A****** is a bad word?

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

so its not clear what your issues are for accepting the term "atheist" as inappropriate
”
Eh? Where did I say any word was inappropriate?

Sorry - I guess I made the assumption that if you were posting criticisms of my posts in response to the thread topic you were talking in a meaningful way

“
actually I have received a range of responses, ranging from "to be free from lust is delusional"
”
You're being dishonest unless you mean from other people, but then I fail to see its relevance here.

Furthermore I notice once again you have shifted to avoid describing the process but will undoubtedly once more accuse me of not inquring as to the process when you forget that you ignored me asking. There was also another question in there that you chose to ignore in favour of making a dishonest or irrelevant statement.

guess you are still a few marks short of sincere inquiry

“
well for a start, who apart from you, is making the claim about marzipan and leprechauns
”
Why are you espousing argumentum ad populum as the way to go in response to my question that asked you specifically what experiment and under what conditions you test the person making the claims? You test the person by finding out how popular his claim is? We can discuss the claim to evidence once you have answered the question concerning the person.

ok - perhaps we could research both marzipan and leprechauns separately to see if either of them warrant serious contemplation

“
if it is written down in an intelligible fashion with a host of commentaries for further clarification, yes
”
So.. something being written down makes that something more real?

certainly makes analysis possible (as opposed to a wild array of chat forum posts)

“
you run into hypocrisy when there are clear examples of you promoting your belief
”
Well no, given that the issue comes down to a lack of understanding on your part.

Do you post in religious threads? Yes
Do you host a website dedicated to decrying religion? Yes

Its not clear what I am not understanding

“

the only difference between your atheism and mine was that I never had to go running into assemblies of theists to assert my status quo
”
Running into assemblies of theists on a science forum?

I wasn't aware that science is diametrically opposed to religion
or is that another one of your beliefs?

How would that come about? You don't strike me as the scientific type.

and you don't strike me as the religious type - or for that matter the type capable of launching serious philosophical issues

“
you've made a site that reflects your beliefs
”
Incorrect. But keep saying it if you think the more you say it the more true it becomes.

seems like you have also asserted a few things by self imposed repetition
who will resolve these things?

 

[superluminal]

I wasn't aware that science is diametrically opposed to religion
or is that another one of your beliefs?

It's more like an observation. Science sets its standard as one of observable, testable, measurable phenomena. Religion sets its standard as one of hearsay (jesus said... BAM! An entire faith is born...) and unquestioned dogma (jesus said...).

Just using jesus as an archetypical religious entity. Same goes for the rest of them.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Anyway, different subject.

 

[Michael]

Getting back to the discussion, what is the correct term for one who does not believe in God?

Since a****** is a bad word?

This is about the inherently bigoted nature of Sura109. Like I said, it’s like referring to Africans as niggers at a Klan rally and then turning around and saying "aren’t you proud to be nigger?" This is different then IceT, an African, saying nigga in rap song.

When "unbelievers" are portrayed as someone good and fair-minded the bigoted nature was lost but then you pick people who happen to have been notorious atheists. Why?

I didn't even say the person had to be an atheist, just a fair minded person who has no belief at all the there is an Allah or that Mohammad was anyone other than a guy who heard voices in his head. A Buddhist is an unbeliever, The DaliLama may be an "Unbeleiver", a Hindu is an unbeliever, a Shinto is an unbeliever, A Scientologist、lots of people meet the definition of a Mohammadian-unbeliever.

Does the Qur’an ever spend a good chunk of time saying the unbeliever is also a fair minded level headed good and nobel individual worthy of your respect and should be treated fairly and equally? Does the Qur’an ever say that the unbeliever may actually be right? Does the Qur’an even say that the unbeliever may even be a better person than the believer? Spend more time helping the poor and donate more money to charity than the believer - only do it out of pure humanistic kindness? Does the Qur’an ever say that we are all humans and should all be treated equally in regards to our individual beliefs?

This book of your is so good at inspiring predjudice that you don`t even know it when you see it.

 

[superluminal]

This is about the inherently bigoted nature of Sura109. Like I said, it’s like referring to Africans as niggers at a Klan rally and then turning around and saying "aren’t you proud to be nigger?" This is different then IceT, an African, saying nigga in rap song.

When "unbelievers" are portrayed as someone good and fair-minded the bigoted nature was lost but then you pick people who happen to have been notorious atheists. Why?

