"If I am right, I go to heaven, if you are right, you die anyway."

[Trooper]

It is a hasty generalization to correlate an assertion of Biblical inspiration as indiscriminately literal-minded. Being the "authoritative Word of God" does not preclude literary devices in the least.

The provenance of scripture seems to be a non sequitur or red herring here.

How would seeking coherence be more subjective than someone with an admitted cognitive bias appealing to ridicule? Histories are well known to contain subjective embellishments of the chronicler, especially when literacy was rare.

If you wanted to avoid red herrings then you should have avoided this topic. The practicality of the wager itself is a red herring. Moreover, Atheism is not a result of imaginative doubts.

The so-called literary tools may add meaning, or provide a purpose, but they do not rescue the bible from fundamentalism. The metaphors are either true or not true. The resurrection, offered only as a metaphor, is not comforting to a mother holding her dying child. Either she will be reunited with her child in heaven, or she will not be. Sacrificing one’s life for god, or for the common good, may be beneficial to future outcomes, or it may not be. If it turns out that was, the person surrendered will either be consciously aware of it, or not.

Removing delusional metaphors will not necessarily lead us into despair. We need to understand what we are, not what we wish to be. Why is it more glorious to believe that a god created matter and energy? It is as though, creation itself is not enough. As Rodolfo Llinas implies, you have to understand how precious and incredible matter is, and how precious you are. It is not demeaning, but instead, it says that we are one with everything else. What more could you possibly ask for? So relax, your poetic, pantheistic worldview is not under attack.

 

[lightgigantic]

No, they are right to demand empirical evidence. In the very tangible and tasty form of certain food and people with good vibes.

Your founder acharya was gracious and generous enough to provide this for those he took upon himself to teach, esp. in the beginning.

Or do you really wish to argue that prasadam does not have transcendental quality and effect, even on the uninitiated ones, and that personal example makes no difference?

I am saying that an empirical investigation of prasadam will not reveal anything ... much like an assessment of temperature with a tape measure is similarly fruitless

 

[lightgigantic]

Empiricism isn't necessarily direct perception. Indirect observations are also valid, as when we observe the redshift through a telescope.

If you have never directly perceived the redshift through a telescope and calculated the precise significance of what this means, you are actually talking about something other than empiricism.

The authority in each case is observable evidence. Many people have also seen the president directly, he has appeared before crowds of millions.

But if you set out to achieve the same experience in an experiment that neglects or doesn't take into account the president's dictates on how other's directly perceive him, you fail ... since that is the key dynamic that determines the success or failure of the enterprise.

 

[spidergoat]

Empiricism has created a body of knowledge in which we can trust because it's based on evidence that has been verified independently. Prerequisites based on an internal frame of mind cannot be trusted because it could all be in one's head.

 

[lightgigantic]

Empiricism has created a body of knowledge in which we can trust because it's based on evidence that has been verified independently. Prerequisites based on an internal frame of mind cannot be trusted because it could all be in one's head.

yet you haven't independently verified redshift ... much like you haven't verified the dna of your parents .. or even the existence of the president for that matter

:shrug:

 

[Syne]

If you wanted to avoid red herrings then you should have avoided this topic. The practicality of the wager itself is a red herring. Moreover, Atheism is not a result of imaginative doubts.

The so-called literary tools may add meaning, or provide a purpose, but they do not rescue the bible from fundamentalism. The metaphors are either true or not true. The resurrection, offered only as a metaphor, is not comforting to a mother holding her dying child. Either she will be reunited with her child in heaven, or she will not be. Sacrificing one’s life for god, or for the common good, may be beneficial to future outcomes, or it may not be. If it turns out that was, the person surrendered will either be consciously aware of it, or not.

Removing delusional metaphors will not necessarily lead us into despair. We need to understand what we are, not what we wish to be. Why is it more glorious to believe that a god created matter and energy? It is as though, creation itself is not enough. As Rodolfo Llinas implies, you have to understand how precious and incredible matter is, and how precious you are. It is not demeaning, but instead, it says that we are one with everything else. What more could you possibly ask for? So relax, your poetic, pantheistic worldview is not under attack.

Again, who are you talking to? Is this copied and pasted from some atheist apologetics or something? Instead of addressing anything in my post, you've only managed to further run with your previous non sequitur.

Care to engage in any actual discussion, or are you only here to spam apologetics?

 

[Trooper]

Again, who are you talking to? Is this copied and pasted from some atheist apologetics or something? Instead of addressing anything in my post, you've only managed to further run with your previous non sequitur. Care to engage in any actual discussion, or are you only here to spam apologetics?

If you feel that, I copied and pasted, or that I am spamming atheist apologetics then by all means, hit the report button.

Care to engage in any actual discussion?

Sure. Why are you so anti-atheist?

 

[wynn]

I am saying that an empirical investigation of prasadam will not reveal anything

And I am saying that tasting it may.
But first, they need to be given an opportunity to taste it at all.

 

[spidergoat]

yet you haven't independently verified redshift

:shrug:

I can verify it in principle acoustically.

 

[Balerion]

Can I ask why LG always shrugs?

