sure, even atheists can study scripture
but when you come to application ... well, that's something else entirely ...
Here you go...
- Thread starter swarm
- Start date
but when you come to application ... well, that's something else entirely ...
Actually it proves more difficult to find a single post where you don't attack what is presented for evidence of god/validity of religion (attack with the standards of empiricism ... which is in itself a fallacy since one wouldn't expect such a methodology to be capable of delivering the goods.
all you have to do is take a dive in the google search previously posted
:shrug:
That's the point.
If you are not even at first base with issues of application, you're judgment is worthless ... what to speak if you possess great reserves of ideological energy to the contrary.
That's kind of like a jijnasuh. IOW you are talking about a subcategory of curiosity ... needless to say such qualities of curiosity can easily be paralyzed if one has bigger issues at the table.
IOW an adamant atheist certainly has a diminished sense of theistic curiosity .. .particularly when the issue of application ("actually getting off one's laurels") arises.
Of course an atheist could humor a theist and adopt the practices - generally of course they would never lower themselves to something so ludicrous - but if they do, then yes, their values get thoroughly reworked as new knowledge presents itself
Once again, its a moot question since belief is always a prerequisite for application
In all cases, action follows belief.
Even your copious pro-atheist posting on this site clearly shows you are not coming to the table empty handed
Ok this is what the issue is.
You argue that if evidence was available, you would act accordingly and follow it up. Since there is no evidence, there is nothing to follow up, so there is no god, so now we can all go home.
This is a circular argument, since the entrance point into knowledge (at the least the type you are alluding to, the personally verifiable type) begins not on following up the evidence, but by following up the qualifications that grant evidence perceivable.
IOW if you were really interested, you would be moving the discussion towards the question "By what qualification does an individual make a claim about god?"
Instead you would prefer a discussion, much like the other 1000 googled, namely measuring the claims of evidence against your preconceived atheist notions.
IOW your question is anything but straight forward
So you're worried about the fact that I will attack the evidence you present?
Surely such evidence should be beyond reproach?
Or are you concerned that it will be shown not to be the evidence you believe it to be?
Again, if you're merely concerned I won't understand it - that is surely only something we can comment on once you have presented the evidence?
My judgement can only be considered worthless AFTER I you have presented the evidence.
If my judgement is "I do not understand it, so perhaps I should get qualified in such matters before making further comment" - how is this worthless?
So please provide the evidence.
But you won't understand it.
Let us be the judge of that.
But you won't understand it.
Blah blah blah.
And if they don't then it is the practitioners fault, I guess.
So - please present the evidence so that at least we might humour you - with the possibility of having new knowledge presented to us.
Even someone who does not believe the icr-cream vendor is outside when their child claims it is, and merely humours their child, can be rewarded with the delights of an ice-cream.
And I have shown otherwise.
So, I will ask again: Is belief in God a prerequisite of the application you demand. I.e. Is someone who has no belief in the existence of God able to apply themselves? Yes or no.
Again, I have previously shown otherwise. So, I will ask again: Is belief in God a prerequisite of the application you demand. I.e. Is someone who has no belief in the existence of God able to apply themselves? Yes or no.
What I come to the table with is irrelevant as far as asking you to present the evidence you claim exists. Nor am I the one purporting the need for application in order to witness the evidence - merely perhaps to understand the evidence, which is entirely different.
What matters is what you are coming to the table with.
You make claims - what others bring to the table to try to interpret, question and examine those claims is up to them - but should in no way affect what you present.
Or do you only present the evidence when people aren't tooled up to question it? :shrug:
So now you are admitting that there is not even a "pyschedelic t-shirt" for you to present as evidence?
So I will ask again: does the application (i.e. the attaining of the qualification in order to perceive the evidence) require one to believe in God? Is it a prerequisite for the qualification?
And in order to understand the application (the attaining of the qualification) I am asking, yet again, if a prerequisite is that I believe in God? Is this too hard for you to understand??
Why is it a loaded question?
It is a simple question of whether the necessary application (i.e. reaching the qualification) requires a prerequisite belief in God?
This is not loaded in any way. Nor does it brings anything pre-conceived into it.
