-absolutism

I often read these threads and wonder if Hobbes, Burke, Franklin, Rousseau and the other giants of the Enlightenment are sitting around in heaven looking down and thinking “All that bloody thinking and writing books and this is our legacy?”

if there is a god he is a right bell end.

I don’t know the others OMITN, but I do like a bit of Hobbes philosophy:

😉

if there is a god he is a right bell end.

She.

Why not read the Wikipedia page on the subject?
That’ll probably get you further than a cycling forum

And the page on Morality should also help you with your original question

There is only one God and she is the SUN, we should all worship her, for when she goes, do so we.

That and Karma of course for my doubting friend on the other thread.

He could not be a she.
One he made man (Adam)in his own image. Then it was only when Adam was dead bored that god thought he would create woman ( to keep him on his toes) . So god made women for the benefit of man right.
Also have there been any female prophets or has god only chosen to have a con flab with man as he wears the trousers.

Also did god give Adam a penis pre eve. Or did he knock one up as an after thought therefore explaining his rudimentary design fault that is foreskin.

his rudimentary design fault that is foreskin.

Foreskin isn’t a design fault – you don’t leave a sensitive instrument just dangling around without a suitable protective cover.

If you want design faults then I’d question the need for shared plumbing for leisure use and waste water. That would never pass modern building regs.

And lets not even mention the gonad placement. Surely they were originally meant to be retractable or something? Did he run out of budget?

Truth is the word of God. Amirite?

Moral atheist? Nope. They hate God/reject God, and only God is truly moral. Amirite?

No. Completely wrong on both counts.

No. Completely wrong on both counts.

Dammit! This often happens. If you could correct the bits I got wrong, please..?

As slow old man says – no on both counts OP

Try a bit of Popper for light relief?

Graham – plenty of folk do exactly that without any harm. But perhaps best to avoid another cavaliers versus Roundheads debate again!!!

There are probably more threads about consumer electronics than about politics and religion.
Miketually – that’s not what “oh, teh ironing” really means

Best gag of the day?

And lets not even mention the gonad placement.

and the clear cost-cutting exercise; putting them in spare elbow skin….

chip – Member
He could not be a she.

Hmm, I think you might have been conned by that Judaism/Christian Revisionism

Nope, all the same – the ‘big’ single God faiths, Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe in the SAME God.

I’m almost embarrassed to have point this out but there are one or two other religions in the world, some of them quite big too. It always amuses me to think how a devout Christian, Muslim or Jew would react on finding out that the Norse got it right with their gods when they find themselves trying to get into Valhalla.

The Norse religion isn’t a single god faith. What proportion of the world’s population believe in a non-Abrahamic monotheistic religion?

Did I miss a religion thread?

worse than that multiple religious threads.

The Norse religion isn’t a single god faith. What proportion of the world’s population believe in a non-Abrahamic monotheistic religion?

I’m well aware that the Norse religion is polytheistic but since these religions account for around 20% of believers I fail to see why they should be excluded from discussions about the nature of God(s).

I’m well aware that the Norse religion is polytheistic but since these religions account for around 20% of believers I fail to see why they should be excluded from discussions about the nature of God(s).

Nobody said that they should be.

Did I miss a religion thread?

There’s the pandering to teh muslamics one, but I think this started after the all teh muslamic are rape swan’s thread.

It always amuses me to think how a devout Christian, Muslim or Jew would react on finding out that the Norse got it right with their gods when they find themselves trying to get into Valhalla.

Or if it turned out the Australian Aboriginals had the right idea and they find themselves confronted by a giant rainbow space snake. 😆

They shall know the truth when they are touched by His noodly appendage.

Truth is the same for all regardless of your belief. i.e. the nature of things.

It’s easier said than done coz gaining the knowledge or finding or understanding the nature of things can somewhat be problematic due to various interpretations.

In another word if you are wrong then you are wrong regardless of what you believe in … even your own belief will string you up and hang you high if you are wrong.

There are many ways to reach the truth but not all of us get there … not even in the end. i.e. when you die in this life.

The end path is very long so long that if you happen to misinterpret the truth even after 4 billion years of punching through the ice (as in the episode of Dr Who punching the ice after 4 billion years) you will still not get there …

The problem with ZM is being blinded with the obvious and being confused with the way to reach the truth by constantly arguing for the “right ways” … 🙄

😆

There are many ways to reach the truth but not all of us get there … not even in the end. i.e. when you die in this life.

OK I’ll bite – what does that even mean? It sounds quasi-mystical and unfocused enough to deserve its own swelling soundtrack! Yet as soon as I examine it closely it seems turn to smoke and the music stops. Just like badnewz who scuttled (claiming persecution) as soon as he/she caught a whiff of debate, instead inking up the water in a flurry of flounce.

