How Do Theists Separate Fact from Fiction?

[swarm]

I don't think ...

There you go. But I'll explain it..

Suppose we take rocket science ... suppose you were reasonably familiar with it. How would you propose to distinguish fact from fiction.....

those who by dint of investigation, discipline snd action have a familiarity with the foundation of the issue and thus have a reservoir of knowledge drawn from experience

This may well be a foreign concept to you since you are a theist, but the "experience" is from making, flying, and gathering data on actual rockets. You don't get to understand rocket science by reading bronze age myths, contemplating your navel, dancing in circles chanting hari krishna or any of the stuff you seem to think is some how relevant to being a god "scientist."

You have to actually do it. Make some rockets. Verify how trajectories work. Check out the nature of propellants. Figure out questions concerning stbility in flight. In short the pertinent point is rocket scientists are directly involved with actual rockets. But you don'r seem able to produce any god so far.

never encountered a normative description in scripture or in the discourses of a saintly person?

That does show some one wrote something down and they credit said "saint" with having opinions. So what? Normative descriptions don't mean anything other than some one felt you shouldn't pick your nose in public, or whatever.

Most the time the normative descriptions are completely ridiculous, just the customers and idiosyncrasies of a half forgotten time. What of it?

well if you want to reintroduce acceptance of authority at this point, there's also a ton of scriptural commentaries out there too

Its not who said it, its what was said and how well it maps to what is actual. A ton of dung does not a diamond make.

then you agree that it also has a distinct requirement for elements of application?

Not in the sense you are trying to make it out to be. All aspects are public. Tools, practice, supporting materials, answers, other people's replication of it, from top to bottom everything is there and publicly accessible. Basic rocket, here you go: http://space.about.com/od/activities/ss/bottlerocket.htm

You have yet to give me any god. There is no public information. Just empty, conflicting, speculative, unsupported "normative" claims and myths.

on the contrary mundane material advancemement has zero scope for progress.

Ah, Luddites with computers amuse me. In 3000 years your way has failed to do anything. Give science its 3000 years and see what happens. In a mere 2000 years we have come so far that the mind boggles.

Here's a good general introduction to the normative descriptions you are likely to encounter.

I almost hate to break it to you about that not being a normative claim.

BG 4.10 Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.

 

[lightgigantic]

There you go. But I'll explain it..



This may well be a foreign concept to you since you are a theist, but the "experience" is from making, flying, and gathering data on actual rockets. You don't get to understand rocket science by reading bronze age myths, contemplating your navel, dancing in circles chanting hari krishna or any of the stuff you seem to think is some how relevant to being a god "scientist."

You have to actually do it. Make some rockets. Verify how trajectories work. Check out the nature of propellants. Figure out questions concerning stbility in flight. In short the pertinent point is rocket scientists are directly involved with actual rockets. But you don'r seem able to produce any god so far.

The analogy illustrates the role that application plays in regards to any given knowable.

The analogy doesn't illustrate how everything must have an outcome similar to a rocket off an assembly line

That does show some one wrote something down and they credit said "saint" with having opinions. So what? Normative descriptions don't mean anything other than some one felt you shouldn't pick your nose in public, or whatever.

Most the time the normative descriptions are completely ridiculous, just the customers and idiosyncrasies of a half forgotten time. What of it?

actually most of the normative descriptions deal with being free from vice ... which kind of ties in with the initial theoretical construct given at the beginning (namely that consciousness is the tool of investigation)

Its not who said it, its what was said and how well it maps to what is actual. A ton of dung does not a diamond make.

once again, if you can't even draw a proper map of the normative descriptions that surround a claim (like for instance thinking that the normative descriptions that surround a theistic claim are non different from a social edict to refrain from picking one's nose in public) you don't really have the means to uncover what is actually being claimed ....

Not in the sense you are trying to make it out to be. All aspects are public. Tools, practice, supporting materials, answers, other people's replication of it, from top to bottom everything is there and publicly accessible. Basic rocket, here you go: http://space.about.com/od/activities/ss/bottlerocket.htm

all of which are rendered completely meaningless unless one has some capacity to unearth the practical implications of the science.