All you are doing is arguing against the person asking the question rather than what is being requested, or the point made.
So I will ask again: does the application (i.e. the attaining of the qualification) require one to believe in God?
Sarkus
“
Your previous 1000 posts clearly show that you will do anything but consider that.
As this thread illustrates, you can't even begin discussion on it.
As mentioned many times before, the potential for error surrounds knowledge at its three inter-points - theory, application and conclusion.
IOW until you address this issue ....
... there's no scope for progressive discussion between us
“
”
IOW you relegate the discussion to mere issues of surface meaning, first impressions, dominant myths, official pronouncements, traditional clichés, received wisdom, and mere opinions
the problem is that you are also coming to the table with things of your own which inhibit the learning process
The only pedagogical models that tend to agree with your outlook come from the previous century
Basically your advocated pedagogical method is effective for putting forward an uninformed opinion ...
its not clear what you suppose a psychedelic t-shirt print to evidence about a claim of physics
For instance, even if none of us are doctors, we could engage in a critical discussion of medical training and services, but such a discussion is confined to their body of conclusions - so for instance we could discuss the validity of a treatment by examining how it is applied and the results of it, but we can't really discuss introducing new or extraneous medical procedures, since such issues are deeply embedded within the fields of application and conclusion (something which is beyond us, given our current knowledge base).
So, as it stands with yourself, you insist on engaging in such a discussion of the claims of theism outside it. Perfectly fine for atheistic theory about what god "really is", but quite distinct from pedagogical criticism.
Its kind of like comparing Richard Dawkins with Anthony Flew.
This only becomes a fallacy when one insists with such a line of questioning to forestall the real discussion that underpins it
:shrug:
more so I am worried about taking the path of your 1000+ other posts since they all work out of the same fallacy
Once again, I painfully remind you that crediting or discrediting evidence requires an element of practice and qualification. If on the other hand you simply wanted to let fly with an opinion .....
feel free to recap on your previous 1000 posts
“
That's the point.
Your previous 1000 posts clearly show that you will do anything but consider that.
As this thread illustrates, you can't even begin discussion on it.
Perhaps.
As mentioned many times before, the potential for error surrounds knowledge at its three inter-points - theory, application and conclusion.
You can't even read about the discussions that surround application so I'm afraid that opportunity is not available to you
amazing what a little bit of application can accomplish, eh?
I'm afraid that you haven't shown that since there are issues of application and belief even in your ice cream vendor example
Nevertheless a person in a submarine doesn't go outside searching for ice cream vendors for some funny reason.
The loaded q continues ....
IOW until you address this issue ....
... there's no scope for progressive discussion between us
“
”
then you are not placing the topic in the arena of critical pedagogy
IOW you relegate the discussion to mere issues of surface meaning, first impressions, dominant myths, official pronouncements, traditional clichés, received wisdom, and mere opinions
Sure,
the problem is that you are also coming to the table with things of your own which inhibit the learning process
The only pedagogical models that tend to agree with your outlook come from the previous century
a test of evidence occurs at the level of conclusion, which is built up from application which in turn has a foundation in theory.
Basically your advocated pedagogical method is effective for putting forward an uninformed opinion ...
hehe
its not clear what you suppose a psychedelic t-shirt print to evidence about a claim of physics
sure, much like its a requirement for undergoing the rigors of tertiary education or even searching for ice cream vendors outside one's submarine on the ocean floor.
One can theoretically discuss issue of application that surround a claim, but it requires that one not re-invent the methodology (IOW such discussion has to be confined by what is the general accepted means of practitioners).
For instance, even if none of us are doctors, we could engage in a critical discussion of medical training and services, but such a discussion is confined to their body of conclusions - so for instance we could discuss the validity of a treatment by examining how it is applied and the results of it, but we can't really discuss introducing new or extraneous medical procedures, since such issues are deeply embedded within the fields of application and conclusion (something which is beyond us, given our current knowledge base).
So, as it stands with yourself, you insist on engaging in such a discussion of the claims of theism outside it. Perfectly fine for atheistic theory about what god "really is", but quite distinct from pedagogical criticism.
