Contributions of theistic theory and ritual to theistic perfection

[SkinWalker]

Lightgigantic continues with his pseudo-epistemology, claiming that "knowing" a religion's doctrine is the same as knowing something about the universe. LG believes he "knows" something about the universe in the way of gods and theology, but none of what LG believes has any bearing on reality. Instead of offering methods that show us how his "epistemology" is valid, he persists in deriding science in a fallacious argument of ad ignorantum where he validates his claim through derision of that claim's counter.

Example of LG's lack of critical thought is his questioning the evolution of religion as a by-product of human culture. The evolutionary steps of modern religions are clear and their mythologies can even be traced in their doctrines, comparing to the literature and doctrines of neighboring cultures and religions. If he's questioning whether or not hominids were genetically predisposed to believe or find religion, fair enough. I concede that there is evidence that hominids evolved with the genetic capacity for religion and belief in general. This is evidenced by the shear quantity of religions that are and have been in existence. But this same evidence also indicates that not a single one of the varied (and often extremely different) religions are the correct one, for if so, then which one? Is it a cult of modern Christianity or of Chac, the rain god of ancient Mesoamerica?

LG appears content to reside in a tautological fallacy of belief in theistic mumbo-jumbo, claiming to us all that there is a "theistic theory" that is valid, without offering the slightest validation for his claims. Validation cannot be had, of course. This is the nature of faith: belief without evidence. One might as well believe that frozen yogurt can make the consumer invisible. The epistemology is the same.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

So how do you determine what is real?

Test whatever that *what* is against reality.

football fervour may be an imaginary response - but it is a response to a real phenomena (football) - in other words it does actualy have a basis in reality -

Dungeons and dragons, teenage mutant ninja turtles, lord of the rings, harry potter, vampires, werewolves, zombies... all these are imaginary with die hard loyalty bases.

If you want to maintain the footbal thing as a tight analogy you have to esablish what aspect of reality theists are perceiving when they launch into apparent imagination - when a theist is "imagining god", what are they actually perceiving?

It's all subjective hallucination / delusion at that point. It really doesn't matter.

Remember there are many intelligent persons in the history of theism, including philsophers and scientists, so its not valid to write them off as crazy or drug induced, unless you want to advocate some philosophy that the entire world is deluded except for you and a few of your friends

Most of the world has been and currently deluded as far as 'God' is concerned. I am sure atheists are deluded on a wide variety of topics... 'God' is simply not one of them.

 

[lightgigantic]

SkinWalker

Lightgigantic continues with his pseudo-epistemology, claiming that "knowing" a religion's doctrine is the same as knowing something about the universe.

And what are you doing? Presenting new evidence?

LG believes he "knows" something about the universe in the way of gods and theology, but none of what LG believes has any bearing on reality.

Skinwalker believes he knows what others knows, despite not applying the relevant processes that enable one to know

Instead of offering methods that show us how his "epistemology" is valid, he persists in deriding science in a fallacious argument of ad ignorantum where he validates his claim through derision of that claim's counter.

For god's sake - please be merciful and show us the epistemology you applied to determine that religion is invalid - contrary to your statement I have not said science is false, quite the opposite I cite it as real and valid innumerous analogies

Example of LG's lack of critical thought is his questioning the evolution of religion as a by-product of human culture. The evolutionary steps of modern religions are clear and their mythologies can even be traced in their doctrines, comparing to the literature and doctrines of neighboring cultures and religions.

Ok lets unpack this - I think it was an attempt at critical thought but I am not sure
P1 - religious scriptures state that human society owes its existence to god
P2 - there are numerous different religions that make this claim
conclusion - therefore all claims about the origins of human society in connection to god are false

A critical thinking person would say your premises actually establish the opposite of your conclusion

If he's questioning whether or not hominids were genetically predisposed to believe or find religion, fair enough. I concede that there is evidence that hominids evolved with the genetic capacity for religion and belief in general.

What is the body of empirical evidence you are referring to that establishes macro evolution as a proven fact?
If you don't have it (which is in fact the claim of scientists inthe field, that it is impossible to priovide empirical evidence f macro-evolution) how is your speculations any different from the claims of theists (since it appears, again to any critical thinking person, that both theories operate on the same general principles)

This is evidenced by the shear quantity of religions that are and have been in existence.
But this same evidence also indicates that not a single one of the varied (and often extremely different) religions are the correct one, for if so, then which one? Is it a cult of modern Christianity or of Chac, the rain god of ancient Mesoamerica?

