How (in)valid are arguments "based on worst example"?

[Michael]

I've read a lot of Japanese history and I've never heard anyone propose the end of the Tokogawa Shogunate was due to Shinto fanatics. The Emperor, as a kind of Pope, I can see where they may have played a role. But, the underlying problems were societal. That said, I agree, Nationalism wrapped in a Religious cloth is deadly. We should see about removing those aspects of Shinto. Which seems to have been the case.

 

[lightgigantic]

I've read a lot of Japanese history and I've never heard anyone propose the end of the Tokogawa Shogunate was due to Shinto fanatics. The Emperor, as a kind of Pope, I can see where they may have played a role. But, the underlying problems were societal. That said, I agree, Nationalism wrapped in a Religious cloth is deadly. We should see about removing those aspects of Shinto. Which seems to have been the case.

fancy that eh?
You have the brains to discriminate between Shintoism and the political climate it appears in ... yet for some reason you can't do the same with any other religion (particularly if its monotheistic)

 

[Michael]

I thought you'd say something like this. I'm referring to a different set of fundamental flaws when talking about monotheism's. Polytheism are also fundamentally flawed. And then there's just flaws.

of course there are some useful concepts in both. I never said theism didn't have it's use. just that the mono- part of monotheism is inherently intolerant of differing beliefs systems in a manner that can more easily be overcome using a different system.

I'm sure Buddha has given this much more thought then I

 

[lightgigantic]

just that the mono- part of monotheism is inherently intolerant of differing beliefs systems in a manner that can more easily be overcome using a different system.

so you keep saying ... and that's part of the problem -namely that you are only saying it and are not providing any framework for a logical argument for your opinions

 

[wynn]

I could be wrong, but I always thought LG was in the 'souls develop through lifetimes towards greater consciousness' camp of religious believers. If so it would seem like he would have gone through, in general terms, the various stages.

But still having memory of those stages is another matter. There are scriptures that specify that at some point, a person forgets about certain past experiences.

This is the impression I got from teachers from those traditions, mainly Eastern. That they'd been there.

But they do not present their arguments on the basis/authority of their experiences, but of scriptures.

Yup. I don't think we need respect all voices. What are your (the) criteria for trusting a voice? What if you stopped taking certain people seriously?

I'm afraid I do not have such criteria, as I see those criteria to be subject to the same skepticism - which is a big part of my problem to begin with.

This seems unfair - given that it has to do with things that pertain to our true self, to our eternal future, to what is closest and dearest to us. It feels wrong somehow to treat these things with such coldness, strategy, almost bereft of any and all emotions and personal relationships, a ruthless competition toward the Absolute Truth.

Which is then denied.

What do you mean by that?

They could be sure it doesn't work for everyone. And they should also be clear that not everyone will be drawn to their system.

I suppose it comes down what one thinks is the purpose of religion or spirituality.

Well, I was pleased to be told that if I didn't connect to what I read and heard than it probably was not for me. That seemed, frankly, loving - both to those drawn and those not - and also smart - in the sense of 'in contact with reality.' How could one system appeal to me and, well, think of a list of people here at Sciforums and toss in a few famous people? How could it?

Why wouldn't it?

But I think that someone who is serious about what a particular religion or philosophy offers would expect nothing less than the bold declaration of "We can give you all you need."

I just relooked at your statement and I see it includes the idea that one is 'serious about' a particular religion. So there was, in your statement, a pre-existing connection between the person and the system. Even here, though, people project so much onto concepts and may realize over time that it is not for them. This seems to be the case with every religion, that this can happen. Also there are people who stay - or were always there - who think they are doing the religion and seem not to be.

Actually, I said "someone who is serious about what a particular religion or philosophy offers". As I was writing that, I was thinking about Absolute Truth. Many religions and philosophies promise that they will lead one to see the Absolute Truth. If one's aim is to reach the Highest, the Best, the Most Important, then it appears this introduces an ascending system of spiritual practice - not something to settle in, but something to use as a kind of a raft or ladder.

And as far as I can tell people are radically different from each other.

Actually, I do not think so.
To me, the differences seem more superficial. Eventually, everyone wants true happiness.

I think noticing this has terrified people so much it just doesn't affect the sales techniques of the religions. But then that assessment fits with my own approach. For me it was nice to finally be welcomed, but told bascially that it was fine if it did not seem like it was for me, that I then had some other journey ahead of me or some other set of needs and goals.

