/lit/ - Literature

>>22701052
>If you can’t account for how you know it’s right, then there’s no reason to think it, and you can’t.
careful with that sawn-off shotgun, christer apologist, you might lose a limb

>>21772365
>has a masters degree in philosophy and he specifically has permission from his priest
so?

>>21707753
>You know exactly what I'm referring
No I don't think so you featherless biped

>>21513662
They seethe the most about Buddhism because it shits all over them and has done so for centuries. I'm just fishing for (You)'s; wouldn't expect a serious discussion with the OP or anyone else here on the merits of Buddhism or Buddhist philosophy vs dogmatic screeching about what someone's astral rabbi thinks we should do to get an eternal life dlc pass.

>>20985802
no

>>20819232
>Brahman is completely unaffected by maya
this is just transcendental dogma, you've put a gap between the absolute and the apparent, and have the nerve to call this nonduality; but it's just a species of nihilism to deny all experience as illusion and insist the real—that is to say the real thing to be valued—is nowhere.

>>20624361
>his arguments are logically sound
They presuppose something entirely illogical, so what's the point? If it leads to a rejection of the world it can't be very good for anyone but the most sick

>>20543722
What's this? Are you uncritically accepting polemics as truth based on 1st century revisionism of historical narratives pushed by retards?

>>20484349
>to antagonize, refute and criticize every philosophy and religion in history.
That's not Nietzsche. You've got the wrong guy.

>>20454538
>No potential can be actualized unless something already actual actualizes it
This is just an obtuse way of saying "everything has a cause," but you'll caveat that "god is outside of everything and uncaused because I said so that's why"

>>20383714
IT'S OVER, ANAKIN. BARON MUNCHAUSEN HAS THE HIGH GROUND BY PULLING HIMSELF OUT OF THE QUICKSAND USING HIS OWN HAIR.

>>20236094
>And yet you never jump off a cliff, thinking you might fly. Why is that?
It is certainly possible that it could happen. The hypothetico-deductive method could NEVER disprove it - only say that it is unlikely. I'm not saying that the scientific method is useless. It has its place.

>objective claims are falsifiable
And this, along with all the axioms, which have no justification as well as only able to approximate, is the problem. The scientific method can only offer negative knowledge. How I live my life requires a positive idea behind it, which science can never offer.

>>20205905
huh?
I'm just your friendly neighbourhood skeptic. I have no stance in the discussion.
I find it funny removing the ground underneath people when they try to confidently assert truths they cannot back up. Nothing personal, kid.

>>19972441
>whataboutism
There's no issue for me. I agree you can apply that criticism to those non-christer beliefs as well.

>destroys your dogmas definitively
This man set me free.

I often see pic related being posted, or people saying that Sextus refutes everything. But I don't see how that is. I've read the book and it's just him expressing doubts on things. Could someone explain?

>>19948273
If they're all so wrong...

This entire shitshow could've been avoided if the epistemological schizo had read the skeptics.

Nothing personnel, dogmatist

>>19802861
If I read your delusional books I might sound like you. I'd hate to be mistaken for such a person.

>>19728300
Who is anyone? What is reading? What is a skeptic? What is literature? I only know quiescence.

>>19651603
It's time for you to read Sextus Empiricus

>>19626590
Fuck you

>>19623961
>legit, logical and systematic philosophy.