Ok - once again I am not sure if this is supposed to be an argument but I will assume it is.

If there are many different claims from many different authorities that indicates that none of them are true.
For instance suppose you take 12 brands of headache tablets - cal them a, b, c or maybe even a1, a2 a3, since they appear to be subcatergories of a catergory (they all contain similar, if not identical ingediens) - now if all 12 brands of headache tablets make the statement that they cure headaches - they are all obviously false

LG appears content to reside in a tautological fallacy of belief in theistic mumbo-jumbo,

You can probably gather what I think your attempts at critical thought are

claiming to us all that there is a "theistic theory" that is valid, without offering the slightest validation for his claims.

Well there is a whole thread on the correct epistemology if you are brave enough - actually this thread is kind of an advanced topic on the conclusions of that one - because you haven't addressed the issues raised in that one you are just like a blind man walking down a dog stool infested street when you try to deconstruct theistic theory here

Validation cannot be had, of course.

Then please be merciful and tell us the general principles you applied to reach this conclusion - for someone who apartently values the notion of critical thinking you sure have a habit of nelecting to establish the premises for your opinions

This is the nature of faith: belief without evidence. One might as well believe that frozen yogurt can make the consumer invisible. The epistemology is the same.

Once again - feel free to establish your general principles - or do we have to wait for you to tire from stating opinions to the world before we have an actual oportunity to apply general principles

 

[SkinWalker]

My question is what becomes of the rituals when the perfection of performing rituals is achieved - do they all remain? Do they all become redundant? Or does it require a further analysis to determine which rituals remain and which become redundant?

In the mythologies and doctrines of religions, those rituals that are retained are the ones that are useful in maintaining the religions or the religious hierarchies or which serve some social purpose. Rituals like communion help maintain both the religion and the hierarchy by bringing people together in a social setting; making the participants perceive a sense of connectedness with their supernatural deities (god, Jesus, holy ghost, mary, etc.); and reinforces their convictions and beliefs. A sense of tradition is also maintained.

With rituals like a Visionquest, a participant is physiologically stressed, perhaps with prolonged isolation or a sweat lodge, in order to induce a perceived mystical or spiritual state. The ritual itself is useful in transitioning an adolescent to adulthood. Rituals that mark this transition are found in many cultures of the world and in many religions: Bar Mitzvahs for the Jewish, Gar for the Nur, the Apache Sunrise Ceremony, female circumcision among Central and East African cultures, and so on. Nearly all have a liminal state in which the participant is neither adolescent or adult, what Victor Turner described as "betwixt and between."

But to your question, what is "perfection?" Is it a rain dance performed where it rains at the end? Wouldn't this be a cause to perform again when rain is needed, regardless of the number of times it didn't rain when performed? Is this "perfection" some subjective definition, available only to the believer (as most of your assumptions appear to be)? If so, then would we expect the participant to never partake in communion again if overwhelmed with an intense perception of "mysticism?" Should the community never send their boys or girls to coming of age rituals if the previous age-class turned out to be a "perfect" set of adults -leaders and professionals all?

Rituals that get tossed out are those that are too costly or no longer have general acceptance from the adherents. Burnt offerings are rare in judeo-christian cults these days. Volcanoes are no longer fed virgins.

Some rituals may even be in place just to gauge piety: Islamic traditions of washing feet and praying five times a day are recognized to varied degrees. Some muslims claim they pray silently, others carry a rug around with them. Even christians make a ritualistic scene, albeit a minor one, of praying before a snack of jello pudding on a 15-minute break at my job.

 

[lightgigantic]

Crunchy Cat

So how do you determine what is real?
”

Test whatever that *what* is against reality.

lol - how long do you want to keep begging the question?
And how do you determine the reality that will act as your yardstick for detemining what is real and what is unreal?

Dungeons and dragons, teenage mutant ninja turtles, lord of the rings, harry potter, vampires, werewolves, zombies... all these are imaginary with die hard loyalty bases.