Its kind of like comparing Richard Dawkins with Anthony Flew.
Its loaded because at the moment there is no consensus between us about the requirements of application and qualification in the pursuit of knowledge.
This only becomes a fallacy when one insists with such a line of questioning to forestall the real discussion that underpins it
:shrug:
You do know that this is just you arguing a logical fallacy - ad hominem - attacking what you perceive of me (and what you perceive of the pattern of my previous 1000 posts) rather than the arguments / points / questions raised here?
If someone else asked these questions of you, would you deign to answer them - to provide what is being requested of you?
And you are preconceiving the level of "practice and qualification" that I, and not just I but everyone else who will read this thread and read about your "psychedlic t-shirt".
I am not writing these threads just for me - and your reluctance to answer because of what you perceive I bring to the table with me is disingenuous and pathetic.
I am asking the question(s) and making the points for anyone else who might happen upon this thread.
Here you have the perfect opportunity to provide your evidence and demonstrate to them that I (and perhaps everyone else) lacks the "practice and qualification" - but instead you choose to pre-empt them.
So please provide the evidence.
But you won't understand it.
Let us be the judge of that.
But you won't understand it.
Blah blah blah.
I'm sure we could if you actually provide the evidence or even bother to answer the simple question I am asking of you with regard whether belief in God is a pre-requisite. It is your reluctance in these matters that is making discussion impossible.
So please provide the evidence.
But you won't understand it.
Let us be the judge of that.
But you won't understand it.
Blah blah blah.
Indeed - which is why I'm asking you also whether the application required to make God tangible and observable requires a pre-requisite belief in God? Not a difficult question. But you are refusing to answer it. :shrug:
There are no issues of belief in the example. As stated - the person does not believe that the vendor exists, but still goes through the application.
Red Herring logical fallacy. As mentioned, we are not discussing people who have the belief that the vendor does not exist, but merely with people who LACK the belief that the vendor does exist.
Again, you are trying to squirm from answering the question, and again you are being pathetic.
Not loaded at all. To be loaded both the "yes" or "no" answer have to presuppose something that has not been accepted or proven by both parties.
The question: Is belief in God a prerequisite of the application you demand. I.e. Is someone who has no belief in the existence of God able to apply themselves? Yes or no? is therefore NOT a loaded question.
Your claim of such is thus another red-herring.
You even then say, further in your post:
And yet you claim "loaded question" when I am trying to reach that very consensus of what is a requirement (belief in God or not) of application etc.
Nothing loaded in this - no presupposition at all. Either something is needed or it is not.
Now please, have the decency to answer: Is belief in God a prerequisite of the application you demand. I.e. Is someone who has no belief in the existence of God able to apply themselves? Yes or no?
Red-herring fallacy again. What and where I want to place the topic is irrelevant.
And as for where you feel I am relegating the discussion - you are preventing discussion: you have been asked for 2 things: (1) the "psychedlic t-shirt"; and (2) the answer to an un-loaded simple question.
Now please, have the decency to answer: Is belief in God a prerequisite of the application you demand. I.e. Is someone who has no belief in the existence of God able to apply themselves? Yes or no?
Red herring - irrelevancy.
What is being asked is 2 things: (1) the "psychedlic t-shirt"; and (2) the answer to an un-loaded simple question.
Now please, have the decency to answer: Is belief in God a prerequisite of the application you demand. I.e. Is someone who has no belief in the existence of God able to apply themselves? Yes or no?
And you answer with:
But you won't understand it.
Let us be the judge of that.
But you won't understand it.
Show us and perhaps we can then discuss.
But you won't understand it.
As said, let us be the judge of that.
...
:shrug:
You are making presumptions of existing application and qualification not just of me but of everyone else that reads this thread.
Please don't.
Just provide the evidence, answer the questions, and then perhaps this discussion can actually start.
Red-herring. Irrelevant.
That point is to show, as you well know, that the physicist can provide evidence, even if it is not understood without necessary qualification.
Please now do the same.
I'll ask again:
Is belief in God a prerequisite of the application you demand. I.e. Is someone who has no belief in the existence of God able to apply themselves? Yes or no?