 

[Jan Ardena]

What when this personal experience puts you at odds with those you have learned from?

Then it puts you at odds.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

the added detail you are omitting is that there are specific guidelines that dictate how something be demonstrated only when the question of god comes up (for instance a vast majority of atheists haven't dna tested their parents to validate their genealogical claim)

Maybe their observation of physical characteristics is quite enough. And maybe exact genealogy doesn't matter because you know who raised you.

 

[Jan Ardena]

aaqucnaona,

I dont care about the semantics of religion, Jan. I care about what is generally considered 'the world religions' and what they do to science, culture, safety, politics, progress and humanity. You must know that I am extreme pragmatist - the practical causality is the most important thing for me.

Well, I've explained to you what the word religion actually means, I've given you a link, and now you accuse of me of using semantics. I'm obviously just wasting my time.

So I bais myself on a 'if God exists', which would prime my mind to be dragged into irrational beliefs and unsubstantiated claims [not theological or philosophical speculations - religions are about as much about philosophy as porn is about storytelling]. Hardly free and open minded, is it Jan?

I meant to act neutral for the purpose of understanding.
We don't know of any superheroes in reality, but we can accept they exist, and as a result have a better experience, and broader understanding of the movie.

We still, at the end, come away knowing it's all fiction.
There's no need to be fearful of losing your little position, if it is true to you.

As to why I focus on christianity in my opposition to religion, lets do a roll call, shall we - Buddish is the real nice guy, apart for some archaic woo-woo, it comes closest to what a real religion [IMO] would be like. So no issues with it. As far is hinduism is concerned, its neither possible for us to yet influence it nor are its billion tops followers ready yet for non-belief. Besides, Hinduism does only the mildly bad, like castes and sexism and oppression of sexuality, etc. Besides, Indians are one of the most tolerant people I have ever met. As for Jews, dont fuck with the bankers! No seriously, I sympatise with them. Tossed around by Christians and muslims for a long time, I almost feel thats its not their fault that they have been rendered stupid, ignorant or both. Coming to muslims, well, you dont mess around with guys ready to blow themselves up for their imaginary friend, simple as that! And leave the tribes alone please. But when you come to christains, they are a group most previledged by history and politics, perhaps the religion with the most advanced members [or residents of advanced places] - and when they, of all people, instead of leading the progress of humanity, waste their times fundamentally sticking onto the myths of desert nomads on a hunger trip, thats when I get disappointed. Add to that the active suppression of science and a drive to spread their insanity to the rest of us, much less impose it on our children [and our future] thorught dishonest tactics and political crap, its a fight I simply cant stand out on. Besides, if or when the tide turns, this* is where it will begin.

If this is how you define the term ''Religion'', especially after the link.
I think we're done in this discussion. Don't you?

The reason is simple Jan, I extend the same standards for knowledge claims in religion as I do for everything else. Accepting it would mean lowering my rational guard against woo-woo, and as a former New-ager, I know where that can go. If religion is real, why does it need me to accept it to understand it to be true? Kinda weak for an assertion of the great unanswered questions in the world, dont you think?

1. a claim of knowledge IS NOT ''religion''. So you're wasting your time, if your intention is to arrive at a conclusion with evidence.
If you want to know what religion is, then just deal with religion, not an institute.

First Jan, no, unless I dont claim that "There is no GOD", no semantic acrobatics would qualify me as a strong atheist.

Intellectually, you don't make the claim, but sub-consciously the claim is made within the reason for your position. By asserting that there is no evidence for God, simultaneosly you are saying you know there is no evidence for God. If you're not doing that, then how do you know there is no evidence for God?

The rational and honest position is to assert that you don't know if there is any evidence for God, as you don't know what would be evidence for God, because you have no experience of God.

Second, I dont have an Idea of what God is actually, that is on the theists to claim and then substantiate, to which I apply my usual scepticism.

Why do you suggest there is no evidence of God if you have no idea of what God is?
And why apply skeptisism at this early stage?

Its not on me to know what god is, neither is it on me to tell me what can change my mind, for I dont know that.

Then ''there is no evidence for God'' is meaningless.

All I can tell is whether or not something a theist suggests can or cannot convince, other than that, I cannot set a bar, for I have already thought of the problem you describe and have decided not the subject myself to it, which is why stance is carefully formed and well expressed as "Agnostic atheistic apatheism".

Do you have a title fetish?

And beyond the start?


Ok, some refining needed here, to cut out the poetic and understand the epistemic:

I think you should stay at the start, and just take things in.
If you're comfortable in your worldview, you won't have to worry about losing your position. If your position is so weak, that you have to constantly concentrate on maintaining your stance, then your going to break down at some point, anyways.

You could do with the rest.

What does it mean for God to be a 'being'? Is he a being in the sense we are beings? Is he one in the sense of natural order or beauty or maybe like gravity?

His nature is pure spirit.

What does it even mean to for a being to not only be a source of absolute and ultimate truth [the existence of which itself is still debated] but also be that truth?

The sun, diffuses heat, light, and energy, but is situated in it's position.
His oneness, and difference can be understood in this way.