But they all have a basis in reality in the sense that they were abstracted from real things - like for instance a zombie is an abstraction of reality in the sense that dead people and living people do actually exist

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
If you want to maintain the footbal thing as a tight analogy you have to esablish what aspect of reality theists are perceiving when they launch into apparent imagination - when a theist is "imagining god", what are they actually perceiving? ”

It's all subjective hallucination / delusion at that point. It really doesn't matter.

lol - but actually it does matter, otherwise your analogy is useless
Like for instance if you say football fans are imagining that their football teams are god like every time they watch the game (remember the game actually exists) then you have to establsh exactly what theists are perceiving when they say god is omnipotent etc - if you want to say they are all halucinating it doesn't taly with the evdence that many theists are staunchly steeped in critical thinking



“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Remember there are many intelligent persons in the history of theism, including philsophers and scientists, so its not valid to write them off as crazy or drug induced, unless you want to advocate some philosophy that the entire world is deluded except for you and a few of your friends ”

Most of the world has been and currently deluded as far as 'God' is concerned.

Ok now I am beginning to see the picture - the whole world is deluded except for you and a few of your friends - just as well we don't rely on you and your friends for the advancement of philosophy and scientific enquiry - in other words you don't exhibit high levels of critical thought when you write off literally hundreds of intelligent people, intelligent both in fields inside and outside theistic endeavour, as "imagining it"
Is that your agument? "its al in your imagination - se I just proved it to you becaus I said it was in yuor imagination" - on the contrary it tends to raise serious questions about how you interact with your imagination

 

[lightgigantic]

In the mythologies and doctrines of religions, those rituals that are retained are the ones that are useful in maintaining the religions or the religious hierarchies or which serve some social purpose. Rituals like communion help maintain both the religion and the hierarchy by bringing people together in a social setting; making the participants perceive a sense of connectedness with their supernatural deities (god, Jesus, holy ghost, mary, etc.); and reinforces their convictions and beliefs. A sense of tradition is also maintained.

With rituals like a Visionquest, a participant is physiologically stressed, perhaps with prolonged isolation or a sweat lodge, in order to induce a perceived mystical or spiritual state. The ritual itself is useful in transitioning an adolescent to adulthood. Rituals that mark this transition are found in many cultures of the world and in many religions: Bar Mitzvahs for the Jewish, Gar for the Nur, the Apache Sunrise Ceremony, female circumcision among Central and East African cultures, and so on. Nearly all have a liminal state in which the participant is neither adolescent or adult, what Victor Turner described as "betwixt and between."

But to your question, what is "perfection?" Is it a rain dance performed where it rains at the end? Wouldn't this be a cause to perform again when rain is needed, regardless of the number of times it didn't rain when performed? Is this "perfection" some subjective definition, available only to the believer (as most of your assumptions appear to be)? If so, then would we expect the participant to never partake in communion again if overwhelmed with an intense perception of "mysticism?" Should the community never send their boys or girls to coming of age rituals if the previous age-class turned out to be a "perfect" set of adults -leaders and professionals all?

Rituals that get tossed out are those that are too costly or no longer have general acceptance from the adherents. Burnt offerings are rare in judeo-christian cults these days. Volcanoes are no longer fed virgins.

Some rituals may even be in place just to gauge piety: Islamic traditions of washing feet and praying five times a day are recognized to varied degrees. Some muslims claim they pray silently, others carry a rug around with them. Even christians make a ritualistic scene, albeit a minor one, of praying before a snack of jello pudding on a 15-minute break at my job.

Perhaps you should work on the replies that are adressed to you before you ambitiously set out on a conquest of the replies to others

 

[SkinWalker]

fuck you. Its an open thread.

 

[lightgigantic]

fuck you. Its an open thread.

The jackal reveals his true colours

 

[Crunchy Cat]

lol - how long do you want to keep begging the question?

Question: Do plastic spoons burn?
Reality Test: Apply alot of heat to a plastic sppon.
Reality Result: What happened?

And how do you determine the reality that will act as your yardstick for detemining what is real and what is unreal?

The reality that is consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory is the one you're after.