As mentioned, there is nothing loaded about it. I am asking whether a thing (belief in God) is a requirement of application and qualification.
"So you need wood to build this cabin?"
"That's a loaded question... we haven't got a consensus on what is required to build this cabin yet!"
:roflmao:
The only fallacies here are your red-herrings and ad-hom attacks (i.e. attacking the pattern of my previous posts rather than the questions asked). YOU are the one stalling, LG.
I am merely asking for a couple of things, and you are spending so much time trying to avoid providing.
Yep, I must be stalling.
I see you have nothing much to say except to continue with your loaded q.
In short, as long there is no consensus between our understandings of pedagogy (and not on cabin design ...) there's no scope for a direct answer forthcoming.
I dunno.
Maybe you should read up on critical pedagogy or something.
:shrug:
Since objectivity and neutrality are not possible options for humans (as we do not have infinite resources), as far as I can see, what remains is checking one's interests and siding with one of the parties. Which is indeed an act of faith.
(If we don't side with any party, this means that the conflict isn't actually relevant to us, which begs the question of why we are paying attention to the conflict to begin with.)
Application can provide only a limited proof/evidence because the field of application is often so vast and so complex that I do not think it is reasonable to expect any definitive proof or evidence within a foreseeable time.
I don't see how anyone can embark on the path of empirically testing anything without also in advance setting some limits.
"We will sail for two months. And if in this time we don't find suitable land, we will turn back."
or "I will pray every day for two months. If in this time my wishes aren't granted, I will give up praying and conclude that there is no God."
But in the case of empirically testing religious claims, everything is so much more complex that defining what a reasonable limit is, seems impossible.
To use the above example - What justification is there to conclude that if after two months of praying the wishes haven't been granted, this is indeed proof that there is no God? I can see none, other than one's own imagination.
What did you have in mind as a way to resolve such a conflict?
Do you come from the position that religious claims can indeed be tested in the manner of a controlled empirical experiment, such as laboratory chemistry experiments are controlled empirical experiments?
If yes, what is your justification for holding such a position?
As far as I can see, because of the content of religious claims, the best one can do is a so-called natural experiment or a quasi-experiment, similar to the way they do them in political and social sciences, or in ecology, meteorology where performing a controlled experiment is prohibitively difficult or impossible.
When testing religious claims, one does not have a control sample nor constants that one could rely on, at least I do not see any. Unlike in so many other experiments, in testing religious claims, everything is being tested, especially the tester/experimenter, his sense of who he is, his intentions, his abilities.
So far, I am not convinced by the line of reasoning that one ought to do an "experiment" when it comes to religion. I am also skeptical that anyone arrived at religious truths by experiment and could as such take credit for arriving at them. (There are scriptures that clearly make the point that the Absolute truth cannot be discovered experimentally! Eg. Iso, Introduction; SB 2.7.13, pp.)
Framing it in the terms of science and calling it an experiment may be initially appealing to those more science-minded. But once looking into religious matters even just a bit, an attitude of experimenting, especially of trying to carry out a controlled experiment, seems to be completely misplaced, because part of the "religious experiment" is to be willing to devote one's whole life to it, everything one has, everything one thinks one is or could be. This rules out any notion of experimenting, unless one already has an unshakable conviction that one will have infinitely many equally auspicious life times so that one may spend them in performing controlled experiments. And how many people have such a conviction?
I often hear that one should experimentally test religious claims. But I fail to see how this is possible.
(And it's not like, for example, laboratory chemistry experiments are perfectly conclusive either; infinite regress seems to lurk everywhere, if only one allows to see it. Also, there is this tendency that the things that seem to be testable in the traditional scientific sense have very little bearing on our lives.)
Are there constants and control samples that a person can rely on, be sure of in a religious experiment? Prior to beginning a religious experiment, is there anything that a person is fully sure of or can be sure of?
If anything, it seems it is part of the religious experiment to hold, _on faith_, that such and such are constants and control samples.
Or what am I missing here?
I think there are prerequisites for application, but they may be of several kinds.
One such prerequisite seems to be the belief that God and/or knowledge of God is somehow relevant in one's life.