I’m still waiting for a definition of ‘the truth’ in the context of his/her original question. Shall I assume that theists/religionists customarily use the noun ‘truth’ differently from the dictionary and the rest of us, giving it an extra dimension ie that of ‘God/s’?

ie ‘the truth’ = God?

Is that what you mean when you ask me (an agnostic atheist) the question: ‘what is truth’?

Because that seems like a trick question. We all know what the word ‘truth’ means. Its in the bloody dictionary. Its a noun. But when a ‘believer’ asks you ‘what is the truth’? it comes across either conspiratorially or defiantly (depending on what side of their fence they’ve pegged you)

From my perspective and experience it’d be similar from a Bigfoot or alien abduction believer. When they ask me ‘do you believe in the truth?’ they are actually like:

It’s like the girl on the bus said :-

Information is Not knowledge
Knowledge is Not wisdom
Wisdom is not truth
Truth is not beauty
Beauty is not love

[/url]troof by [/url], on Flickr[/img]

I’m still waiting for a definition of ‘the truth’ in the context of his/her original question. Shall I assume that theists/religionists customarily use the noun ‘truth’ differently from the dictionary and the rest of us, giving it an extra dimension ie that of ‘God/s’?

Most people use the term without understanding the implications of any of its definitions.

A bit like this, where as usual the superb Douglas Adams makes a comedy scene that actually nails a profound philosophical point.

“Forty-two,” said Deep Thought, with infinite majesty and calm.
“The Answer to the Great Question, of Life, the Universe and Everything”

“I checked it very thoroughly,” said the computer, “and that quite definitely is the answer. I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you’ve never actually known what the question is.”

“But it was the Great Question! The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything,” howled Loonquawl.

“Yes,” said Deep Thought with the air of one who suffers fools gladly, “but what actually is it?”

A slow stupefied silence crept over the men as they stared at the computer and then at each other.

“Well, you know, it’s just Everything … Everything …” offered Phouchg weakly.

“Exactly!” said Deep Thought. “So once you know what the question actually is, you’ll know what the answer means.”

Information is Not knowledge
Knowledge is Not wisdom
Wisdom is not truth
Truth is not beauty
Beauty is not love

Love is not music.
Music is the best.

As for “the truth” I think chewy is alluding to “the big question”. What is it all about? Well, I for one don’t know and don’t intend to waste my time trying to find out, other than to say it’s not actually “about” anything. It just IS.

Most people use the term without understanding the implications of any of its definitions.

+1 Molgrips, and for the Douglas Adams quote – perfect!

they really dont we all now what truth means so lets not overthink it as it is piss simple
Its just means accurately reflects reality in this case

Either god made it all or god did not
That is either true or false.

As we know the biblical account is false and we have some pretty strong evidence of evolution and common ancestors and dinosaurs and extinction events and a billion year old planet.Furthermore there is no [empirical] evidence to support the god hypothesis though you are free to replace the absence of evidence with faith but it wont be a truth it will just be a wish/hope. Even the Bible accepts that point.

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

they really dont we all now what truth means so lets not overthink it as it is piss simple

Let’s not under-think it 🙂

What a tedious lot of dreck it all is. Stuff your god. (May be my final word on the subject).

Message ends.

ith what authtralianth thay when they’re exathperated

As we know the biblical account is false and we have some pretty strong evidence of evolution and common ancestors and dinosaurs and extinction events and a billion year old planet.Furthermore there is no [empirical] evidence to support the god hypothesis though you are free to replace the absence of evidence with faith but it wont be a truth it will just be a wish/hope. Even the Bible accepts that point.

you only have to look at the Internet/youtube and all the idiots talking about the earth really being flat and dinosaurs being a scam by scientists to see how easy it is is to get gullible fools to all believe the same thing…

chip – Member
He could not be a she.
One he made man (Adam)in his own image. Then it was only when Adam was dead bored that god thought he would create woman ( to keep him on his toes) . So god made women for the benefit of man right.
Also have there been any female prophets or has god only chosen to have a con flab with man as he wears the trousers.

Again, who sez?
Did a little voice in your head tell you? Or did you read it in a book? If the former, I would respectfully suggest you get some help, if the latter, then which book and who wrote it? It would almost certainly not be God, unless he/she has a direct input into Word, and wrote it just by thinking at the computer, or there was a human interface, which brings me back to humans hearing voices in their head, and I think we all know the sort of issues that arise when someone says the little voice told them to do something.
Which often seems to be with extreme prejudice…

Eve was not the first woman, it was Lilith who figured it out that god was a total numpty (Adam being a bloke thought god was cool :roll:) then god made EVE.

Adam sounds like a total tool and the bible was written by chaps, with over a 100 years between chapters and a ton of rewrites (it used to have dragons and jesus as a kid) so make of this magical book, what you wish.