But they all have a basis in reality in the sense that they were abstracted from real things - like for instance a zombie is an abstraction of reality in the sense that dead people and living people do actually exist

Check out D&D's etherial cyclones or Modrons. Hardly resemblance to reality.

lol - but actually it does matter, otherwise your analogy is useless
Like for instance if you say football fans are imagining that their football teams are god like every time they watch the game (remember the game actually exists) then you have to establsh exactly what theists are perceiving when they say god is omnipotent etc - if you want to say they are all halucinating it doesn't taly with the evdence that many theists are staunchly steeped in critical thinking

Why does it matter? Realization is realization. Consequently the anology is fine because it applies to both real and fictitious ideas. I'll explain in more detail about what happens with the theist. They are human and all humans have a psychological need for authoritative answers, approval, definitive right and wrong. They can't get that in reality so they turn to an imaginary character 'God' that acts as a proxy between themselves and themselves. The realized theist establishes a powerful relationship with himself and has 'God' and religion all bound up as part of his identity as a result of the proxy method to achive that relationship.

Ok now I am beginning to see the picture - the whole world is deluded except for you and a few of your friends

If we take all topics people can be deluded on, the entire world is deluded including me. If the topic is 'God' then most of the world is deluded and I don't share that delusion. I hope you understand that difference.

- just as well we don't rely on you and your friends for the advancement of philosophy and scientific enquiry -

It's better to rely on reality.

in other words you don't exhibit high levels of critical thought when you write off literally hundreds of intelligent people, intelligent both in fields inside and outside theistic endeavour, as "imagining it"

Discarding a claim is not discarding a person or the value they can bring outside the scope of that discarded claim.

Is that your agument? "its al in your imagination - se I just proved it to you becaus I said it was in yuor imagination" - on the contrary it tends to raise serious questions about how you interact with your imagination

As a theist, the most important part of your 'God' claim, i.e. evidence, cannot be produced. You can build on that foundation of nothing with all sorts of ellaborate arguments which divert attention away from the simple truth that your 'God' doesn't exist.

 

[lightgigantic]

Crunchy cat

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
And how do you determine the reality that will act as your yardstick for detemining what is real and what is unreal? ”

The reality that is consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory is the one you're after.

so when you state that religion is invalid, why is it true if it is inconsistent, non-persistent and contradictory to the claims of theism?

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
But they all have a basis in reality in the sense that they were abstracted from real things - like for instance a zombie is an abstraction of reality in the sense that dead people and living people do actually exist ”



Check out D&D's etherial cyclones or Modrons. Hardly resemblance to reality.

Can't say I am down on the latest happenings in D&D, but at least ether and cyclones actually bear some relevance to the known world - in other words they are clearly abstractions of real things - hardly original concepts


“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
lol - but actually it does matter, otherwise your analogy is useless
Like for instance if you say football fans are imagining that their football teams are god like every time they watch the game (remember the game actually exists) then you have to establsh exactly what theists are perceiving when they say god is omnipotent etc - if you want to say they are all halucinating it doesn't taly with the evdence that many theists are staunchly steeped in critical thinking ”

Why does it matter? Realization is realization. Consequently the anology is fine because it applies to both real and fictitious ideas.

But even the fiction is abstracted from an existing phenomena - your analogy only holds up if you can establish what is the existing phenomena - like you can say it is ether/cyclone for an etherial cyclone, you can say it is the football match for the fervant football fans - if you want to run a tight analogy you have to establish what it is for the theist.

I'll explain in more detail about what happens with the theist. They are human and all humans have a psychological need for authoritative answers, approval, definitive right and wrong. They can't get that in reality

Again brings us back to what you are referring to as reality - How do you determine whether their authoratative answers are valid or not?
What general principles did you apply to arrive at this conclusion?

so they turn to an imaginary character 'God' that acts as a proxy between themselves and themselves. The realized theist establishes a powerful relationship with himself and has 'God' and religion all bound up as part of his identity as a result of the proxy method to achive that relationship.

Unless you clear up the above query, a theist could just as easily tentatively suggest that the failure of an atheist to acknowledge the authority of god is an example of human fallibility

If we take all topics people can be deluded on, the entire world is deluded including me. If the topic is 'God' then most of the world is deluded and I don't share that delusion. I hope you understand that difference.

well since you admit you are deluded, how do you determine that you are not deluded in regard to god?
Again, what general principles do you apply to come to such conclusions?
How would a deluded person know whether they are deluded or not?