Ask a lay person if they agree with this

You have yet to give me any god. There is no public information. Just empty, conflicting, speculative, unsupported "normative" claims and myths.

easily traced to your incomprehension of the normative issues that surround the claim.

For instance a person can also see conflict within the variety of medical practitioners. One wants to operate, another wants to offer massage, another wants to give a needle, another acupuncture, another wants to change one's diet. All tends to indicate that the doctors are a bunch of bozos ... for as long as one cannot comprehend the normative descriptions that surround being a doctor ..

Ah, Luddites with computers amuse me. In 3000 years your way has failed to do anything. Give science its 3000 years and see what happens. In a mere 2000 years we have come so far that the mind boggles.

you' re excited by the prospect of more efficient dog business at the expense of a functioning ecosystem I take it?

I almost hate to break it to you about that not being a normative claim.

err ... I bring to your attention the first three nouns of the statement

 

[swarm]

The analogy illustrates the role that application plays in regards to any given knowable.

And by leaving off the most salient feature of that application, your analogy is false.

actually most of the normative descriptions deal with being free from vice ... which kind of ties in with the initial theoretical construct given at the beginning (namely that consciousness is the tool of investigation)

Since norms deal with social standards is this really some big surprise? Do you think not picking your nose in public isn't a normative standard? Do you even know what the ward means?

Is this supposed to be one of those blinding flash of the obvious things? I'd have to be pretty stone to go "wow dude, that's so deep" so far.

once again, if you can't even draw a proper map of the normative descriptions that surround a claim (like for instance thinking that the normative descriptions that surround a theistic claim are non different from a social edict to refrain from picking one's nose in public) you don't really have the means to uncover what is actually being claimed ....

And you seem to have little knowledge about what "normative description" actually means and you laughingly seem to think there is a difference between a theistic claim and picking one's nose in public. But that's why were are having this little discussion.

Map out the the normative descriptions that surround your claims and show how they are actually different from a social edict to refrain from picking one's nose in public.

all of which are rendered completely meaningless unless one has some capacity to unearth the practical implications of the science.

Don't you wish. I've explained trajectories to a four year old and had them grasp it just fine. Its only a matter of giving sufficient background and supporting materials and any one can access the basic materials. They may not get a Nobel prize, but they can know how to make a pingpong ball land on target just fine.

easily traced to your incomprehension of the normative issues that surround the claim.

So explain them.

For instance a person can also see conflict within the variety of medical practitioners. One wants to operate, another wants to offer massage, another wants to give a needle, another acupuncture, another wants to change one's diet

I seriously doubt you are going to get that sort of spread from actual doctors. And they aren't going to be very divergent about the underlying facts either. And they will have reasons for their positions, and be able to explain why they hold them, and give you expected outcomes, and be able to compare and contrast their position with those of the other doctors.

You seem to be able to do none of that. If you had half the precision of a doctor we'd already be done and I'd have been convinced.

you' re excited by ...

Look I already think low enough of you as it is. Try not to take it lower?

err ... I bring to your attention the first three nouns of the statement

Nouns are not what makes a statement normative or not.

"normative statements affirm how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, which actions are right or wrong."

"I am free from attachment, fear and anger" is not a normative statement.

"You should strive to be free from attachment, fear and anger" or "it is proper that one be free from attachment, fear and anger" are normative statements.

Free free to actually pick something with normative statements at any time now. Or to make it normative, it is wrong of you to complain that I can't understand the normative claims when what you offer has none.

 

[lightgigantic]

And by leaving off the most salient feature of that application, your analogy is false.

As far as I can see the only missing quality is your willingness to apply yourslef (probably due to your misconception that you're already there or something)

Since norms deal with social standards is this really some big surprise? Do you think not picking your nose in public isn't a normative standard? Do you even know what the ward means?

lol
normative standard for what?
Becoming knowledgeable of god?

Is this supposed to be one of those blinding flash of the obvious things? I'd have to be pretty stone to go "wow dude, that's so deep" so far.

Errr ... no more than the normative requirements for any knowable discipline are a "blinding flash" ... I mean its not like you can sit back and admire the sudden illumination of a physics student in their final year (but rather you have a means to grasp their , hopefully, gradual progress over several years)

And you seem to have little knowledge about what "normative description" actually means and you laughingly seem to think there is a difference between a theistic claim and picking one's nose in public. But that's why were are having this little discussion.

On the contrary, it's obvious that your familiarity with the term is not particularly well grounded.

Gawd.

Its even used in the context I indicate in science.

:shrug:

Map out the the normative descriptions that surround your claims and show how they are actually different from a social edict to refrain from picking one's nose in public.

I can't even begin to see a connection how you could relate the two

Don't you wish. I've explained trajectories to a four year old and had them grasp it just fine. Its only a matter of giving sufficient background and supporting materials and any one can access the basic materials. They may not get a Nobel prize, but they can know how to make a pingpong ball land on target just fine.

Kind of magic what a bit of application can do to render a piece of information coherent, eh?

So explain them.

Google "proactive interference" for some clues why it may prove difficult in your example.

IOW there's nothing to explain to you because you're convinced you've already arrived at the truth of the matter.

I seriously doubt you are going to get that sort of spread from actual doctors. And they aren't going to be very divergent about the underlying facts either. And they will have reasons for their positions, and be able to explain why they hold them, and give you expected outcomes, and be able to compare and contrast their position with those of the other doctors.

The doctors aren't the one's experiencing an epistemological crisis however ....

You seem to be able to do none of that. If you had half the precision of a doctor we'd already be done and I'd have been convinced.

If however you have a patient who is not willing to accept the language or the conclusions of the doctor, problems ensue.

Look I already think low enough of you as it is. Try not to take it lower?

Well you asked for some amusement.

Just pointing out the futility of technology as some sort of messianic Savior since material desire, the driving force behind technological application, is by nature crass, shallow and unsatisfactory.

Nouns are not what makes a statement normative or not.

"normative statements affirm how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, which actions are right or wrong."

erm ... nouns do make a statement normative

If you don't believe me, just try and make a normative statement about anything where the nouns do not play essential roles in granting it significance ...

"I am free from attachment, fear and anger" is not a normative statement.


"You should strive to be free from attachment, fear and anger" or "it is proper that one be free from attachment, fear and anger" are normative statements.

Now go back to the quote and see what is written

Free free to actually pick something with normative statements at any time now. Or to make it normative, it is wrong of you to complain that I can't understand the normative claims when what you offer has none.

I am beginning to wonder whether you have impediments to literacy skills

 

[(Q)]

the moral of my story is that god is not an intellectual endeavor. god is not a theory to prove or disprove. in other words, don't try to figure it out. just keep an open mind and an open heart and go with the flow. and if you're going to expend any effort trying to figure something out, focus on your own intentions.

Sounds like god is an acid trip.

 

[shichimenshyo]

If your not supposed to figure it out or attempt to understand it why even give it a name?

 

[Lori_7]

If your not supposed to figure it out or attempt to understand it why even give it a name?

why not? is it because that name bothers so many people? it doesn't bother me. :shrug:

 

[Lori_7]

Sounds like god is an acid trip.

well you can keep wishing Q...click your heels together 3 times and repeat..."there is no god. there is no god. there is no god."

 

[shichimenshyo]

why not? is it because that name bothers so many people? it doesn't bother me. :shrug:

Because in naming a thing you are Identifying it and in Identifying you must give it a definition...and defining something is to a degree attempting to understand it....do you see the problem with your previous statement now?

 

[Lori_7]

Because in naming a thing you are Identifying it and in Identifying you must give it a definition...and defining something is to a degree attempting to understand it....do you see the problem with your previous statement now?

no. when it comes to god, i'll understand what god wants me to understand, which is exactly what i'll need to understand...nothing more...nothing less.

and shich, can you define me? my name is lori.