Such as for example an inkling that some life problem that one is facing could successfully be solved only by God, or by knowledge of God, or by something somehow connected to God.
Whether this problem is unhappiness, poverty, disease, a thirst for knowledge in general, or a feeling that life would somehow be crucially incomplete if one would not know the truth about this being that so many people talk about and refer to as "God".
Another set of prerequisites concern general common sense, general work ethics and general interpersonal skills. In my experience, quite a bit of the communication between theists and atheists breaks down because these prerequisites are in poor shape (usually on the side of the atheist).
WTF?
Atheists are in poor shape with "general common sense, general work ethics and general interpersonal skills".
I've read some blanket statements in my time but that's going some.
Maybe it's just that they don't make fatuous remarks often enough
WTF?
Atheists are in poor shape with "general common sense, general work ethics and general interpersonal skills".
I've read some blanket statements in my time but that's going some.
Maybe it's just that they don't make fatuous remarks often enough
Hang 'The Atheists' is not a new concept......
What you see as a loaded question, everyone else will see as a quite simple unloaded question that you are continuing to squirm away from.
I am asking you a question - I am not asking you to teach. Pedagogy is irrelevant with this simple question. The answer is a rather simple "yes" or "no".
Any deflection is on your part as you appear unwilling to answer the straightforward question.
Do you question matters of pedagogy when anyone asks if you'd like a cup of tea?
So why raise such irrelevant matters now?
It is quite clear that when asked either to "put up or shut up" you appear unable to do either.
:shrug:
You see how Signal is able to respond to the question without attempt to deflect? Now - I will ask you one last time: Is belief in God a prerequisite of the application you demand. I.e. Is someone who has no belief in the existence of God able to apply themselves? Yes or no?
And once again there is nothing loaded in this... either you do require belief in God before applying yourself, or you don't. Which is it?
If you countinue to deflect by claiming it is a loaded question - you are wrong (as you seem to misunderstand what a loaded question is).
If you deflect to matters of pedagogy - you are merely avoiding the question with a red-herring.
Is belief in God a prerequisite of the application you demand. I.e. Is someone who has no belief in the existence of God able to apply themselves? Yes or no?
Signal, thank you for providing an answer where LG seems utterly devoid of decency to do so.
However, I shall wait to see if LG answers, as it was to him that the OP of this thread was addressed.
Yes, exactly.
An outsider or a beginner in theism certainly has some belief in God, but that belief in God is probably (as far as this difference can be theoretically understood) quite different than the belief of a well-seasoned theist (even though to some extent both might use the exact same ways to put their belief in God into words).
For me, the biggest threat/handicap is that I do not have omniscience, and that instead, I have to take things on faith, on trust. I am afraid that it is only if I had omniscience that I could make any decisions or devote myself to this or that. But that without omniscience, no decision I make is actually justified, and I have to question it forever.
It seems this is the underlying theme of many atheistic arguments: "The more important it is to be right about something, the higher need to be the standards of what constitutes valid evidence for it. If something is of infinite importance (such as being right about what God's nature etc. is), those standards should be infinitely high."
From the discussions with theists, it has been my experience that theists tend to take this point lightly, and often with disdain.
If someone says "I know K. is the Supreme Personality of Godhead", to me, this implies that the speaker of that sentence has come to this conclusion via his own omniscience.
Perhaps coming from the position of "only omniscience can make justified decisions" is an attempt to come to some finite understanding of God on one's own, parallel to and separate from all existing theistic scriptures and practices; a way to avoid all issues of trust, faith, hope and mistakes.
And perhaps it is therefore doomed to fail.
Well you just seem full of shit and empty claims, but I'm willing to give you a chance to show me that I'm wrong. Instead of taking up the challenge you are full of nothing but dodges and excuses.
So once more here is your chance. Make some use of it.
A post remarkably similar to the example of an inimical high school drop out labeling everything a physics professor says as crap while simultaneously demanding to be educated.
At least in the beginning, attitude is everything kid.
Signal picked up on the subtleties straight away
huh?