It's better to rely on reality.

words like "reality" mean a lot of things to a lot of different people.
And it begs the question when the very topic being discussed is what things are real and what things are not



“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Is that your agument? "its al in your imagination - se I just proved it to you becaus I said it was in yuor imagination" - on the contrary it tends to raise serious questions about how you interact with your imagination ”

As a theist, the most important part of your 'God' claim, i.e. evidence, cannot be produced.

Actually that is not my claim
My claim is that evidence can only be verified by qualified persons - science operates out of the same paradigm

You can build on that foundation of nothing with all sorts of ellaborate arguments which divert attention away from the simple truth that your 'God' doesn't exist.

Then you have to establish your authority to over ride the claims of theism You could do this by stating your general principles otherwise you are just stating your opinions, which may not be regarded as valid, just as the opinions of a high school drop out on the nature of an electron are not considered valid

 

[Crunchy Cat]

so when you state that religion is invalid, why is it true if it is inconsistent, non-persistent and contradictory to the claims of theism?

Because reality agrees.

Can't say I am down on the latest happenings in D&D, but at least ether and cyclones actually bear some relevance to the known world - in other words they are clearly abstractions of real things - hardly original concepts

I see... slapping eyes, a nose, and some sentience on a virtual authority isn't exactly original either by that level of judgment. It's called anthropomorphization.

But even the fiction is abstracted from an existing phenomena - your analogy only holds up if you can establish what is the existing phenomena - like you can say it is ether/cyclone for an etherial cyclone, you can say it is the football match for the fervant football fans - if you want to run a tight analogy you have to establish what it is for the theist.

Authority is a real phenomena, sentience is a real phenomena, the act of creating things is a real phenomena, reward is a real phenomena, punishment is a real phenomena, attraction to fantastic ideas is a real phenomena. It seems the idea of 'God' is constructed from more 'real' phenomena than the idea of telepathy even is.

Again brings us back to what you are referring to as reality - How do you determine whether their authoratative answers are valid or not?
What general principles did you apply to arrive at this conclusion?

It's a simple process. Is there evidence (reality-based) that supports the claim? Is there evidence (reality-based) that contradicts the claim?

Unless you clear up the above query, a theist could just as easily tentatively suggest that the failure of an atheist to acknowledge the authority of god is an example of human fallibility

No they can't because that suggestion presumes the existence of 'God' has already been established... which it has not.

well since you admit you are deluded, how do you determine that you are not deluded in regard to god?
Again, what general principles do you apply to come to such conclusions?
How would a deluded person know whether they are deluded or not?

The claim of 'God' has existed for many millenia without one iota of supportive evidence and an ever increasing mountain of contradictory evidence. Theism, it seems contradicts reality and that's how I know I am not deluded with respect to 'God'.

The principle is simple. Does evidence exist? If so, is it supportive or contradictory (or not related as the case may be)?

I would suspect that the best way to determine if you are deluded about something is to take what you consider to be true and test it against reality. If reality disagrees then you are most definately deluded. Of course, you have to be willing to live with the emotional consequences of being incorrect.

words like "reality" mean a lot of things to a lot of different people.
And it begs the question when the very topic being discussed is what things are real and what things are not

Consistence, persistence, and non-contradictory.

Actually that is not my claim
My claim is that evidence can only be verified by qualified persons - science operates out of the same paradigm

I must have mistaken you for a theist then. Sometimes evidence can only be attained by some groups of qualified people. Verification can really be performed by anyone whose interested. Even though I am not qualified to have found the original evidence of bucky balls, I can certainly verify their exstence with a run of the mill microsocope and a sample.

Then you have to establish your authority to over ride the claims of theism

That's a mistake in thought process. It's not a human "authority" whom overrides the claims of theism. It's reality itself that contradicts them.

You could do this by stating your general principles otherwise you are just stating your opinions, which may not be regarded as valid, just as the opinions of a high school drop out on the nature of an electron are not considered valid

They have been stated. Consider it evidence-based thinking. SouthStar and various sciforums members had some similar conversations in the past. He really tried harder and harder to wield logic, critical thinking, scientific knowledge, etc. towards showing that 'God' exists. Like you he did a good job of constucting logical argument but he always came up short. Lack of supportive evidence, presence of contradictory evidence, and critical thinking finally clicked for him and he could no longer deny what reality was saying. I hope these discussions give you the opportunity to exercise your mind in a similar way and figure out how to distinguish what is real from what is not.