 

[shichimenshyo]

no. when it comes to god, i'll understand what god wants me to understand, which is exactly what i'll need to understand...nothing more...nothing less.

and shich, can you define me? my name is lori.

I can give a broad and general definition of you in an attempt to understand you, but that's hardly the point here...you are not god. If god is not an endeavor then and only wants you to figure out what you need to, then god is something that should be deeply personal, and trying to inform others of his/hers/its intentions is entirely contradictory to figuring things out on your own.

Furthermore if you cant define, quantify or see something...then for all respective purposes it does not exist.

 

[(Q)]

well you can keep wishing Q...click your heels together 3 times and repeat..."there is no god. there is no god. there is no god."

It's funny how insane theists mirror what they perceive in a behavior not present in those they observe. Their whole lives are made up of the fiction they see in in the media. This must be why tv and movies depicting the supernatural are so popular with the deluded. The magic they see on the screen is the magic they believe to be real.

 

[Lori_7]

I can give a broad and general definition of you in an attempt to understand you, but that's hardly the point here...you are not god. If god is not an endeavor then and only wants you to figure out what you need to, then god is something that should be deeply personal, and trying to inform others of his/hers/its intentions is entirely contradictory to figuring things out on your own.

that's all i ever say...that a relationship with god is personal. that's what i say on this discussion forum.

Furthermore if you cant define, quantify or see something...then for all respective purposes it does not exist.

that is not correct.

 

[Lori_7]

It's funny how insane theists mirror what they perceive in a behavior not present in those they observe. Their whole lives are made up of the fiction they see in in the media. This must be why tv and movies depicting the supernatural are so popular with the deluded. The magic they see on the screen is the magic they believe to be real.

thank you for the daily dose of self-indulgent rhetoric Q. now put your blindfold on and get back in your box.

 

[shichimenshyo]

that's all i ever say...that a relationship with god is personal. that's what i say on this discussion forum.



that is not correct.

And yet you argue with others about the existence of said god thereby attempting to force knowledge upon them that "god" has obviously decided to not bestow upon those individuals. IN doing this you undermine your very own view that god is something that you figure out for yourself...but at the same time is something that cannot be....figured out?

Well if you cant observe, define, or quantify something...then how do you know it exists? Do tell.

 

[(Q)]

that is not correct.

Yes, it is correct. And, unless you can demonstrate black swans (your god) exists, then he doesn't exist any further than your imagination.

 

[(Q)]

thank you for the daily dose of self-indulgent rhetoric Q.

Self-indulgent? Would that be the daily dose of self-indulgence of someone who pokes their nose into every thread waving their arms making claims of talking with gods? That kind of daily self-indulgence, Lori?

 

[Lori_7]

And yet you argue with others about the existence of said god thereby attempting to force knowledge upon them that "god" has obviously decided to not bestow upon those individuals. IN doing this you undermine your very own view that god is something that you figure out for yourself...but at the same time is something that cannot be....figured out?

Well if you cant observe, define, or quantify something...then how do you know it exists? Do tell.

because i have experienced it. so, given this is a discussion forum, i discuss my experiences. i am not suggesting that anyone else have or has had the same experiences as i. i'm just sharing shich. opinions based on experiences. not everything has to be derived from a test tube or put under a microscope to be shared. and, dare i say, there are others in the world who have come to conclusions similar to mine, based upon their own experiences. which i enjoy hearing about. i enjoy hearing about other people's experiences even when they don't reach the same conclusions as i. it's fun. and enlightening. :idea:

 

[shichimenshyo]

If I told you "god does not exist", you would tell me "Yes he does..here is a list of my experience as proof". How is that not attempting to alter another persons view?

 

[Lori_7]

Self-indulgent? Would that be the daily dose of self-indulgence of someone who pokes their nose into every thread waving their arms making claims of talking with gods? That kind of daily self-indulgence, Lori?

i'm not waving my arms, and god and i have communicated. no need to get all bent about it Q, and yet you never cease to.