I didn't even say the person had to be an atheist, just a fair minded person who has no belief at all the there is an Allah or that Mohammad was anyone other than a guy who heard voices in his head. A Buddhist is an unbeliever, The DaliLama may be an "Unbeleiver", a Hindu is an unbeliever, a Shinto is an unbeliever, A Scientologist、lots of people meet the definition of a Mohammadian-unbeliever.

Does the Qur’an ever spend a good chunk of time saying the unbeliever is also a fair minded level headed good and nobel individual worthy of your respect and should be treated fairly and equally? Does the Qur’an ever say that the unbeliever may actually be right? Does the Qur’an even say that the unbeliever may even be a better person than the believer? Spend more time helping the poor and donate more money to charity than the believer - only do it out of pure humanistic kindness? Does the Qur’an ever say that we are all humans and should all be treated equally in regards to our individual beliefs?

This book of your is so good at inspiring predjudice that you don`t even know it when you see it.

Nicely put.

Only, I think there's evidence that shows believers to be a bit more charitable than us crumudgeonly non believers.

Maybe is to help ensure they don't go to hell or valhalla or whatever. Don't know.

 

[lightgigantic]

It's more like an observation. Science sets its standard as one of observable, testable, measurable phenomena. Religion sets its standard as one of hearsay (jesus said... BAM! An entire faith is born...) and unquestioned dogma (jesus said...).

Just using jesus as an archetypical religious entity. Same goes for the rest of them.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Anyway, different subject.

to begin with, I think you have caricaturized religion by calling it hearsay, since (most) religion comes with in depth philosophy (which most people, including practitioners, tend to gloss over)

BTW the only claims of science that I have encountered that are at odds with the claims in the vedas, are those scientific claims that are neither observable, testable, and measurable (eg macro-evolution, quite a large portion of archeology, abiogenesis, etc)

IOW the notion that everything can be materially reduced also has a "BAM!" like quality about it

 

[SnakeLord]

Sorry - I guess I made the assumption that if you were posting criticisms of my posts in response to the thread topic you were talking in a meaningful way

Well, while I don't like to be the one to have to point out your dishonesty, perhaps you should go back and see what I was responding to - namely your naive assertions that someone that does not play golf would not talk about golf - which, needless to say, wasn't actually related to the OP in any way. Don't take my word for it, take yours.. few pages back. Thanks bye.

However, what this does do is indicate that you have a reading problem. Stop making assumptions, read posts. Thanks bye.

guess you are still a few marks short of sincere inquiry

What's the next excuse? I ask and I'm not being sincere, I try and I'm not being genuine. Will you do anything to avoid answering? It certainly seems that way.

ok - perhaps we could research both marzipan and leprechauns separately to see if either of them warrant serious contemplation

Can you kindly show me what, in the above, is answer to any of my questions? Thanks.

certainly makes analysis possible

Look at the question once more and then answer. Once you can comprehend the question you'll see that your quoted statement is of no relevance.

Do you post in religious threads? Yes

Yes, along with Star Trek threads. No, I do not have a belief in Klingons. Whatever is your point?

I wasn't aware that science is diametrically opposed to religion
or is that another one of your beliefs?

? Is religion science? Yes/no?

and you don't strike me as the religious type - or for that matter the type capable of launching serious philosophical issues

But as established you don't read posts and when you do you don't understand them. Your statements are without worth. As you love argumentum ad populum I am happy to conduct a poll to see if anyone here actually thinks anything you say is worth the kilobytes used. What do you, (if you were to be honest), think the majority would answer? Does that say anything to you?

who will resolve these things?

According to you majority rules.

 

[superluminal]

to begin with, I think you have caricaturized religion by calling it hearsay, since (most) religion comes with in depth philosophy (which most people, including practitioners, tend to gloss over)

Really?

Is not every religion based on the written testimony only of it's historical figures? Do they provide repeatable, objective, testable evidence that religion X and its claims are real phenomena? Deep philosophy dosen't mean that a thing is automatically vested with reality. Philosophy is not evidence, compelling or otherwise.

BTW the only claims of science that I have encountered that are at odds with the claims in the vedas, are those scientific claims that are neither observable, testable, and measurable (eg macro-evolution, quite a large portion of archeology, abiogenesis, etc)

Just wait...

And it's not necessecarily the specific claims. It's more the philosophies that are at odds. See my previous post.

IOW the notion that everything can be materially reduced also has a "BAM!" like quality about it

Well, maybe it does. But it's at least a path that yields real objective results.

When your religious ruminations result in anything other than ruminations and a bunch of people shouting the truth of it just because, we'll see.

At the root of it all is hearsay. I don't think that trivializes it at all. The simplest of scientific statements can be tested and found to be true. Or not. What claim of a god(s) can even be tested? God is beyond nature and "empirical" investigation, right? So what do you have? Hearsay. As I said.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

Sorry - I guess I made the assumption that if you were posting criticisms of my posts in response to the thread topic you were talking in a meaningful way
”
Well, while I don't like to be the one to have to point out your dishonesty, perhaps you should go back and see what I was responding to - namely your naive assertions that someone that does not play golf would not talk about golf - which, needless to say, wasn't actually related to the OP in any way. Don't take my word for it, take yours.. few pages back. Thanks bye.

However, what this does do is indicate that you have a reading problem. Stop making assumptions, read posts. Thanks bye.

:shrug: o...k ...

“
guess you are still a few marks short of sincere inquiry
”
What's the next excuse? I ask and I'm not being sincere, I try and I'm not being genuine. Will you do anything to avoid answering? It certainly seems that way.

as already mentioned - its obvious you would rather stab your testicles with an ice pick than apply any religious teaching, so its not clear who you are trying to kid

“
ok - perhaps we could research both marzipan and leprechauns separately to see if either of them warrant serious contemplation
”
Can you kindly show me what, in the above, is answer to any of my questions? Thanks.

well you are the one asking for a reasonable indication to what degree we should investigate an isolated claim that the proper use of marzipan can enable the perception of leprechauns

“
certainly makes analysis possible
”
Look at the question once more and then answer. Once you can comprehend the question you'll see that your quoted statement is of no relevance.

its quite simple
if a person has a serious claim to make they can write it down
thats why they sometimes talk of scientific or philosophical "papers"
(BTW such a paper tends to have a bit more of an organized format that a sporadic chat forum)

anyway I don't really think that chat forums are the proper medium for presenting new ideas, but rather the discussing of pre-existing ones, so if I can't find any reference to what you claim beyond your posts here, you'll have to forgive me for finding better things to do with my time

“
Do you post in religious threads? Yes
”
Yes, along with Star Trek threads. No, I do not have a belief in Klingons. Whatever is your point?

you probably post in star trek threads to assert your belief that star trek is good - much like you post in religious threads to assert your belief that religion/god is false

“
I wasn't aware that science is diametrically opposed to religion
or is that another one of your beliefs?
”
? Is religion science? Yes/no?

(given that you probably mean ontological naturalism or classical empiricism when you say science) no
a tub of yoghurt is also not a frilled neck lizard btw, but that doesn't make them diametrically opposed

“
and you don't strike me as the religious type - or for that matter the type capable of launching serious philosophical issues
”
But as established you don't read posts and when you do you don't understand them. Your statements are without worth. As you love argumentum ad populum I am happy to conduct a poll to see if anyone here actually thinks anything you say is worth the kilobytes used. What do you, (if you were to be honest), think the majority would answer? Does that say anything to you?

I didn't ask for a vote
I asked for a single indication outside of your hearsay
(and I am the one with the reading problem?)

“
who will resolve these things?
”
According to you majority rules.

get back to me when you put your glasses on
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Supe

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
to begin with, I think you have caricaturized religion by calling it hearsay, since (most) religion comes with in depth philosophy (which most people, including practitioners, tend to gloss over)
”
Really?

Is not every religion based on the written testimony only of it's historical figures? Do they provide repeatable, objective, testable evidence that religion X and its claims are real phenomena? Deep philosophy dosen't mean that a thing is automatically vested with reality. Philosophy is not evidence, compelling or otherwise.

philosophy does however offer standards for ascertaining reality, and if you examine theistic claims you can also see that they come with the (philosophical) standards for testing the claims.

As for testing what is "real", I guess that would require a standard definition (something empiricism has difficulty with since it works exclusively with relative terms, eg measurement)

“

BTW the only claims of science that I have encountered that are at odds with the claims in the vedas, are those scientific claims that are neither observable, testable, and measurable (eg macro-evolution, quite a large portion of archeology, abiogenesis, etc)
”
Just wait...

And it's not necessecarily the specific claims. It's more the philosophies that are at odds. See my previous post.

“
IOW the notion that everything can be materially reduced also has a "BAM!" like quality about it

then the question has to be addressed, to what degree can a philosophy be held as having the monopoly of truth
Is it sufficient to say that because it is right in a certain situation it is right in all situations?
”
Well, maybe it does. But it's at least a path that yields real objective results.

thats ok
the issue is whether that path has the monopoly on all objective results
If I can empty a bath tub full of water with a cup, does that mean I can also empty the ocean with it too?