I think "Easterners" can be very much polite and accomodating, and also have some strategic foresight/forethought.

If someone would say to me "Well, perhaps this is not for you, but that's okay" (and I have been told that!), I would get angry. Perhaps this is the "Eastern" way to test an aspirant if he or she is serious. I think a serious one will get angry - "What, you claim you know the Absolute Truth and that you can lead people to it, but now you have the nerve to tell me this is perhaps not for me?!!"
If I were a dragon, I'd spit fire.

 

[wynn]

I'm sure Buddha has given this much more thought then I

He sure did, and you would do well to do so too.

 

[Doreen]

But still having memory of those stages is another matter. There are scriptures that specify that at some point, a person forgets about certain past experiences.

Then they will be poor teachers if those past experiences are important - in relation to this discussion. Poor guides since they do not know the terrain.

But they do not present their arguments on the basis/authority of their experiences, but of scriptures.

I would say they understand them through their experiences. I am quite sure there are teachers who can only respond with quotes, but they are likely not to be good teachers. The cobersts of the spiritual world. But most of the teachers I met did relate to their own experiences or their experiences of the experiences of other seekers.

I'm afraid I do not have such criteria, as I see those criteria to be subject to the same skepticism - which is a big part of my problem to begin with.

Then it seems important to me to see if your skepticism is founded on faulty architecture. Skepticism can seem like it is less assumptions than belief. I think this is often illusion. I guess it seems to me you trust your skepticism but not your desire. Which gives you room to reject but not to choose. And once choose - if for 'objective' reasons - then the skepticism gets aimed at yourself. I have a lot of this myself. Or I have had. I mean, I just went from you to me as if it was clear this was the case with you. I am not sure it is. But it struck me that way.

What do you mean by that?

I think a lot of Westerners (at least) who end up guiding other westerners through Eastern concepts prioritize dispassion, distance and superiority - iow they are cold - and then they deny this and claim to be compassionate.

I suppose it comes down what one thinks is the purpose of religion or spirituality.

I don't think there is a 'the purpose.' It strikes me that there are a lot of purposes. I can't seek the purpose I have to find mine.

Why wouldn't it?

I don't think people have the same purposes and interests. I don't they are all really the same in a way that is relevent.

Actually, I do not think so.
To me, the differences seem more superficial. Eventually, everyone wants true happiness.

I tihnk the term would seem meaningless once one saw the range of states covered by it and what made people happy and what got them there. I guess if I think of animals: I can't imagine a beaver and a hawk thinking of happiness the same way or needing the same processes to get there. And if something with more of our kind of intellegences ('s' intended) arose from these animals, I don't think they would be drawn to the same religions.

I think "Easterners" can be very much polite and accomodating, and also have some strategic foresight/forethought.

I'm not in an Eastern Tradition. It was not a test.

If someone would say to me "Well, perhaps this is not for you, but that's okay" (and I have been told that!), I would get angry. Perhaps this is the "Eastern" way to test an aspirant if he or she is serious. I think a serious one will get angry - "What, you claim you know the Absolute Truth and that you can lead people to it, but now you have the nerve to tell me this is perhaps not for me?!!"
If I were a dragon, I'd spit fire.

It sounds like Absolute truth is a Ding an sich to you. As if you are almost irrevelent. Must there be one absolute truth? Must what works for you work for everyone else? Is there anything that indicates that really everyone should be in the one of the religions out there and that they are mistaken for not being a part of it?

For me I liked that you were clear you were not drawn to do what I do. I think that clarity is positive for both of us. Primarily for you since the more clarity, the more likely you won't wander off in some direction that does not suit you or work for you. But also for me, since it makes it clearer at least some of what we are not doing.

Though I suppose we can look at your rejection of some system not saying it is for everyone as part of a general rejection of that system.

 

[wynn]

Then they will be poor teachers if those past experiences are important - in relation to this discussion. Poor guides since they do not know the terrain.

Actually, I think those past experiences tend to turn out as far less important than they first seemed.

One such is the issue of how a person came to choose a particular religious tradition over others.
I have found out that inquiring about this had no direct use whatsoever, other than perhaps make me feel like crap.

In the end, it is the standard doctrinal arguments that count.
Without relying on them, we are actually presuming that there exists a neutral, objective meta-narrative (about anything and everything, including religion), I mentioned this earlier in this thread in a reply to LG. Such a meta-narrative introduces a whole section of problems that are impossible to resolve.

