the snazziness continues ....
Arguments against Christianity
- Thread starter answers
- Start date
the snazziness continues ....
This is not the point for me.
The above criteria are such that if I continually apply them the best I can, whatever is unhelpful gets eliminated and progress is made.
I did, and then asked for the long version because the short version was lacking. Let's ask it another way, maybe that will help:
Different scripture has different claims of afterlives and different claims of how one gets to go there. The Book of the Dead for instance expresses the importance of being mummified. I can assume that if you do not intend to get mummified that you consider the Book of the Dead to be wrong. It's claims to afterlives and ways to get there are false.
How do you determine which scripture isn't false and describes a 'real' afterlife and 'real' ways to get there?
You said: hierarchical model, but it doesn't mean much. I therefore requested that you give me the long version, (IOW explain it in more detail). It would seem to me that your statement merely means to put that which you think sounds cool at the top and that which you think sounds shit at the bottom, but it should be needless to state that something being cool or shit is not a way to establish reality.
There goes any assumption that religious people were nice, helpful individuals :bugeye: Needless to say yet again: we are not talking about plumbers. I want you to explain to me specifically from a religious claimant perspective.
It is based upon your statements throughout this forum. You have said on numerous occasions that one must be qualified to have direct perception of god. You have also said that one must be free from certain emotional states to be considered qualified. I am asking what being free from certain emotional states actually attests to other than the ability to alter emotional states. If one becomes a qualified saintly person on the basis of being free from certain emotional states, it would surely be argued that if one could take medication to become free from these emotional states that this person can then be considered a qualified saintly person and gain direct perception because he has done what you state must be done in order to be considered qualified.
As a result of that your emotional state arguments don't amount to much. Why, a person after a lobotomy doesn't show much in the way of emotion, does that mean he's a qualified saintly person? If the answer is no then you will need to provide a bit more than your claim that being free from emotional states is the key to qualification.
It would also stand that unless you claim to be free from these emotional states, (which is not apparent when reading your posts), that you are not qualified and therefore by your own argument can't say anything. You are the unqualified trying to talk on behalf of god. How is that any different to any other unqualified person trying to talk on behalf of god?
If you are unqualified, which you clearly are, you cannot have had direct perception of this god. On what basis then can you assert the existence of this entity with any degree of credibility?
So, you claim to be free from false ego? (It's certainly not what your posts suggest).
Anyway, what theistic claims have been validated?
He does generally appear to be anxiety free. The thing is you're now discussing issues with a person qualified in the area. You cannot, given your own arguments, really say anything but must apparently succumb to my authority on the matter.
Well then, let's look at a highly religious country and see how it is making life more jolly and anxiety free.. I dunno, hmmm.. let's look at India with some 90% religiosity:
Two out of every three children in India are physically abused
- Commissioned by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, the study says 53% of the surveyed children reported one or more forms of sexual abuse
Oh so jolly. :bugeye:
Last edited:
Another reason you're not qualified to have this discussion is your desire to have the last word at all costs -even at the expense of an ad hominem statement. The ad hominem fallacy is one of the most frequently used tools of those who lack qualification due to their bias of belief.
:bravo:
(needless to say you weren't so qualified 3 months ago and judging from your recent behavior, you don't appear to have improved any ..... but I could be wrong)
Cool. An ad hominem with a smiley.
I demand that I be voted for in both polls.
I demand that I be voted for in both polls.
what can I say?
I am a creature of mutual reciprocation
you seem to be acting in a more unsettled manner than you were during JamesR's original poll