When your religious ruminations result in anything other than ruminations and a bunch of people shouting the truth of it just because, we'll see.

how do you empirically reduce lust or wrath?
with benevolent pharmacists?

At the root of it all is hearsay. I don't think that trivializes it at all. The simplest of scientific statements can be tested and found to be true.

only if a person applies themselves to the proper prerequisites for ascertaining knowledge (aka forensic scientists and janitors)

Or not. What claim of a god(s) can even be tested? God is beyond nature and "empirical" investigation, right? So what do you have? Hearsay. As I said.

classical empiricism requires that any claim can be met by appropriate training that enables the senses to work in an improved manner.
The problem is that it cannot venture into subjects that exert a superior will to ours

for instance, the existence of the president is not a classical empirical claim (since we receive knowledge of him second hand - television and newspapers)
we do not (generally) see him in the flesh
If I demanded to see the president there is no amount of training I can do with my senses that can enable me to get past the first of his 2000 secretaries and body guards.

Seeing the president requires that I become submissive to him by sharing his needs, interests and concerns - simply because he has a greater will than me and I can only see him on his terms

In the same way, perceiving the nature of god requires that one be submissive to him - this is why highly (empirically) intelligent persons can remain outside of understanding anything about god.
They may say "there is no empirical evidence for god"
but that simply says something about the limits of empiricism

 

[Donnal]

Robert Cooper myb ex
was sent letters and pictures of angels and warnings they exist
i was there when he showed this church he is involved in
he asked Loraine his mate what was this about
she replied she didnt know it wasnt sent from her church
he know continues to ridicule me cause alot of people ask questions about me
he told me hes sick of it all being about me
i told him eventually about the accusation to do with angels
he said i was mad
he know has several diseases he is in constant pain every day of the rest of his life
he went on and on how he can buy what ever he wants
he said he can even murder and get away with it
he also thinks money can buy his health and can buy love
i said to him can u buy the love of an angel can they pull it out of their pocket and give it to u for a price
he has no looks left hes very thin eyes are black around his sides of his eyes
i told him he best get ready for a journey
i think he closed his eyes to warnings and he paid the price

i strongly believe people also who close their eyes will suffer greatly
now he seems to listen to me only to do with his health
i say its a bit late for changes in health wise but u can change for the better in urself
if u cant see the warnings and its too late u can have sumthing else
to help u ease pain a little
when its too late its too late cant go back and change but u can change ur ways
the horror of a world is within our selves not in the sky or space
so to is heaven its how we carry our lies or truths

 

[Frud11]

...perceiving the nature of god requires that one be submissive to him - this is why highly (empirically) intelligent persons can remain outside of understanding anything about god.
They may say "there is no empirical evidence for god"
but that simply says something about the limits of empiricism

This thread (since i last looked) has gotten into the usual stuff, poste and riposte, but the above quote possibly sums up the areligious/theist argument nicely, and the paradox we (think we) see.

Perceiving: experiencing, as in via a sensory or conscious direct "input", with a corresponding output; like a function with a domain and range. The thing about functions is that you can write down an endless number that all have the same domain and range, there's Euler's series which "converges" at e, the "function of numbers", its a fundamental property of measurement and counting. The output, in the case of a brain, is multi-valued, a kind of expansion.

Submission is an idea that differs between cultures; here in the West, it's associated with the idea of authority and power, as in the "meet the chief" example given previously. In the East, it's about surrender, of desire and attachment to material things, and ultimately attachment to thought itself.

An empirical experience of something which can't be thought about is paradoxical, but not impossible (I'm quite sure about this, even as I type it).
Conceptions, or thinking, about what God is, or what we can know about something "unknowable" (there's that word again), are also paradoxical.
"To know something" is a phrase that has different meaning to an empiricist (perspective), and a "spiritualist" or non-intellectual, or doctrinist (perspective).

 

[lightgigantic]

This thread (since i last looked) has gotten into the usual stuff, poste and riposte, but the above quote possibly sums up the areligious/theist argument nicely, and the paradox we (think we) see.

Perceiving: experiencing, as in via a sensory or conscious direct "input", with a corresponding output; like a function with a domain and range. The thing about functions is that you can write down an endless number that all have the same domain and range, there's Euler's series which "converges" at e, the "function of numbers", its a fundamental property of measurement and counting. The output, in the case of a brain, is multi-valued, a kind of expansion.