It seems you are actually acknowledging this by introducing the importance of there being a compatibility between the person and the religions tradition - as this way, the problems with the meta-narrative are avoided.

I would say they understand them through their experiences.

I do think a lot can be understood and explained on an intellectual level. This is the function of this level anyway.

I am quite sure there are teachers who can only respond with quotes, but they are likely not to be good teachers. The cobersts of the spiritual world. But most of the teachers I met did relate to their own experiences or their experiences of the experiences of other seekers.

I agree. And I also think there may be many more details to the communication between a teacher and a student, or a member and an outsider or aspirant. That is, the member ideally has to make sure he presents his religion in a respectable way; this can mean that he may appear overly bookish or rigid. Thus communication isn't simply between one person and another, but has the added formal aspect of taking place between a member and an outsider/aspirant.

I guess it seems to me you trust your skepticism but not your desire. Which gives you room to reject but not to choose. And once choose - if for 'objective' reasons - then the skepticism gets aimed at yourself.

Yes, this is quite accurate. It is a very schizoid situation.

I think a lot of Westerners (at least) who end up guiding other westerners through Eastern concepts prioritize dispassion, distance and superiority - iow they are cold - and then they deny this and claim to be compassionate.

I think Christians are like that too, for example.

It sounds like Absolute truth is a Ding an sich to you. As if you are almost irrevelent.

It is part of the concept of Absolute Truth that I and my actions are accounted for as well.

Must there be one absolute truth? Must what works for you work for everyone else? Is there anything that indicates that really everyone should be in the one of the religions out there and that they are mistaken for not being a part of it?

Yes, on all three counts - because this is what the concept of Absolute Truth entails: that it is all-pervasive, all-attractive, all-providing.


The only problem I see with the pursuit of Absolute Truth is this:
If one sets out to find the Absolute Truth, one has to accept that one is currently in illusion and that the reason why one hasn't realized Absolute Truth yet is that one hasn't tried hard enough to find it.
This is true, but it also leaves open the possibility that anything could be the Absolute Truth or lead to it - from shooting heroin, to sex, chocolate, art, Christianity, Scientology, anything - except that one hasn't tried hard enough so far. E.g. "I haven't done enough dope yet to realize that dope is the way to Absolute Truth. I must try harder." This is irrefutable, regardless how absurd it may seem.

So merely the pursuit of Absolute Truth as such leaves us with with a number of options that are either extremely difficult, seem impossible, morally repugnant, or otherwise absurd.

Although the pursuit of the Absolute Truth seems noble above all others, one can only take it so far.

For me I liked that you were clear you were not drawn to do what I do. I think that clarity is positive for both of us. Primarily for you since the more clarity, the more likely you won't wander off in some direction that does not suit you or work for you. But also for me, since it makes it clearer at least some of what we are not doing.

A timely meta-analyis, thank you!

Though I suppose we can look at your rejection of some system not saying it is for everyone as part of a general rejection of that system.

Yes.

 

[Michael]

so you keep saying ... and that's part of the problem -namely that you are only saying it and are not providing any framework for a logical argument for your opinions

No I do provide you a frame work. WASP racism. Which you seem to "get it" when we're talking about the intolerant meme One True Race and yet don't get it when we're talking about the intolerant meme One True God.

:shrug:


Do you think there is something inherently intolerant about WASP Racism? If so what?

 

[lightgigantic]

No I do provide you a frame work. WASP racism. Which you seem to "get it" when we're talking about the intolerant meme One True Race and yet don't get it when we're talking about the intolerant meme One True God.

:shrug:

there's a problem with that because "the one true race" necessarily excludes others, whereas the "one true god" can be used to holistically categorize everything (aka - henology) ... unless of course one wants to invalidate an argument by its worst example and cite monotheistic schools of thought that don't partake of such an outlook (namely because of the political climate it appears in).
IOW due to a omnipotent god's capacity to house variety, there is no necessary need to depart into radical violence etc

Do you think there is something inherently intolerant about WASP Racism? If so what?

Its foundation is an arbitrary designation - namely the body - which in itself is a source of conflict

 

[Michael]

there's a problem with that because "the one true race" necessarily excludes others, whereas the "one true god" can be used to holistically categorize everything (aka - henology) ... unless of course one wants to invalidate an argument by its worst example and cite monotheistic schools of thought that don't partake of such an outlook (namely because of the political climate it appears in).
IOW due to a omnipotent god's capacity to house variety, there is no necessary need to depart into radical violence etc

So The Japanese Goddess Amaterasu is what exactly? A myth? A Goddess? How does She fit into your holistic category? What about Zeus? Thor?