 

[LiveInFaith]

My question is what becomes of the rituals when the perfection of performing rituals is achieved - do they all remain? Do they all become redundant? Or does it require a further analysis to determine which rituals remain and which become redundant?

There is no perfection (ultimate accomplishment?) in rituals. They are repetitive.

Funeral ceremony, you do it every time one family member dead.

One spells 'mantra' everytime attending exams, nothing to do with capability of working the exams, but often make one feel more comfortable to deal with stressing situation.

Or maybe you mean such rituals that aimed directly to 'communicate' with God? After many practices, maybe one experiences 'trance' situation, feeling like one soul can be independent of one's body, which you might call it perfection; but still, communication repeats.

To use ritual as 'indoctrination tool', as mentioned somewhere here in the thread, it is still the same; indoctrination needs repetition, again and again. Even when the aim has been accomplished, indoctrination goes on, maintained.

 

[SkinWalker]

Repetition is a good point with regard to rituals, LiveInFaith.

The jackal reveals his true colours

I wasn't aware that my colors were unapparent. Was there some information you felt was held secret until my heartfelt advice of self-fornication was given? Would another response to your impertinence have been more appropriate? Perhaps, but the one I offered had the advantage of being not only heartfelt but also of being to the point.

But beyond just being impertinent, one can only wonder at your real problem is with someone else participating in a public thread. The most likely explanation is that you're annoyed that someone actually offered information you didn't want discussed. Perhaps you'd rather accept that theological mumbo-jumbo is real and shouldn't be analyzed or criticized by infidels or non-believers. Clearly you're opposed to the perspective that theology is just magical thinking and that the only reality that matters in this universe is the material, so any comments that come from that point of view are unwelcome to you, eh?

Don't fret, then. From now on, I'll comment to others about your threads and B.S. but I'll not bother with comments that are directly to you after this one. And, true to the "jackal" you accuse me of being, I'll adopt a new avatar: Anubis. An ancient god of Egyptian mythology that predates even Osiris as the original god of the dead. His post-Osiris duty was to Judge the Hearts of the dead as he conveyed them to the underworld, testing knowledge and truth. In this way, Anubis could be considered the god of the skeptic, questioning the truth of all those that passed his way, weighing their hearts on the Scales of Justice.

Bow down and worship Anubis, for he is as logically real as any other god of humanity.

 

[lightgigantic]

Skinwalker

congratulations

 

[lightgigantic]

Crunchy Cat

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
so when you state that religion is invalid, why is it true if it is inconsistent, non-persistent and contradictory to the claims of theism?
”



Because reality agrees.

Then once again we are back with what general principles you use to determine reality since you have gien an inferior ontological status to the claims of theism - obviously you are applying something more than consistency, persistent and non -contradictory - so please tell us what it is

Authority is a real phenomena, sentience is a real phenomena, the act of creating things is a real phenomena, reward is a real phenomena, punishment is a real phenomena, attraction to fantastic ideas is a real phenomena. It seems the idea of 'God' is constructed from more 'real' phenomena than the idea of telepathy even is.

So what is the "authority" they are responding to?

It's a simple process. Is there evidence (reality-based) that supports the claim? Is there evidence (reality-based) that contradicts the claim?

So in otherwords to actually determine that a statement like "all people from a particular race are bad" is true and real all that is required is for sufficient numbers of people to agree that it is true?

No they can't because that suggestion presumes the existence of 'God' has already been established... which it has not.

To which they can respond "You are working out of the presumption that god does not exist" (something you can not prove also)

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
well since you admit you are deluded, how do you determine that you are not deluded in regard to god?
Again, what general principles do you apply to come to such conclusions?
How would a deluded person know whether they are deluded or not?
”

The claim of 'God' has existed for many millenia without one iota of supportive evidence and an ever increasing mountain of contradictory evidence.

I think the claims of numerous philsophers and scientists is more than an iota, that along with the fact that the theist population is in the majority on the planet - all these seems to suggest that you are in fact deluded, at least deluded in ascertaining the premises why you are not deluded

Theism, it seems contradicts reality and that's how I know I am not deluded with respect to 'God'.

Once again, this word "reality" means a lot of things to different people, and it begs the question like a sore thumb in discussions that are pivoting on the very point of "what is real"

The principle is simple. Does evidence exist? If so, is it supportive or contradictory (or not related as the case may be)?

There is also the question of the person perusing the evidence - like for instance if went to a murder scene, all the evidence required to catch the culprit is right there under your nose, but you don't know how to perceie it, how to collect it nor how to draw conclusions from it

I would suspect that the best way to determine if you are deluded about something is to take what you consider to be true and test it against reality.

So if I want to test whether the idea that "all black people should be killed" it is sufficient to present the idea to my local KKK council?

If reality disagrees then you are most definately deluded. Of course, you have to be willing to live with the emotional consequences of being incorrect.

Hey they all gave me th e thumbs up - go grab a flaming brand and some rope

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
words like "reality" mean a lot of things to a lot of different people.
And it begs the question when the very topic being discussed is what things are real and what things are not ”



Consistence, persistence, and non-contradictory.

But you don't consistently apply these things, as previously indicated, so obviously these things are secondary to another ontological premise - please tell us whatthat premise is

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Then you have to establish your authority to over ride the claims of theism
”



That's a mistake in thought process. It's not a human "authority" whom overrides the claims of theism. It's reality itself that contradicts them.

So when science says "the earth was like XYZ 3 000 000 years ago, is that a claim from reality or a claim by humans?

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
You could do this by stating your general principles otherwise you are just stating your opinions, which may not be regarded as valid, just as the opinions of a high school drop out on the nature of an electron are not considered valid ”



They have been stated. Consider it evidence-based thinking. SouthStar and various sciforums members had some similar conversations in the past. He really tried harder and harder to wield logic, critical thinking, scientific knowledge, etc. towards showing that 'God' exists. Like you he did a good job of constucting logical argument but he always came up short. Lack of supportive evidence, presence of contradictory evidence, and critical thinking finally clicked for him and he could no longer deny what reality was saying. I hope these discussions give you the opportunity to exercise your mind in a similar way and figure out how to distinguish what is real from what is not.

Thats all fine but you still haven't shown how evidence is self evident

 

[SkinWalker]

And, as is plainly seen by LG's newest tactic, he/she isn't interested in discussion so much as actually preaching. I have to hand it to him, he understood that outright preaching was against the rules of the forum, so he had to disguise his rants as "discussion," cloaking them in a pseudo-epistemology that was never shown to have any logical basis.

LG acts affronted (and probably is) when others have the gall to question his assertions and, instead of dealing with his own assertions, relies on the strawman approach by requiring those that disagree and question to 'prove' their own positions.

What a troll LG has turned out to be. Perhaps he'll at least do me the courtesy of copy/pasting my post here into his rant thread where he's posting all the negative and critical responses to his lunacy.

 

[lightgigantic]

Skinwalker

Until you have something to contribute, try posting here

 

[lightgigantic]

Live in Faith

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
My question is what becomes of the rituals when the perfection of performing rituals is achieved - do they all remain? Do they all become redundant? Or does it require a further analysis to determine which rituals remain and which become redundant? ”

There is no perfection (ultimate accomplishment?) in rituals. They are repetitive.

Funeral ceremony, you do it every time one family member dead.

So rituals pertinent to the temporary body are obviously not eternal - agreed
Don't know how that corresponds to your opening statement since the results of accomplishing a funeral seem like a one off for the person innvolved

What if there are some rituals that are done both on th eliberated and conditioned platform (You know - like th eold buddhist addage - before liberation - carry water , after liberation - carry water)

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy Cat
Then once again we are back with what general principles you use to determine reality since you have gien an inferior ontological status to the claims of theism - obviously you are applying something more than consistency, persistent and non -contradictory - so please tell us what it is

Nothing more than what was already stated.

So what is the "authority" they are responding to?

Othe people and themselves.

So in otherwords to actually determine that a statement like "all people from a particular race are bad" is true and real all that is required is for sufficient numbers of people to agree that it is true?

Nope. Testing that statement against reality would quickly bring to surface the flaw in the statement. 'Bad' does not objectively exist. It's an ever-changing human tolerance to various forms and degrees of behavior.

To which they can respond "You are working out of the presumption that god does not exist" (something you can not prove also)

They could, and in matters of existence in particular, a negative cannot be proven... the onus is all on the claimer of the positive (hence, that response is meaningless). Consequently, the claim of the Christian 'God' can be contradicted with existing knowledge (hence falsified).