I am not sure how this correlates to, say, perceiving the president

Submission is an idea that differs between cultures; here in the West, it's associated with the idea of authority and power, as in the "meet the chief" example given previously. In the East, it's about surrender, of desire and attachment to material things, and ultimately attachment to thought itself.

there are numerous nuances on "submission" both in the east and the west.

In the context of the president, I used it to suggest that being inimical, rebellious or antagonistic will not help you

An empirical experience of something which can't be thought about is paradoxical, but not impossible (I'm quite sure about this, even as I type it).

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean here

Conceptions, or thinking, about what God is, or what we can know about something "unknowable" (there's that word again), are also paradoxical.
"To know something" is a phrase that has different meaning to an empiricist (perspective), and a "spiritualist" or non-intellectual, or doctrinist (perspective).

I was suggesting that god is actually knowable and perceivable, much like the president is actually knowable and perceivable
In other words, if god has qualities, then there is no reason why god cannot be knowable or perceivable

 

[Michael]

Nicely put.

Only, I think there's evidence that shows believers to be a bit more charitable than us crumudgeonly non believers.

Maybe is to help ensure they don't go to hell or valhalla or whatever. Don't know.

I see you're point BUT also lets not forget that most Buddhists and Shinto would be classified as unbeleivers. They don't believe there is an Allah and they don't believe there was a Last Prophet known as Mohammad and they don't believe that the Qur'an is the Last and Perfect revelation to mankind. They are still charitable people.

Michael

 

[superluminal]

I see you're point BUT also lets not forget that most Buddhists and Shinto would be classified as unbeleivers. They don't believe there is an Allah and they don't believe there was a Last Prophet known as Mohammad and they don't believe that the Qur'an is the Last and Perfect revelation to mankind. They are still charitable people.

Michael

Yes.

 

[S.A.M.]

I see you're point BUT also lets not forget that most Buddhists and Shinto would be classified as unbeleivers. They don't believe there is an Allah and they don't believe there was a Last Prophet known as Mohammad and they don't believe that the Qur'an is the Last and Perfect revelation to mankind. They are still charitable people.

Michael

Not always:

When Bon was outlawed by Tibetan Buddhist King Khri Srong-Ide'ti-btsan and its monasteries destroyed, there followed a 400 year period of persecution of those that followed the traditional beliefs, similar to the Christian faith's inquisitions. One old Tibetan shaman from the Kham provinces who fled to Kashmir before the Chinese invasion describes how practitioners of Bonpo were imprisioned or skinned alive en masse by the Tibetan Buddhist monks and how the skins were hung out to dry in the streets of Lhasa.

Children from Christian families in Burma between the ages of five and ten have been lured from their homes and placed in Buddhist monasteries.

Once taken in, their heads have been shaved and they have been trained as novice monks, never to see their parents again.

In a visit to Chin and Kachin refugees in New Delhi and Mizoram State, India, earlier this month, Christian Solidarity Worldwide heard accounts of cultural genocide and religious persecution and discrimination. The Burmese regimeís forces reportedly offer incentives to impoverished villagers to convert from Christianity to Buddhism in Chin state, an area which is 90 percent Christian.

Mountain top crosses have been destroyed and villagers forced to build Buddhist pagodas in their place, often having to contribute finances and labour.

Christians are required to obtain permits for special events, and for any renovation or construction work. No permission for new church buildings has been given since 1994. Christians in the civil service are discriminated against, and no Christian can rise beyond the rank of Major in the regimeís army.

So again, any consensus in a word for those who do not believe in God?

 

[superluminal]

Not always:

So again, any consensus in a word for those who do not believe in God?

Atheist.

 

[S.A.M.]

Atheist.

Thats a derogatory term. O atheists! for instance, is a segragationary term. Ask Michael. :shrug:

 

[kaneda]

Even amongst theists there are many terms for people based on what they believe: christian, muslim, agnostic, etc.

As Skinwalker shows, strictly speaking, you can't call people by what they are not.

 

[lightgigantic]

Even amongst theists there are many terms for people based on what they believe: christian, muslim, agnostic, etc.

As Skinwalker shows, strictly speaking, you can't call people by what they are not.

when a group becomes socially predictable, it tends to indicate that they are something and that issues of belief are afoot

Skinwalker tries to avoid this by calling upon his own individual position as the final complete object for examination - but the clear fact is that there are now and have been in the past a myriad of groups rallying around metaphysical claims in the name of atheism

 

[greenberg]

In the same way, perceiving the nature of god requires that one be submissive to him

Yet this requires that one already believes in God even prior to perceiving God.