Its foundation is an arbitrary designation - namely the body - which in itself is a source of conflict

You're going to have to expand on this. I'm not sure of your point.

 

[lightgigantic]

So The Japanese Goddess Amaterasu is what exactly? A myth? A Goddess? How does She fit into your holistic category? What about Zeus? Thor?

Attributing phenomena that are greater and in fact sustain one's self to a potency of a personality is not a fault. Facts that surround the personality may not not necessarily be accurate. (This happens in politics all the time)

You're going to have to expand on this. I'm not sure of your point.

The body (in the sense of where I was born is ultimately who I am ) is a poor foundation for a holistic world view since it doesn't factor in quality and action.
Kind of like saying "all japanese cars are the best simply because they are made in japan" - this says nothing about their quality and how they perform ... which are the standard criteria we use to determine how good a vehicle is.

 

[Michael]

Attributing phenomena that are greater and in fact sustain one's self to a potency of a personality is not a fault. Facts that surround the personality may not not necessarily be accurate. (This happens in politics all the time)

So Thor, Zeus, Amaterasu are myth? Gods and Goddesses? Real? Imaginary? What exactly?

The body (in the sense of where I was born is ultimately who I am ) is a poor foundation for a holistic world view since it doesn't factor in quality and action.
Kind of like saying "all japanese cars are the best simply because they are made in japan" - this says nothing about their quality and how they perform ... which are the standard criteria we use to determine how good a vehicle is.

Insofar as the underlying question is concerned—Is ethnocentrism compatible with human rights?—the answer is clearly and simply no. The thing is that while one might describe some theoretic realm in which the sentiment is entirely contained within the self, we would delude ourselves to apply it in any practical context. If there is one thing that human beings are, it is human. The normal psyche requires regular expression of its general form. The ethnocentric aberration is symbiotic. Not only does it inspire opposition, but also draws energy from the fact of opposition. The underlying neurotic conflict more often than not justifies itself with ever more compex dysfunction with a blowback effect of self-indictment, thus reinforcing the habit of neurotic conflict. In short, the wholly contained ethnocentrism is a human impossibility. The human psyche must express itself; the bigotries would find a manner of expression, namely projection, rationalization, and even reaction formation, all lending toward some degree of sublimation. A real, living human being will always find a way to offend people according to its inclinations.

That's an interesting observation.




Suppose you had a society where people worshiped different Aliens (some with more than one). Do you think teaching that there is ONLY ONE true Alien Overlord could, in a practical sense, lead to strife with the other different Alien religions? It seems the BEST a Mono-Alienist could do would be to teach that the other people are deluded or have misconstrued the true nature of the One True Alien.

Now about Amaterasu... Is She a Goddess as the Shinto believe?

 

[lightgigantic]

So Thor, Zeus, Amaterasu are myth? Gods and Goddesses? Real? Imaginary? What exactly?

real of course ... much like whatever goes down in the name of political commentary is based on real persons/positions.

 

[Doreen]

Actually, I think those past experiences tend to turn out as far less important than they first seemed.

So the place you are stuck in and how to get out of it is not important? This was the topic. Not the topic of past traumas/relationships which I know you think not important. But here we are talking about LG not seeming to GET the particular quandry you are in AND YET he is giving you advice about it and passing on absolute truths that he thinks relate to it. I can't see how in this context those past experiences and how his soul extricated itself from such a trouble spot could be unimportant to someone taking the role he is taking.

In the end, it is the standard doctrinal arguments that count.
Without relying on them, we are actually presuming that there exists a neutral, objective meta-narrative (about anything and everything, including religion), I mentioned this earlier in this thread in a reply to LG. Such a meta-narrative introduces a whole section of problems that are impossible to resolve.

It seems you are actually acknowledging this by introducing the importance of there being a compatibility between the person and the religions tradition - as this way, the problems with the meta-narrative are avoided.

Yes, I think this is closer to my position. I don't think I or anyone else can take themselves out of the equation and find truth. The mind thinks it can do this, but I can't for the life of me see how this would happen. We would need, it seems to me, to somehow see or know the end state in advance, and to be able to evaluate it, perhaps even compare it to what other systems are presenting. And we would need to look at the practices also in this intellect way and GET them somehow from our current state.