I think the claims of numerous philsophers and scientists is more than an iota, that along with the fact that the theist population is in the majority on the planet - all these seems to suggest that you are in fact deluded, at least deluded in ascertaining the premises why you are not deluded

The existence of claim isn't evidence for what the claims are asserting. Majority concensus doesn't equate to truth (I am actually surprised you don't appear to know that).

Once again, this word "reality" means a lot of things to different people, and it begs the question like a sore thumb in discussions that are pivoting on the very point of "what is real"

Consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory.

There is also the question of the person perusing the evidence - like for instance if went to a murder scene, all the evidence required to catch the culprit is right there under your nose, but you don't know how to perceie it, how to collect it nor how to draw conclusions from it

Sometimes expertese is required to discover evidence. Once discovered, it can be shared with the prosecution (verifiers and certainly not experts in evidence discovery).

So if I want to test whether the idea that "all black people should be killed" it is sufficient to present the idea to my local KKK council?

If you tested the idea against reality it would be quickly discovered that the question is a subjective yes/no opinion and reality doesn't have an opinion.

Hey they all gave me th e thumbs up - go grab a flaming brand and some rope

?

But you don't consistently apply these things, as previously indicated, so obviously these things are secondary to another ontological premise - please tell us whatthat premise is

Of course not, I am human and have the default behavior to believe / think emotionally wrapped up in my genetics. That doesn't detract from the correctness of the premise. It just means that humans don't naturally think that way.

So when science says "the earth was like XYZ 3 000 000 years ago, is that a claim from reality or a claim by humans?

Science is a processs and doesn't really say anything. The claim of the earth's age is from humans. The evidence is provided by reality. This evidence is an example of what might contradict a theistic claim of the earth being only a few thousand years old.

Thats all fine but you still haven't shown how evidence is self evident

Evidence is a piece of reality. Reality itself is consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory. It's mere-presence and the fact that we are literally part of it's structure makes it self-evident.

 

[lightgigantic]

Crunchy cat

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I think the claims of numerous philsophers and scientists is more than an iota, that along with the fact that the theist population is in the majority on the planet - all these seems to suggest that you are in fact deluded, at least deluded in ascertaining the premises why you are not deluded ”



The existence of claim isn't evidence for what the claims are asserting. Majority concensus doesn't equate to truth (I am actually surprised you don't appear to know that).

I only raised it because you brought it up it dilineating the nature of "reality"

Consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory.

To what? Your subjective notions of reality?

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
There is also the question of the person perusing the evidence - like for instance if went to a murder scene, all the evidence required to catch the culprit is right there under your nose, but you don't know how to perceie it, how to collect it nor how to draw conclusions from it ”



Sometimes expertese is required to discover evidence. Once discovered, it can be shared with the prosecution (verifiers and certainly not experts in evidence discovery).

How does this tally with your statement at the end of this post

Evidence is a piece of reality. Reality itself is consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory. It's mere-presence and the fact that we are literally part of it's structure makes it self-evident.

If you are on the murder scene are you not a part of the structure?
Why can't you see the evidence then?

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
So if I want to test whether the idea that "all black people should be killed" it is sufficient to present the idea to my local KKK council? ”



If you tested the idea against reality it would be quickly discovered that the question is a subjective yes/no opinion and reality doesn't have an opinion.

Then if there are ultimately no decision s to be made regarding reality an the variety of values it presents, why do you vehemently oppose theism?

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
But you don't consistently apply these things, as previously indicated, so obviously these things are secondary to another ontological premise - please tell us whatthat premise is ”



Of course not, I am human and have the default behavior to believe / think emotionally wrapped up in my genetics. That doesn't detract from the correctness of the premise. It just means that humans don't naturally think that way.

Your first sentence doesn't correlate with the second - what to speak of the third - you will have to explain yourself a bit more clearly

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
So when science says "the earth was like XYZ 3 000 000 years ago, is that a claim from reality or a claim by humans? ”



Science is a processs and doesn't really say anything. The claim of the earth's age is from humans. The evidence is provided by reality. This evidence is an example of what might contradict a theistic claim of the earth being only a few thousand years old.

So if science is ultimately subjective (the only thing real about it is the evidence, not the guesses what the evidence indicates) and religion is ultimately subjective why do you choose one over the other?