"Neti, neti", mainly for atheists, but theists welcome, if they dare.

[Aupmanyav]

This is inspired by @dybmh his thread about 'Neti, neti' for theists. Neti-neti as you know is the most important err.. (what should I call it) stance in Hinduism, 'what you do not accept'. You can mention only one thing in one post according to what you think is the most important. After mentioning your point, you may, if you like can give a reason that why you think so.

There is no bar to putting in more posts. The other rule is that there should be be no repeats in your posts. If you have mentioned something once, that is enough.

One entry is prohibited by default: 'Neti': YHWH, God, Allah, Bhagwan, etc.
As the OP, I go first:

'Neti': 'Prajnanam Brahma' (Brahman is Consciousness).

Note: Brahman has no need to be conscious.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Truth as singular as one kind of truth.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Neti : Binary thinking

 

[Hildeburh]

This is inspired by @dybmh his thread about 'Neti, neti' for theists. Neti-neti as you know is the most important err.. (what should I call it) stance in Hinduism, 'what you do not accept'. You can mention only one thing in one post according to what you think is the most important. After mentioning your point, you may, if you like can give a reason that why you think so.

There is no bar to putting in more posts. The other rule as @dybmh also mentioned, is that there should be be no repeats. You can put in a note that your choices (1, 2, 3, etc., you can list them) have already been mentioned.

One entry is prohibited by default: 'Neti': YHWH, God, Allah, Bhagwan, etc.
As the OP, I go first:

'Neti': 'Prajnanam Brahma' (Brahman is Consciousness).

Note: Brahman has no need to be conscious.

Monotheism

 

[Mock Turtle]

Neti: The credibility of 'messengers', of whatever nature.

As if it could conceivably be a good mechanism for imparting any religious knowledge coming from a supposedly intelligent God, when the whole concept of such is so easily open to fraudsters, deception, self-interest, etc., especially involving rather ignorant humans (at the time).

 

[Polymath257]

the supernatural

 

[Revoltingest]

Magical thinking.

 

[Jedster]

Hearsay

 

[columbus]

Free will.
I don't think it exists beyond the illusion created by our own inability to really understand our own motivations or those of others, and the influences on them.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Mint ice cream.

 

[stvdv]

Neti-neti ... stance in Hinduism ... 'what you do not accept'

neti

 

[icehorse]

Eating your cake and having it too.

 

[columbus]

Neti: The credibility of 'messengers', of whatever nature.

As if it could conceivably be a good mechanism for imparting any religious knowledge coming from a supposedly intelligent God, when the whole concept of such is so easily open to fraudsters, deception, self-interest, etc., especially involving rather ignorant humans (at the time).

This was the first one that popped into my mind.

I understand that primitive people simply didn't understand the concept of mass communication. Virtually all of their communications were extremely limited, usually one person talking to another. They were just very primitive and limited.

They created gods in their own image, similarly limited. Like the humans who created Him, God could only talk to one person at a time. Like the kings of the day, He had to tell one person and expect them to accurately disseminate The Message.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

The free lunch.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Mint ice cream.

People must have tried it. We try all sort of things.

neti

You right. The correct meaning is not 'What you do not accept', but 'This/that is not true'.

 

[dybmh]

It looks like no one has offered this one yet?

Neti: Time.

It's most important because everyone thinks they are limited by Time, and yet... Time does not really exist. It's a construct.

 

[dybmh]

Monotheism

Respectfully, tsk-tsk... I do believe this is a rule violation of the game, perhaps the OP, @Aupmanyav will confirm?

One entry is prohibited by default: 'Neti': YHWH, God, Allah, Bhagwan, etc.

@Aupmanyav, is saying neti: Monotheism equivalent to saying neti: YHWH? IDK... It depends on how one defines YHWH, doesn't it?

 

[sayak83]

This is inspired by @dybmh his thread about 'Neti, neti' for theists. Neti-neti as you know is the most important err.. (what should I call it) stance in Hinduism, 'what you do not accept'. You can mention only one thing in one post according to what you think is the most important. After mentioning your point, you may, if you like can give a reason that why you think so.

There is no bar to putting in more posts. The other rule is that there should be be no repeats in your posts. If you have mentioned something once, that is enough.

One entry is prohibited by default: 'Neti': YHWH, God, Allah, Bhagwan, etc.
As the OP, I go first:

'Neti': 'Prajnanam Brahma' (Brahman is Consciousness).

Note: Brahman has no need to be conscious.

Neti: physicalism.
Since we have maths and consciousness and information as well.

 

[Aupmanyav]

@dybmh , our friend Hildeburh did not name any, neither YHWH, nor God, nor Allah, nor Bhagwan. He does not accept the One God system itself. IMHO, he is within the rules.

 

[stvdv]

neti: Science