I think there are a number of ways one can proceed without this kind of final evaluation and while they do not deny the intellect, the intellect per se is not so important. It serves more to confirm - hey, I do feel better OR wow, the more I do this the more things make sense OR whatever satisfies the given intellect.

There is a first step and then there is a second step and conviction and belief may be a long time in coming. But if that first step is my best guess or the most attractive one, well I might as well take it, unless not taking a step seems my best option by whatever process I decide such things.

I oppose this process to one where absolute truth is a like a device we have found on a table that we take apart with small tools.

Truth is there on the table. I am the seeker. I analyze the 'doctrinal arguments'.

And from where I am, I don't even want to simply acknowledge that term as if it covers all bases. It does not cover mine.

I was very much interested in the sound of the voice, how it felt, what it acknowledged about it self. How the relationship feels.

I do think a lot can be understood and explained on an intellectual level. This is the function of this level anyway.

Not before experience. From outside. Looking at words.

I agree. And I also think there may be many more details to the communication between a teacher and a student, or a member and an outsider or aspirant. That is, the member ideally has to make sure he presents his religion in a respectable way; this can mean that he may appear overly bookish or rigid. Thus communication isn't simply between one person and another, but has the added formal aspect of taking place between a member and an outsider/aspirant.

To the degree that control and reduced spontanaeity are seen as inherent goods. I think care and gentleness can take place without formality. Certainly in some situations with some individuals formal interactions may be a must.

Yes, this is quite accurate. It is a very schizoid situation.

If you mean schizoid in the technical sense this has a great deal of separation, both from others and the self. This might be why I respond about the dynamic between the seeker and the truth - in fact I don't really even like that formulation because if the truth is over there then it is not already present in the seeker, so the seeker is already in some important way nothing. Which works for some people.

I think Christians are like that too, for example.

yes, you are right. Though my experience is that they are more hot blooded about this lack of compassion. If you cut out the sound - so the words could not be heard - I think their faces and body language would look more aggressive and filled with contempt. The plus is that this is there one the table. But I am going by Christians I know in the area where I grew up. They are a diverse lot.

It is part of the concept of Absolute Truth that I and my actions are accounted for as well.

Yes, I understood that. But again, then you are in it. You bring nothing to the relationship. And if there is a God, you bring nothing, since God knows you, does not need your help and is complete without you. The truth is out there. You must find it and then conform yourself to it.

A lot of people do look at it this way - though many of them manage to somehow also be incredibly self-important, others not.

Yes, on all three counts - because this is what the concept of Absolute Truth entails: that it is all-pervasive, all-attractive, all-providing.

Most people who believe this then are wrong. They have been attracted to the wrong system. (note: I am not saying because they are not in mine, but rather because no system has a majority.)

The only problem I see with the pursuit of Absolute Truth is this:
If one sets out to find the Absolute Truth, one has to accept that one is currently in illusion and that the reason why one hasn't realized Absolute Truth yet is that one hasn't tried hard enough to find it.

So far I would say I go along, though I dislike the term Absolute Truth. I think the 'not trying hard enough' judgment is of no use unless the person is aiming similar blame at God, for example, and nothing else.

This is true, but it also leaves open the possibility that anything could be the Absolute Truth or lead to it - from shooting heroin, to sex, chocolate, art, Christianity, Scientology, anything - except that one hasn't tried hard enough so far. E.g. "I haven't done enough dope yet to realize that dope is the way to Absolute Truth. I must try harder." This is irrefutable, regardless how absurd it may seem.

Right. a lot of things are irrefutable. Another way of pointing out the problem with the intellect. And for all we know - another way of saying it is irrefutable - it does give some people what they really and truly want. This would not mean I would or should do it. Since I choose not to do it, not because I refuted it, my choosing NOT to pursue a certain path is performed not by intellect alone. I am arguing that that portion of us that chooses not to chase some paths that for all we know do in fact work - iow they are irrefutable - is the same part that can be empower to choose a direction.

So merely the pursuit of Absolute Truth as such leaves us with with a number of options that are either extremely difficult, seem impossible, morally repugnant, or otherwise absurd.

Perhaps that is part of what bothers me. The term makes me think of propositions about the nature of reality and myself and relationships and so on. I have had correct propositions in my head and only years later realized that I had the correct proposition in my head and it was not doing me a bit of good. I was so disconnected from it. Or misapplying it. Or had the wrong relationship with it. In fact I think the emphasis on this kind of knowledge is so pernicious it makes me want to respond in full denial of it and say such knowledge is virtually worthless. Instead I worded it in a meta comment, but the reaction is very strong in me.