The q (even your loaded one) is completely surrounded by issues of (critical) pedagogy
Critical pedagogue Ira Shor defines critical pedagogy as
"Habits of thought, reading, writing, and speaking which go beneath surface meaning, first impressions, dominant myths, official pronouncements, traditional clichés, received wisdom, and mere opinions, to understand the deep meaning, root causes, social context, ideology, and personal consequences of any action, event, object, process, organization, experience, text, subject matter, policy, mass media, or discourse." (Empowering Education, 129)
Or alternatively, any move on your behalf to continue with your loaded q is futile.
:shrug:
If their head was so screwed up as to question the existence of tea leaves, perhaps.
You might also care to notice how their answer is also incorporated in the answer I provided.
IOW I am bringing to you attention that belief in anything is a prerequisite to any issue of application that surrounds it.
Rather than discuss this point ( a point perhaps best examined through critical pedagogy), you are trying to paint theistic claims as some sort of uniquely farcical means of acquiring knowledge (which is indeed the prime force behind the agenda of your loaded question).
IOW you are not asking as a means for knowing. You are asking as a means for asserting an agenda. This is the the general principle that any loaded q's operate out of.
I'm not sure what you see the requirement for omniscience is.
There's a certain glass ceiling imposed by conditioned existence - IOW for as long as our desire is relegated to material affairs, god as a known object remains elusive - although there is also a sliding scale as we gradually move progress (the whole "sraddha to prema" model)
I think this is more of a problem of bringing empiricism to bear on an object that stands as greater than the seer. Kind of like trying to get to know the president requires a lot more than just the physical process of opening a door to his office.
Not necessarily.
For instance if a person says "I know that Jane is my mother and John is my father" does that imply they are having recourse to a type of consciousness that was present during their conception?
yes, perhaps .....
Yet answered the question. Go figure.
That is the FIRST time you have been as explicit.
A simple "Yes" would also have sufficed.
Had you done so when first asked you might have avoided wasting your time on ad hominem attacks and red-herrings.
So I'm guessing you can not see the glaring logical fallacy of the situation you describe, where you must already believe in God in order to perceive God?
"I believe the ice-cream vendor is outside so I will stand up and have a look out of the window to see it. You, on the other hand, do not believe the ice-cream vendor is outside, therefore you are incapable of having a look outside." See how flawed your position is?
(I'm going to guess you'll go with the red-herring of a submariner - and thus further waste your time?)
Anyone can see the "psychedelic t-shirt" you gave as an analogy, and yet any equivalent for God is only available to those who already believe in God?
It is quite clear, LG, that you have nothing of value to those outside your "believe to believe" circle, other than your confidence.
"I require some evidence before I'll believe in God."
"Sure, you need to apply yourself though, and get qualified."
"And how do I do that?"
"Well, a prerequisite is that you need to believe in God..."
Valueless.
More like it, its probably the first time you've actually read what I've posted
From #82
From #84
There's more if you scroll through posts on previous pages.
Its something I have been saying in almost every post
:shrug:
Hardly
Its the nature of a loaded q that there are other issues more pertinent to what it is staging for discussion
hehe
and here we are at stage two with your loaded q, eh?
Its probably more conducive to back track to the problems you find with "belief in anything is a prerequisite to any issue of application that surrounds it" since thats the general principle I am advocating
You can't see how this requires that a person have at least an initial belief in the existence of ice cream vendors?
If you don't attribute any credible existence to ice cream vendors, what would provoke you to look for one?
The submarine example simply illustrates how even with belief in certain objects, the seer can be contextualized in environments (both physical and social) that effectively prohibit them from inquiry.
Once again, you can read all about this under the topic of critical pedagogy.
Not really.
You and your 1000+ posts are full of ideas about how various evidences put forward for god are nothing more than the equivalent of psychedelic t-shirt prints
and that my friend is the "load" of your loaded question.
Now that you have gotten that off your chest (much like you have in your other 1000 posts) maybe you can go back and examine the critical issues that surround it
yet nevertheless the same general principle applies for any area of tertiary study you care to mention - in fact if you were studying physics, you could well spend 2 or 3 years in such a state before you come to position of dealing directly with evidence
:shrug: