Qualities of the correct epistemology for perceiving God

[S.A.M.]

Samcdkey:

Right now you could have put your posts regarding Superluminal and myself in one post. That is, begin with something like:

Superluminal:

<Insert quote>

Replyherereplyhere.

Prinec James:

<insert quote>

Replyherereplyhere.

This elongates a single page of the thread and does not bury conversations.

Not everyone can write in the same way James. And surely one can discuss or debate in the way that suits them best? There are many members on this forum and evryone can contribute (or not) as they please. This is a public forum. If you are looking for a posting by a particular person you can use the search forums feature.

 

[Prince_James]

Samcdkey:

Indeed this is a public forum and you can do as you please. It is very unlikely a moderator will stop you for such practices. But know that it is not only annoying, but seriously disruptive to the flow of conversations, and we'd all appreciate if you didn't do as such. In essence, as a favour to myself specifically, and to the forums generally might you try to condense things a bit? For really, it only makes things more difficult and can be so easily rectified.

I'd be most obliged.

 

[S.A.M.]

Samcdkey:

Indeed this is a public forum and you can do as you please. It is very unlikely a moderator will stop you for such practices. But know that it is not only annoying, but seriously disruptive to the flow of conversations, and we'd all appreciate if you didn't do as such. In essence, as a favour to myself specifically, and to the forums generally might you try to condense things a bit? For really, it only makes things more difficult and can be so easily rectified.

I'd be most obliged.

You might want to try this forum.

It is especially suited for conventional debates.

http://www.thescienceforum.com/index.php

 

[Prince_James]

I am not primarily interested in science, but thanks anyway.

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't think so. Perfect knowledge of Astrology does not inevitably lead to a belief that the stars predict everyday human affairs. Perfect knowledge of religious scripture does not inevitably lead to belief in sky fairies. I'm sure it's perfectly possible that an atheist could be a professor in theology.

If I'm wrong, please state why...

To get back to your original statement of what was "obviously" true, you also tied that in with an admission that you haven't even studied the phenomena you brought up - for instance if I said that the concept of an electron was obviously fraudulent and also said that I have not really begun to seriously study physics wouldn't I look stupid?

And wouldn't I look doubly stupid if I raised this on a thread that deals specifically with the necessity of applying an epistemology to reach an ontology?

 

[lightgigantic]

~Raithere

All I see here are examples of material physics at work.

But I bet if I ask you to examine the cause of why these things happen you cannot explain it ( or you can only explain it with another cause you cannot explain - which amounts to the same thing)

Are you going to demonstrate at some point how religious epistemology consistently affects human behavior or provides evidence for the existence souls, god, an afterlife, or one's condition beyond death? Or perhaps you can demonstrate that revelation has provided humanity with a consistent and useful base of knowledge or even a single verifiable fact that could not be known through mundane empirical methods.

You missed the point - epistemology leads to self evident ontology - If you want to insist on how empirical processes can lead to god you will have to establish how an empirical process can lead to direct perception of the president (as opposed to seeing the president on the presidents terms) - if a person cannot directly perceive the president empirically (by solely relying on one's ability and energy to get his direct acquaintance) how do you propose that one can perceive god, who is a million times more avanced than th epresident, by the same process - indeed if one could perceive god empiricaly, and bring him within the control and perception of the average man (average man includes the scientist) you wouldn't have an entity that fits the description of god.

“ So inother words you don't have a clear entity or object with qualities you ar eworking with when you are declaring that god is a fallacious claim? It doesn't sound like a very sound epistemology ... ”

In no such words.

I'm flexible enough to work with or provide any number of epistemological positions and definitions of god. But in this instance you are the one making the claim, therefore the onus lies on you to provide both argument and evidence to support your conclusion. It makes no sense for me to present a definition only for you to respond that it is incongruous with yours.

Too late - you have already jumped the gun by declaring that the concept of god is fallacious - this indicates that you obviously applied some epistemological principle to arrive at that conclusion - what is that principle?


“ I can say the same thing about religion ”

Indeed, you can say anything you like. But until you support your assertions what reason do we have for agreeing with them or even tentatively entertaining the notion you might be right? Your declaration is that there is an epistemology and method that reliably reveals evidence of god. Very well, then please demonstrate this assertion or be remanded to the myriad other unfounded and unsupported claims people have made throughout the ages.

Could you establish any of your scientific evidences on a person bereft, and in fact adverse, to the epistemology for perceiving them?

Remember, you chose to play at logic. Therefore you must play by the rules of logic. Show us evidence then of a religious epistemology that provides consistent results and how these results evince the existence of god.

The proof of an epistemology lies in application - is it illogical to say that you must do something before you undersatnd something, or is our mind so vast and unlimited that we can understand anything without teh slightest need for application?

“ So in other words when you examine the nature of all religions in the world you do not see any common threads ? ”

I do indeed. Of course, that common thread is so self-evident that many people mistake its cause. Quite simply, it is our shared humanity that accounts for those similarities that we do find. It is the same reason we find common threads throughout art and literature, across geographies, cultures, languages, and vast epochs of time. It is why we can be moved by a Homeric epic 2800 years after it was written and why we can relate to 12,000 year old cave-paintings.

So what exactly is the cause for the perception of god and how does that relate to human social phenomena - in other words what general principles did you apply to determine that one social structure is clearly and obviously an abstraction of another? (You are saying that religion is an abstraction of human culture) - I might add that I am not clear exactly what those words mean "one social structure being an abstraction of another" - perhaps it is a new concept on sociology - but anyway you have obviously applied some general principles in this regard so please tell us what those general principles are.

It is this that recommends religion as a topic of study... even for an atheist.

~Raithere

The only thing missing for an atheist is the aspect of practical application, which is the principle that distinguished it from being knowable from unknowable.

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince James

"They can when one has a perception of what they are responding to - for instance it should be clear from our previous discussions that god has a variety of energies, just like fire, so if one person is saying fire is hot, another is saying fire is smokey and another is saying fire is light, one willnot see any contradiction because they actually know what fire is."

Yet there is always then the possibility that the "knower of the fire" is just encompassing a small portion of the elephant, just as the other sages.

So if I am perceiving these three qualities of fire I am some how inferior in knowledge to the person who is just perceiving smoke?

"Then it begs to ask what is evidence - which brings us back to the point of epistemology for perceiving evidence."

Evidence for God in this instance must be in such a way as all could perceive it as such. That is to say, actually physical, scientifically verifiable, repeatable, miracles. Which not only point to a "source of great power" but to God. That is to say, must be of such character as to -only- stem from the divine.

So in otherwords if god was able to be conrolled by the activities of humans then we would have a god you can believe in? That however, while admittedly a popular ambition of persons in the material world, is not how god works ... this is why I was trying to establish that god is a conscious entity, and thus the epistemology for understanding him is compleetly difefrent from the epistemology of understanding dull matter (the "understand the president argument") - in otherwords god practically always maintains a vastly superior ontological status to us

"the point you ar emissing is that epistemology leads to direct perception - just like study of scientific theory leads to prac - you don't ride belief all the way"

So are you claiming that if one accepts the epistemology, we shall be able to meet a man who died 5,000 years ago (Krishna)?

You have a few issues to work on in your claim there, particularly regarding the notion of consciousness and how it is temporary (what to speak of god's) - but assuming you successfully apply the epistemology to rectify them along the way - yes

"But you are just labelling a naturally occuring phenomena with your doctrinal terminology - a ball falls from the building - what does that tell me about the gravity of the planet unless I blindly believe your doctrine. "

It tells much, actually. For it begins to show that "objects dropped from a height fall to the Earth" which implies that the Earth has a force which it exerts itself upon the ball. Contrast this with the support of water given to an object floating ontop of it.

To which I can reply " I see you have ben brain washed - you're trying to tell me that because a ball falls to the ground and also floats on water that that is proof for something you choose to call "gravity" - (BTW - this thread can continue on adinfinitum - there's no end to ignorance - tell me when you get the picture that epistemology is intrinsic and primary before ontology, particularly in regard to subtle knowledge)

"SO you abandoned one set of scientific feet/backsides to stand in the shade of another?"

Not at all. For whether or not Newton's laws are true depend on their application as demonstrated objectively. That is to say, if they cannot be experimentally verified (which they can be very easily) one cannot claim they are true. One mayn't want to do so, but if one does, one can go and see whether Newton was right relatively easily.

BUt you didn't stumble onto the newton's hypothesis, nor discover the means to succeed them either - and when the means come to succeed them again you also probably won't engineer the epistemology for that perception either - at all times you are in the shade of some guru's feet/backside (can we at least agree to stick to the word feet, since its a bit obnoxious and perhaps indicative of envy to refer to people more intelligent than ourselves by their hind quarters)

"does god reveal himself to individuals or groups of people? There are instances of both, and collectively only amongst persons of the same merit."

Examples of contemporary accounts of communal manifestation verified by outside sources?

What do you mean by outside sources? CNN? or Self realised persons? (in other words people who have applied the relevant epistemology or not)

"People are perceiving the reality of god."

And many more are not. In what way is this miraculous?

I never said th perception was contingent on poplarity - I said it was contingent on epistemology

"Did you know that the word Aryan literally means "gentleman" in sanskrit and that it was Max Meuller, endeavouring of copurse to present the rich history of india in a eurocentric paradigm, that labelled aryans as a race (determined by janma - birth), despite there being no evidence - in otherwords there are indications that your reading may have been a fact but what you are reading may not have been a fact - in other words you may have transgressed the rules of epistemology."

Yes, I am quite aware that Aryan translates as "gentleman", "superior man", or "noble man". But actually, the Aryans as a race has been proven by the fact that the Brahman and Kshatriya castes of Northern India are of a "caucasoid group" according to mitochondrial DNA analysis (http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/nov102000/1182.pdf#search='Aryan%20Genetics%20India') and according to the Y-Chromosome testing European (specifically Eastern-European) types are found in the higher castes at a much higher level (http://www.friendsofsouthasia.org/t...y_Studies.html). Considering the Aryan homeland is actually considered to be the Black Sea (probably surrounding it in Asia Minor, the Ukraine, and even Western Persia) this is not at all surprising. Even an Indian website declares this to be so, despite being controversial: http://www.india-today.com/itoday/2...0/science.shtml

It is nationalist propaganda perpetuated by an extremely biased Indian "science"

What makes westen science unbiased - economic power? (ironically most of the exhibits in the british museum are plundered from other colonies, the most common being india - you can still the hacked out chunks in the walls of the red fort where the british collected their "specimiens")

met with a "white-guilt" Leftist movement in the social sciences that deny the reality of the Aryans as a race of people which birthed -both- modern Europeans and the Indians and Persians. That is to say, Europeans did not create India - and Max Meuller never suggested such, by the way - but that Europeans and India were created by the same people. In essence, we are sibling peoples, united in a common race, and even with a common religion. For instance, you are aware that Tyr (Germanic), Zeus (Greek), the Dagda (Celto-Irish), and Dyaus Piter (Vedic) are etymologically the same? That is, they all stem from one word and one concept, shared amongst us all. Similarly, it is very likely that Western Paganism is related to the Hindu/Zorastrian schism as to whether it is the Devas or the Asuras which are the Gods and the Titans respectively.

Actually the idea that "Hinduism" is intrinsicaly paganistic or polytheistic is another propaganda program of the british - there are many, traditional and ancient argumentations to establish that the original vedic concept was monotheistic, but in the course of summarizing the indian culture into an ism for the sake of a smooth continuum that is subservient to european culture, they accepted only the teachings of sankacharya - and institutionalised that concept even within india (if you go to study hinduism - will they represent the concept through ramanuja, madhvacharya, baladeva vidhyabusan, chaitanya mahaprabhu ... or sankhyacarya?) - the result was that the intellectual classes within india, including the revolutionaries who gave india independence, were all educated within the doctrines of sankhyacharya.

The only difference is that sense then we have adopted a Semitic religion, which has erased the strong cultural and religious ties the West and India shared.

Actually according to the vedas the ksatriya classes migrated to europe to avoid the slaughter of Parasurama during an ancient period - As for the "Aryan" homeland the whole concept is quite speculative - for instance there is a raging debate amongst historians (The etymologists, the studiers of tribal drifts, and archeologists (fossil records) - basically they cannot agree on the timeline of history - and to top it all off these are all outside sources - In otherwords what you have with the study of indian culture is a whole lot of europeans completely disregarding the local already existing ideas of history and cramming their ideas in because they cannot accept that perhaps their ancestors come from this place - instead they rely on some apparent race of mysterious origins and location that colonised india

- as for the devas and asuras - well I could start an entire thread .... needless to say attributing them to a geographic location on the earth is just as ridiculous as finding the genetic origins of "gentlemen" in india.

Basically your understandings work on the assumption that everything in the vedas is a myth and thus rely on an established academic institutionalisation of eurocentric thought

Anyway, for what its worth here are somethings further on the subject

http://www.iskcon.com/icj/3_1/sdg.html
http://www.iskcon.com/icj/7_1/71hdg.html
http://www.iskcon.com/icj/1_2/12rsd.html
http://www.iskcon.com/icj/1_2/12knott.html

"How much of contemporary, or even academic, affairs are governed by morality? On the contrary you are considered more prestigious if you labour harder than an ass to enjoy the liberties of a pig"

Sadly, you are correct in this regard. The heroic and the just are not held to the same standards as they hopefully were held to be in the past.

Also, just as an aside, it is fitting that Socrates and Arjuna should share a warrior heritage. Socrates was, in his time, considered the bravest of the Athenians by all his friends of great reknown, and well respected for the degree which he fought without regard for himself and with ever care to the well-being of his comrades and the destruction of their common enemies. Similarly, Arjuna was a warrior-prince par excellence.

The last time that opposing soliders put aside there weapons for a communal gathering was during christmas on WW1 - ironically it was also the first war that saw the invention of the machine gun (the appearance of the industrial age in combat - hooray) - so no bravery and chvalry were no longer a quality of combat (on the contrary they were likely to get you kiled) - and it has escalated to the current latest development in warfare - women and children on the battlefront (they can lay down firepower just as well as anyone else) - feudal japan attempted for years to keep gunpowder out of the country to protect the integrity of their warrior class - anyway - I could write another thread on this ....

"So are large portion of science is potentially fallible, particularly in institutionalised cases that stand to profit from a tight ring of agreement on certain values (such as eurocenticism for instance)"

I agree. There can be corruption (and often is) in science. Although I shall not note this in terms of "Eurocentrism".

the europeans aren't fallible?

"IN the picture of eternity 5000 years ago is recent news - still, suppose there was someone who was sincere about pursuing religion or knowledge of god - would it be impossible for them to locate resources helpful to their search?"

From the point of eternity, 5000 years is indeed as a blink of an eye, but to humans it is nearly the full extent of our history, and therefore, distant to us to an extreme extent. Similarly, yes, I would claim that it would be almost impossible in the present day to "pursue religion or knowledge of God" considering the sources we have left and what has happened to them.

Maybe you could argue that theer is a shortage of perfect practioners - but its not like purchasing a scripture or book of spirituality is going to ruin your life plans for economic development

"old age, disease and death curb the view that we can enjoy in this world eternally - so at least it is a cause for a second thought "

So kama in the morning, artha at mid day, dharma at dusk, and moksha at night?

If a person is finished with these 4 material eneavours (sometimes called processes of cheating religion - dharma projhita) they are qualified for a transcendental endeavour
http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/1/2/en

 

[lightgigantic]

Satyr

In summation:

To find proof of God one must first believe in him.

actually it requires an epistemology

How convenient.

Well don't you also require an epistemology to understand physics? More than convenient, its necessary

I must first submit so as to appreciate.

unless you submit to the epistemology of physics how else do you propose to understand anything in physics

I must first get drunk and then see the ghosts.

Its not clear where I indicated alcholism as intrinsic to the epistemology of religion..

You must first forgo reason so as to come to a higher reason.

But if you think you can determine the basis of an ontology without applying the epistemology isn't that a forgoing of reason?

 

[lightgigantic]

You all dance around the subject of god so effectively that it's easy to forget that this is all really a simple, simple question.

I think the same thing when I ask an atheist

"Have you tried applying the apropriate epistemology to determine the valdity/invalidity of god?"

 

[Prince_James]

lightgigantic:

"So if I am perceiving these three qualities of fire I am some how inferior in knowledge to the person who is just perceiving smoke?"

No. You'd be superior. But the chances of you also missing something is great, which may in fact even show your view of the attributes being connected as false.

"So in otherwords if god was able to be conrolled by the activities of humans then we would have a god you can believe in? That however, while admittedly a popular ambition of persons in the material world, is not how god works ... this is why I was trying to establish that god is a conscious entity, and thus the epistemology for understanding him is compleetly difefrent from the epistemology of understanding dull matter (the "understand the president argument") - in otherwords god practically always maintains a vastly superior ontological status to us"

Not that God must be controlled by humans, but that God might have to manifest like in the ancient myths. Is not there a story of Vishnu attacking a demon at dusk, as neither male nor female, animal or human, et cetera, et cetera? That would be a prime example of "wow, a miracle!". If only repeatable that would satisfy all things.

Also, the biggest problem with asserting God as a conscious entity is assuming that this being will indeed condescend to meet with us and other such things. That is to say, if we have whims involved, we actuallyu are much further from God.

"You have a few issues to work on in your claim there, particularly regarding the notion of consciousness and how it is temporary (what to speak of god's) - but assuming you successfully apply the epistemology to rectify them along the way - yes"

So you are claiming that you can meet Krishna and various other avatars and other such things, in the flesh, today, with an experience equatable to the religious texts of yester year? Just so long as one follows the epistemology?

"To which I can reply " I see you have ben brain washed - you're trying to tell me that because a ball falls to the ground and also floats on water that that is proof for something you choose to call "gravity" - (BTW - this thread can continue on adinfinitum - there's no end to ignorance - tell me when you get the picture that epistemology is intrinsic and primary before ontology, particularly in regard to subtle knowledge)"

Indeed there are a few obstinate people as such, but eventually these people are turned around in normal situations. There is indeed a limit to the delusions people will accept, specifically if you use more underhanded tactics for their good.

"BUt you didn't stumble onto the newton's hypothesis, nor discover the means to succeed them either - and when the means come to succeed them again you also probably won't engineer the epistemology for that perception either - at all times you are in the shade of some guru's feet/backside (can we at least agree to stick to the word feet, since its a bit obnoxious and perhaps indicative of envy to refer to people more intelligent than ourselves by their hind quarters)"

Indeed you are correct: I am not Sir Isaac Newton, nor am I Einstein, nor am I Hawking. I am myself and thus yes, there is no certainty of whether or not I should become such as they (though I do not think it is beyond my ken). Yet the difference is that when such a person comes along, it will be known objectively to all by experimentation and reasoning, and no one shall proclaim "this is so!" without first showing said proof, so long as science exists as it does now. Moreover, it does not even require us to adopt a coloured viewpoint.

"What do you mean by outside sources? CNN? or Self realised persons? (in other words people who have applied the relevant epistemology or not)"

At the very least, a low-level and great deal of "self-realized persons", specifically someone that did not grow up in a culture (such as India) where everyone is enmeshed in such beliefs. But yes, more preferably CNN or the BBC or something.

"I never said th perception was contingent on poplarity - I said it was contingent on epistemology"

Many people daily perceive the reality of "bling-bling". That necessitates a different epistemology as well.

"What makes westen science unbiased - economic power? (ironically most of the exhibits in the british museum are plundered from other colonies, the most common being india - you can still the hacked out chunks in the walls of the red fort where the british collected their "specimiens")"

Western science doesn't have an foundational bias in the 20th/21st century on all levels, on the foundation that it is not within a climate constantly asserting its non-Britishness (post-raj India). Yes, the British pillaged archaeological sights the world over (and the West as a whole still does) but this means nothing more than they followed rather unkind methods of data-extraction for the creation of a science of human historic remains.

The difference is that where some scientists were originally eurocentrists and triumphalists, the present day scientists are objective as possible. In India, the new tradition is "indocentrism" with ridiculous claims abounding, including such nonsense as nuclear weapons in prehistoric times and various other claims.

"Actually the idea that "Hinduism" is intrinsicaly paganistic or polytheistic is another propaganda program of the british - there are many, traditional and ancient argumentations to establish that the original vedic concept was monotheistic, but in the course of summarizing the indian culture into an ism for the sake of a smooth continuum that is subservient to european culture, they accepted only the teachings of sankacharya - and institutionalised that concept even within india (if you go to study hinduism - will they represent the concept through ramanuja, madhvacharya, baladeva vidhyabusan, chaitanya mahaprabhu ... or sankhyacarya?) - the result was that the intellectual classes within india, including the revolutionaries who gave india independence, were all educated within the doctrines of sankhyacharya."

You are correct. Hindu doctrine as a whole shows signs of being extremely monotheistic even from early times, but so does the original conceptions of the Aryans. It is more likely similar to how Hinduism today presents many deities on a "popular level" whilst more deeply speaking of a God. In fact, any degeneration and return from polytheism seems to come about the same time that both India and Greece (re)gained civilization.

"Actually according to the vedas the ksatriya classes migrated to europe to avoid the slaughter of Parasurama during an ancient period - As for the "Aryan" homeland the whole concept is quite speculative - for instance there is a raging debate amongst historians (The etymologists, the studiers of tribal drifts, and archeologists (fossil records) - basically they cannot agree on the timeline of history - and to top it all off these are all outside sources - In otherwords what you have with the study of indian culture is a whole lot of europeans completely disregarding the local already existing ideas of history and cramming their ideas in because they cannot accept that perhaps their ancestors come from this place - instead they rely on some apparent race of mysterious origins and location that colonised india "

Oh yes, there is indeed a great degree of controversy still regarding the precise homeland of the ancient Aryans, but more and more consensus seems to be around the black sea. This is demonstrated both genetically (which can reveal timestamps in the forms of mutations) as well as archaeologically (the earliest "Aryanesque" cultures and settlements are in the region).

But yes, I shall admit that Western science accepts no holy book as being fully historical and thus is not willing to simply take said things at face value.

"- as for the devas and asuras - well I could start an entire thread .... needless to say attributing them to a geographic location on the earth is just as ridiculous as finding the genetic origins of "gentlemen" in india."

I would actually like to discuss that with you in another thread, on the foundations that as a man of European descent, the origins of my people and their relgiions in ancient epochs is of great interest to me.

"Basically your understandings work on the assumption that everything in the vedas is a myth and thus rely on an established academic institutionalisation of eurocentric thought"

Considering the great lengths which current academia goes to denigrate the West, it can hardly be considered Eurocentric.

"Anyway, for what its worth here are somethings further on the subject

http://www.iskcon.com/icj/3_1/sdg.html
http://www.iskcon.com/icj/7_1/71hdg.html
http://www.iskcon.com/icj/1_2/12rsd.html
http://www.iskcon.com/icj/1_2/12knott.html"

I shall indeed. Thanks.

"The last time that opposing soliders put aside there weapons for a communal gathering was during christmas on WW1 - ironically it was also the first war that saw the invention of the machine gun (the appearance of the industrial age in combat - hooray) - so no bravery and chvalry were no longer a quality of combat (on the contrary they were likely to get you kiled) - and it has escalated to the current latest development in warfare - women and children on the battlefront (they can lay down firepower just as well as anyone else) - feudal japan attempted for years to keep gunpowder out of the country to protect the integrity of their warrior class - anyway - I could write another thread on this ...."

This too would be an intriguing subject.

"the europeans aren't fallible?"

No, that the concept of Eurocentrism is of great impact today or even in past ages. There were cases of some instances of Eurocentrism but in general, no,. mainstream science has never fully advocated any form of Eurocentrism.

"Maybe you could argue that theer is a shortage of perfect practioners - but its not like purchasing a scripture or book of spirituality is going to ruin your life plans for economic development"

The problem is the integrity of the scriptures themselves. Doesn't the Gita say that time is the great destroyer?

"If a person is finished with these 4 material eneavours (sometimes called processes of cheating religion - dharma projhita) they are qualified for a transcendental endeavour
http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/1/2/en "

I had meant it more in terms of "so you suggest religion provokes a feeling of religiousness only as one ages"?

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince James

This is getting MONSTROUS so I will do the needful

"So in otherwords if god was able to be conrolled by the activities of humans then we would have a god you can believe in? That however, while admittedly a popular ambition of persons in the material world, is not how god works ... this is why I was trying to establish that god is a conscious entity, and thus the epistemology for understanding him is compleetly difefrent from the epistemology of understanding dull matter (the "understand the president argument") - in otherwords god practically always maintains a vastly superior ontological status to us"

Not that God must be controlled by humans, but that God might have to manifest like in the ancient myths. Is not there a story of Vishnu attacking a demon at dusk, as neither male nor female, animal or human, et cetera, et cetera? That would be a prime example of "wow, a miracle!". If only repeatable that would satisfy all things.

There is a specific mention that incarnations of vishnu are now covered due to the appearance of Kali yuga - in other words not even demigods come here to pass water what to speak of god appearing in all his glory - the atmosphere is too heavily saturated with sinful activity
more info
http://www.krishna.com/main.php?id=490
http://www.acbspn.com/godhead/gaura_2predictions.htm
http://vedabase.net/cc/adi/3/52/en
There is an interesting incident with Chaitanya Mahaprabhu where he is about to kill some atheists, but it is appealed because the extermination of the sinful is not practical in kali yuga, because everyone would practicaly have to be exterminated

Also, the biggest problem with asserting God as a conscious entity is assuming that this being will indeed condescend to meet with us and other such things. That is to say, if we have whims involved, we actuallyu are much further from God.

Therefore part of the proces of seeing god requires pure unmotivated devotuional service without any tinges for fruitive gain or mental speculation

"You have a few issues to work on in your claim there, particularly regarding the notion of consciousness and how it is temporary (what to speak of god's) - but assuming you successfully apply the epistemology to rectify them along the way - yes"

So you are claiming that you can meet Krishna and various other avatars and other such things, in the flesh, today, with an experience equatable to the religious texts of yester year? Just so long as one follows the epistemology?

Yes - that said it is not easy - in fact it is arguably the most difficult thing to do, or at least it is simple for the simple hearted



"

What do you mean by outside sources? CNN? or Self realised persons? (in other words people who have applied the relevant epistemology or not)"

At the very least, a low-level and great deal of "self-realized persons", specifically someone that did not grow up in a culture (such as India) where everyone is enmeshed in such beliefs. But yes, more preferably CNN or the BBC or something.

basically theer are three types of perfected beings - one is perfected by epistomological application , one is eternally perfected, and one is perfected by the lord's causeless mercy - inotherwords it happens out of the blue - the last catergory is most rare and theer is no methodology one can apply to receive or manifest that because it is entirely dependant on god's mercy (the first example innvlves the endeavour to secure god's mercy)

"I never said th perception was contingent on poplarity - I said it was contingent on epistemology"

Many people daily perceive the reality of "bling-bling". That necessitates a different epistemology as well.

If you purchase and sell in sea shells its meaningless

The difference is that where some scientists were originally eurocentrists and triumphalists, the present day scientists are objective as possible. In India, the new tradition is "indocentrism" with ridiculous claims abounding, including such nonsense as nuclear weapons in prehistoric times and various other claims.

On what grounds do you say they are nonsense - perhaps they weren't exactly the same as nuclear weapons - they were more advanced - there is the idea that time causes de-evolution rather than evolution, until the winter finally gives way to spring for a rejuvenation - so to speak

But yes, I shall admit that Western science accepts no holy book as being fully historical and thus is not willing to simply take said things at face value.

so there is where the issue lies

"- as for the devas and asuras - well I could start an entire thread .... needless to say attributing them to a geographic location on the earth is just as ridiculous as finding the genetic origins of "gentlemen" in india."

I would actually like to discuss that with you in another thread, on the foundations that as a man of European descent, the origins of my people and their relgiions in ancient epochs is of great interest to me.

In brief - they belong to a different planetary system (the devas/asuras_

"

Basically your understandings work on the assumption that everything in the vedas is a myth and thus rely on an established academic institutionalisation of eurocentric thought"

Considering the great lengths which current academia goes to denigrate the West, it can hardly be considered Eurocentric.

Eurocentric also includes americancentric




"

the europeans aren't fallible?"

No, that the concept of Eurocentrism is of great impact today or even in past ages. There were cases of some instances of Eurocentrism but in general, no,. mainstream science has never fully advocated any form of Eurocentrism.

Maybe it is better to use some other word which suggests the economic biasis of first world countries - can you think of one?

"Maybe you could argue that theer is a shortage of perfect practioners - but its not like purchasing a scripture or book of spirituality is going to ruin your life plans for economic development"

The problem is the integrity of the scriptures themselves. Doesn't the Gita say that time is the great destroyer?

Also says that this imperishable science of yoga was lost and that it was re-established - scripture is an easy vehcle for a perfect practioner

"If a person is finished with these 4 material eneavours (sometimes called processes of cheating religion - dharma projhita) they are qualified for a transcendental endeavour
http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/1/2/en "

I had meant it more in terms of "so you suggest religion provokes a feeling of religiousness only as one ages"?

It can help but is not integral - see Dhruva maharaj - or even the early life of Bddha - depends whether one is required to take the school of hard knocks or not - as it applies to western culture - it doesn't help - by the time one reaches the age for serious spiritual austerity for the inevitable apearance of death one is immersed in lawn bowls or purchsing a caravan to go visit the other coast or something

 

[KennyJC]

To get back to your original statement of what was "obviously" true

Nicely avoided...

, you also tied that in with an admission that you haven't even studied the phenomena you brought up - for instance if I said that the concept of an electron was obviously fraudulent and also said that I have not really begun to seriously study physics wouldn't I look stupid?

Since electrons are within what we call "the real world", yes, you would look stupid if you had nothing to back up your assertion.

Religious claims have no basis in "the real world", so can be dismissed easily as fiction. To say any different requires faith/belief.

And wouldn't I look doubly stupid if I raised this on a thread that deals specifically with the necessity of applying an epistemology to reach an ontology?

Well in this thread, your premis is that scripture is valid and true, which makes you look stupid already.

 

[lightgigantic]

QUOTE=KennyJC

Nicely avoided...

avoided what?

Since electrons are within what we call "the real world", yes, you would look stupid if you had nothing to back up your assertion.

Religious claims have no basis in "the real world", so can be dismissed easily as fiction. To say any different requires faith/belief.

... and a high school drop out an say the same thing about electrons in between drinking beers

Well in this thread, your premis is that scripture is valid and true, which makes you look stupid already.

(burp)

 

[Prince_James]

lightgigantic:

"There is a specific mention that incarnations of vishnu are now covered due to the appearance of Kali yuga - in other words not even demigods come here to pass water what to speak of god appearing in all his glory - the atmosphere is too heavily saturated with sinful activity
more info
http://www.krishna.com/main.php?id=490
http://www.acbspn.com/godhead/gaura_2predictions.htm
http://vedabase.net/cc/adi/3/52/en
There is an interesting incident with Chaitanya Mahaprabhu where he is about to kill some atheists, but it is appealed because the extermination of the sinful is not practical in kali yuga, because everyone would practicaly have to be exterminated "

I read such things and I think: How conveinent. How conveinent that this world, where we actually could verify the miracles that took place in prior "golden ages", that it is apparently "too sinful" because we are in a "fallen age".

"Therefore part of the proces of seeing god requires pure unmotivated devotuional service without any tinges for fruitive gain or mental speculation"

That is rather ridiculous, is it not? If one's results are not certain, whyever would one want to seek it? Specifically when one could enjoy things far more in this life and be certain of that?

"Yes - that said it is not easy - in fact it is arguably the most difficult thing to do, or at least it is simple for the simple hearted"

And you are aware of any person in this world has achieved this?

"basically there are three types of perfected beings - one is perfected by epistomological application , one is eternally perfected, and one is perfected by the lord's causeless mercy - inotherwords it happens out of the blue - the last catergory is most rare and theer is no methodology one can apply to receive or manifest that because it is entirely dependant on god's mercy (the first example involves the endeavour to secure god's mercy)"

So one would have to rely on these "perfected beings"?

"If you purchase and sell in sea shells its meaningless"

What are a sage's words but counterfit coins in a world of matter?

"On what grounds do you say they are nonsense - perhaps they weren't exactly the same as nuclear weapons - they were more advanced - there is the idea that time causes de-evolution rather than evolution, until the winter finally gives way to spring for a rejuvenation - so to speak"

The complete and utter lack of any anthropological/archaeological record of advanced civilization until the ancient period refutes any notion of "high-technology" in past epochs. In fact, it seems the greatest things people were able to accomplish were moving tremendous rocks over great distances to arrange as standing stones. Or in essence, the fact that we pretty much have proof that it was cavemen, and not nuclear-physicists, which preceded Sumer, Egypt, the Indus Valley, et cetera.

"so there is where the issue lies"

Yes. Modern science does not recognize religious documents as 100 percent valid.

"In brief - they belong to a different planetary system (the devas/asuras_"

I'll create a thread for this.

"Eurocentric also includes americancentric"

Then let me rephrase: Considering current academia's bias against the West, it can hardly be charged with occidentalcentrism. (I had taken "Europe", or "The West" to include America and Canada, also).

"Maybe it is better to use some other word which suggests the economic biasis of first world countries - can you think of one?"

It is truly hard to proclaim that the West denigrates economically backwards nations and disregards their beliefs and history on that foundation alone. Again, there is even a movement - poorly founded - that celebrates the primitive. See such books as "Ishmael", and "Guns, Germs, and Steel".

"Also says that this imperishable science of yoga was lost and that it was re-established - scripture is an easy vehcle for a perfect practioner"

Lost and perhaps not reestablished in this age.

"It can help but is not integral - see Dhruva maharaj - or even the early life of Bddha - depends whether one is required to take the school of hard knocks or not - as it applies to western culture - it doesn't help - by the time one reaches the age for serious spiritual austerity for the inevitable apearance of death one is immersed in lawn bowls or purchsing a caravan to go visit the other coast or something "

Would not this also place religion a low-level? Considering that few vigorous, active, mentally growing and acute people, cling to it? That is to say, no one one would in general consider of great worth and value in society?

 

[Satyr]

I think epistemology is your new favorite word.
I bet you were happy when you were first introduced to it.

Satyr
actually it requires an epistemology

And yours is...?
Does it come from a Book?

Well don't you also require an epistemology to understand physics? More than convenient, its necessary

Physics also requires empirical evidence.

unless you submit to the epistemology of physics how else do you propose to understand anything in physics

Physics doesn’t ask for obedience to its laws, you are by nature bound by them, and it doesn’t threaten or promise anything beyond a hypothesis which might explain phenomena.
What about yours?
Physics doesn’t propose moral codes and universal absolutes. It proposes an explanation that is verifiable and testable.
What about yours?
Physics doesn’t produce high priests and sacred unquestioned scripture. It promotes debate and asks for skepticism.
What about yours?
Physics is a growing, evolving discipline producing thousands of books of hypothesis and speculation and proof.
What about yours?
Physics has created technological breakthroughs and daily enhances human life with its insights into the nature of existence.
What about yours?

Its not clear where I indicated alcholism as intrinsic to the epistemology of religion..

Are you dry or dull?
I know that you are proud of knowing the word ‘epistemology’ and that you believe that just throwing it around in a sentence along with religion makes it just another science or the equal to any other science, but try again.

All hypotheses are based on an epistemology.
Lord of the Rings has its own.
X-Men has its own.
Allah has His own.
Santa has his own.

What separates one from another as more likely or more usable or more reliable?
Utility, testable, repeatable, shared experience and the ability to predict behavior and phenomenon using it.
What about yours?

Did you read my "Christian Debate Tactics'?
The modern Christian method of trying to equate religion with any other existential hypothesis is a new way of trying to overcome the threat scientific methodology poses to faith.
But, no matter how many “epistemologies” you use it will not make Creationism a more plausible exegesis than Evolution Theory.
Evolution theory has evidence, it makes sense, it is a living theory that is growing and changing as new information is added to it.
Creationism is a dead thing, reliant on a single reference and on human frailty and fear, and forever reinterpreting its stagnating dogma to meet the demands of a growing scientific threat.
The fortunate thing about Creationism, as it is understood by Christians, is that its single reference point is so ambiguously written – equal to a Dionysian priestess’s proclamations and Nostradamus’s foresights – that it is ripe for reinterpretation after reinterpretation after reinterpretation, attempting to remain relevant in a changing world.

Simple labeling it is not enough to make it respectable.
It is and will forever the comforting port of the storm-beaten, drowning and those incapable of swimming and in need of rescue.
The cold, dark waters are dangerous and frightening. Not meant for the feint of heart.

Try again.

But if you think you can determine the basis of an ontology without applying the epistemology isn't that a forgoing of reason?

How so?

Your entire premise depends on reverting to the unreasonable, un-testable and unknowable to construct an absolute certainty.

You are so precious, little mind, so precious.
Never change. Keep the faith.
The world needs your kind.

 

[Godless]

Your entire premise depends on reverting to the unreasonable, un-testable and unknowable to construct an absolute certainty.

And to comprehend the above, is epistemology!


I'm not too sure, but light's mistake may be called:
The Etymological Fallacy

Epistemology 101

 

[Satyr]

And to comprehend the above, is epistemology!


I'm not too sure, but light's mistake may be called:
The Etymological Fallacy

Epistemology 101

Oh, I think his mistake is deeper than that.
This is a psychological stunting.

This type of mind is cute and we are inclined to humor it and allow it to be.
We forget that he represents a majority that votes and participates in the community and breeds and can buy guns and posses some political power.

On his own he is harmless and quaint but in numbers he becomes a problem.
Muslim suicide-bombers are minds like him (let us for a minute forget that these men are fighting for their lands and their cultural identity).
They, these so-called terrorists, have accepted an absolute truth and are willing to stake their entire life on it. They are willing to take us all with them because they are Sure, like this fellow is, that they will go to heaven or that there is a heaven and that they are doing God’s work.