Although the pursuit of the Absolute Truth seems noble above all others, one can only take it so far.

Seems very heady to me.

A timely meta-analyis, thank you!

You're welcome. I think I will take a break for a while.

To sort of sum up my position: I think the issue is not

what should I believe for the rest of my life?
but rather
what do I want to do today?
(with the inherent exploratory nature of today and potentially influenced by/inspired by doctrinal arguments)

 

[Michael]

real of course ... much like whatever goes down in the name of political commentary is based on real persons/positions.

Real as in real ideas or real as in real beings?

I mean Xenu is a real live idea. But is Xenu as real live Intergallactic Alien Warlord (actually politician) as is claimed by the Religious and Devout Scientologists?

 

[lightgigantic]

Real as in real ideas or real as in real beings?

as is the nature of political commentary, a few details may be missed in terms of who did what and who is responsible for what, but the general premise that the buck ends with someone still holds

I mean Xenu is a real live idea. But is Xenu as real live Intergallactic Alien Warlord (actually politician) as is claimed by the Religious and Devout Scientologists?

Think of it this way.
A backwards person may come across some letterheads that belong to a political party. They may go on to then elaborate about how the person who designed it is the leader of the party and so on. In one sense its based on a real person, but its not completely accurate because the leader of the party has a whole levy of duties above and beyond mere letterhead design.

In the same way, polytheistic religions tend to sculpt an idea of god around their very specific needs interests and concerns (like for instance in shintoism, a narrative about how the gods created japan ... as opposed to how the god(s) created the universe.

 

[Michael]

as is the nature of political commentary, a few details may be missed in terms of who did what and who is responsible for what, but the general premise that the buck ends with someone still holds


Think of it this way.
A backwards person may come across some letterheads that belong to a political party. They may go on to then elaborate about how the person who designed it is the leader of the party and so on. In one sense its based on a real person, but its not completely accurate because the leader of the party has a whole levy of duties above and beyond mere letterhead design.

In the same way, polytheistic religions tend to sculpt an idea of god around their very specific needs interests and concerns (like for instance in shintoism, a narrative about how the gods created japan ... as opposed to how the god(s) created the universe.

Yes, I see, but, are the Gods of Japan real? It should be noted that they also talk about the creation of the Universe - which of course started with Japanese Islands. But, really now, that shouldn't matter at all. Perhaps Amaterasu is the greatest Goddess and there are other Gods and your One God is simply pure make believe? The point being this: Reality doesn't matter if there's an explanation of the Universe attached to it or not. Reality just is what it is. Either it is true that Amaterasu is real or not. Either Amaterasu exist or doesn't exist. Redefining a Japanese Goddess into something else isn't answering that question.

Look at it this way. Either Xenu visited earth or did not visit earth. Or, either Xenu exists or does not exist. Which do you think that is?

As there's no more and no less evidence for One God over the many, I don't see how we can say anything other than: I think they are real. I do not think they are real.

 

[lightgigantic]

Yes, I see, but, are the Gods of Japan real? It should be noted that they also talk about the creation of the Universe - which of course started with Japanese Islands. But, really now, that shouldn't matter at all. Perhaps Amaterasu is the greatest Goddess and there are other Gods and your One God is simply pure make believe? The point being this: Reality doesn't matter if there's an explanation of the Universe attached to it or not. Reality just is what it is. Either it is true that Amaterasu is real or not. Either Amaterasu exist or doesn't exist. Redefining a Japanese Goddess into something else isn't answering that question.

Look at it this way. Either Xenu visited earth or did not visit earth. Or, either Xenu exists or does not exist. Which do you think that is?

As there's no more and no less evidence for One God over the many, I don't see how we can say anything other than: I think they are real. I do not think they are real.

Is the personality who authorizes a political party's letterhead in control of the said party?
Does he have a swag of duties based solely around the letterhead?

IOW its a case of yes and no, falling into the latter depending on how much one is vouching for a specific description over a general one

 

[Michael]

You're going to have to be a little more clear. Your analogy is not making a good connection to my question, for me anyway.

I'm asking: Is Xenu real?
You're replying: Is the personality who authorizes a political party's letterhead in control of the said party?

Can you see how your response could be a little unclear? Firstly, you're replying in a question form. Second, I have no idea if that is a yes or no.... Is Xenu real? seems like a straight forward question.

Gods and Overlords, if they are real, they are "beings"?