Meaning what? That god makes it or works by intervening it all that happens, that He made it all?

That's a good question, but I'm going to use genesis here just to simplify the explanation. Go through the genesis account and get back with any questions you may have.

Which is something we can assert nothing about, even anything about its relation to God.

I think it's a common sense thing really.

Why so? Why not a pantheon of Gods?

There are, but they're all the same person, or different personified aspects of the same person.

But he is a being, if is a being, he can either be seperate from all souls [whose existence is unsubstantiated] or he can not be a being at all and be something+collection of souls. He cannot both be a being and an abode of souls.

This is actually a vedic philosophy: achintya-bheda-tattva. Look into it if you're interested.

What is that supposed to mean?

The idea is that we (all living entities) are essentially, minute part and parcel of God, IOW, we essentially, are purely spiritual. Some of us have fallen from our position due to lust, greed, and envy. As a result we are in the material world, living out our fantasies, and getting bound up due to karma. Those of us in the material world are conditioned, those that are pure, aren't.
The pure souls are in their natural position. With God.

So he is not only a being but also a person, a being with individuality and personality?

Oooh, moving towards new age and mysticism, are we? And how do you know, must less define, nevermind understand, any of the above? How can you assert, or even proclaim it?

You asked me to define God, not give a personal testimony.
I'm not interested in discussing whether or not this is true, or whether God exists. All what I have said is contained in scripture. Do with it what you will.

And we know that that 'realisation' is not a delusional ideology because?

What is the point of this question?

Ignorine a cheap shot at humour, I didnt suggest a conspiracy, did I? Being malicious isnt a requisite for being baised.

So ignorant pre-scientific peeps, who had not yet evolved to the point of modern science, just guessed that they were in a universe in which there were other planets, and these planets moved in their own orbits. And a whole of host of other things.

Are you telling me, you're not curious? As a person of science? :bugeye:

If you want to study this stuff, just start by googling vedic literature, then just go from there.


HOW DID MAN KNOW WE WERE IN A UNIVERSE, WITH OTHER GIGANTIC PLANETARY BODIES?


HOW DID MAN KNOW THE MOON AFFECTED THE TIDES?


HOW DID MAN KNOW THAT WE WERE MADE UP OF TINY PARTICLES (ATOMS).


HOW DID MAN KNOW THE UNIVERSE WAS EXPANDING?

All this, well before modern science.
The vedic texts written approximately 5000 years ago, and they were passed down aurally eons before that.

If you're skeptical of the date and believe they were written 1500-2000 years ago, the question still stands.

Is that definitive enough for you?
If you want to know more about the claims, google the information, there's quite alot to go through.


jan.

 

[spidergoat]

The fact is ancient religious texts make all sorts of predictions. Unless most of them are true, I wouldn't make a big deal out of the few that happened to kind of get it right.

If this is enough to convince you, you are extremely gullible.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The fact is ancient religious texts make all sorts of predictions. Unless most of them are true, I wouldn't make a big deal out of the few that happened to kind of get it right.

If this is enough to convince you, you are extremely gullible.

Yeah! Just a coincidence.

I'm gullible because I read ancient scriptures?

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

If I make a million predictions and one of them is true and 999,999 are false, does that make me a prophet?

 

[Balerion]

Jan, the vedas don't say any of those things. Like any other prophecy or creation myth, they can be understood to mean anything you want them to mean if you insist upon metaphorical understandings, and if you don't have a solid grasp on any of the sciences supposedly being predated. And Jan, let's not pretend you read ancient scripture. You have demonstrated absolutely no first-hand knowledge of any scripture, and your refusal to cite one textual example of these vedic claims is just more evidence of that.

 

[spidergoat]

Good point, the interpretation of scriptures is often overly broad in order to make it conform to modern understandings.

 

[Balerion]

Good point, the interpretation of scriptures is often overly broad in order to make it conform to modern understandings.

No surprise, as there is no other way to interpret scriptures and still hold them to be true. And again, these broad interpretations only reach those whose understanding of the sciences is minimal. None of what is written can be applied as a whole to our understanding of the world, and as such, proponents must stick to small passages, such as this notion in the vedas that the universe is an "egg," which is the modern theist's apparent understanding of the shape of the universe. But like all creation myths, it makes the mistake (it makes many, many mistakes, really, and there are many more passages that do not even work in parts) of solipsism, and defaults us at the center of everything.

In this way, the belief that the vedas hold ancient scientific knowledge is no different than the belief that Genesis has scientific merit, and no more valid.

 

[Syne]

Again, who are you talking to? Is this copied and pasted from some atheist apologetics or something? Instead of addressing anything in my post, you've only managed to further run with your previous non sequitur. Care to engage in any actual discussion, or are you only here to spam apologetics?

If you feel that, I copied and pasted, or that I am spamming atheist apologetics then by all means, hit the report button.

Sure. Why are you so anti-atheist?

Huh, you may notice that I was actually asking you questions there. Engage...remember?

I'm not particularly anti-atheist, but this is only encouraging me to engage your new non sequitur. You should notice that you've yet to engage much of anything in the posts of mine you've quoted.

Seems very disingenuous.