Men like these follow blindly and are more likely to kill in the name of an absolute certainty, whether it be a religious or idealistic or political or nationalistic one.

The only thing separating today’s Islamic fanatics and today’s Christian fanatics is that the first often live in impoverished, desperate environments whereas most Christians live in more affluent societies.

There was a time when the tables were turned and Christians were no less violent, vulgar and destructive than today’s Islamic fundamentalist.
The Crusades, the Witch Hunts, the Inquisitions the many Papal attacks on men of science, proposing ideas that explained the universe but contradicted Scripture, the centuries of repression of human nature and of suppression of knowledge is the legacy of the Christian variety of faith.

Today they’ve invented a new strategy for combating human knowledge. They’ve reinterpreted the Bible in ways so as to make it appear scientific, in an age of science and reasonable in an age of reason. They mask themselves as scientists and philosophers when they are no such thing.
A scientist and philosopher is characterized by his love of knowledge and his unprejudiced search for truth.
They’ve already discovered ‘truth’ and are now seeking new ways of maintaining it and believing in it.

Humor them long enough and they will begin teaching their fairytales in schools alongside science, producing new generations of stunted, ignorant, fearful and prejudiced minds…..Oops, it’s already happening.
God bless America.

Didn’t Jesus tell Bush to go to war?

 

[lightgigantic]

[Satyr

I think epistemology is your new favorite word.
I bet you were happy when you were first introduced to it.

Actually it is the best thing I found to translate a sanskrit word "adhikara" which I used to translate as "the existential conditions for knowledge" which got me in to all sorts of hot water - so since I "discovered" epistemology, yes I am happy

And yours is...?
Does it come from a Book?

most epistemologies that deal with subtle knowledge do

Physics also requires empirical evidence.

but epistemology comes before that - otherwise you wouldn't be able to tell a digital image from crow stool

Physics doesn’t ask for obedience to its laws, you are by nature bound by them, and it doesn’t threaten or promise anything beyond a hypothesis which might explain phenomena.
What about yours?

The difference is that the hypothesis are not fallible in spiritual life- the only reason physics has fallible hypotheisis is that it has a human source for developing them (and ironically, the atheist assumes scripture functions out of the same paradigm. which manipulated scripture falsely repesented may, but certainly the correct epistemology doesn't) is fallible - hypothetically at least, wouldn't you expect an infallible person (god) to have an infalluble hypothesis?

Physics doesn’t propose moral codes and universal absolutes. It proposes an explanation that is verifiable and testable.
What about yours?

I'm not sure how an absence of moral codes is an indication of advancement? In fact it is a weaknes of science that leads to it occupying a lower rung of credibility - eg nuclear warfare

Physics doesn’t produce high priests and sacred unquestioned scripture. It promotes debate and asks for skepticism.
What about yours?

Wll there certainly are a few fat cats at the top and they have their scientific scriptures too - of course they get toppled by other fat cats, which is th inglorious nature of empiricism - replacing one relative truth with another

Physics is a growing, evolving discipline producing thousands of books of hypothesis and speculation and proof.
What about yours?

Yes there are also more books than you can read in a lifetime - they all however hit on the same point, not being reliant on speculation - given the choice would you rather be guessing about something or know it for a fact? Or is science contingent on the existence of eternal ignorance?

Physics has created technological breakthroughs and daily enhances human life with its insights into the nature of existence.
What about yours?

Well its not clear in what way we have advanced - certainly we are not advancing in jolliness - see dumbing of society thread

Are you dry or dull?
I know that you are proud of knowing the word ‘epistemology’ and that you believe that just throwing it around in a sentence along with religion makes it just another science or the equal to any other science, but try again.

And what epistemological proceses does science take on board to ensure that their practioners are neither dry, dull or proud?

All hypotheses are based on an epistemology.
Lord of the Rings has its own.
X-Men has its own.
Allah has His own.
Santa has his own.

Theerfore you find that more people take the ontological conclusion of alah more seriously than X-men, santa and the works by Tolkein (RPG'ers aside)

What separates one from another as more likely or more usable or more reliable?
Utility, testable, repeatable, shared experience and the ability to predict behavior and phenomenon using it.
What about yours?

Again - not clear how this gives you the upper hand - it all indicates that you have no idea what the proces of the successful application of religious epistemology grants - in other words how do you dtermine the utility, testability etc of an ontology you haven't approached?

Did you read my "Christian Debate Tactics'?

I skimmed it - the only thing that prevents me from responding to it is that the number of fallacies you presened would make it even bigger if I posted it

The modern Christian method of trying to equate religion with any other existential hypothesis is a new way of trying to overcome the threat scientific methodology poses to faith.

I can't speak for christianity but I can say that the religious epistemology works in only one way - that's the nature of any epistemology actually -

But, no matter how many “epistemologies” you use it will not make Creationism a more plausible exegesis than Evolution Theory.
Evolution theory has evidence, it makes sense, it is a living theory that is growing and changing as new information is added to it.

It just lacks evidence of macro-evolution, which is kind of integral

Creationism is a dead thing, reliant on a single reference and on human frailty and fear, and forever reinterpreting its stagnating dogma to meet the demands of a growing scientific threat.

I could say the same thing about evolution

The fortunate thing about Creationism, as it is understood by Christians, is that its single reference point is so ambiguously written – equal to a Dionysian priestess’s proclamations and Nostradamus’s foresights – that it is ripe for reinterpretation after reinterpretation after reinterpretation, attempting to remain relevant in a changing world.

Fortunately there are other scriptures where the complete picture is given

Simple labeling it is not enough to make it respectable.
It is and will forever the comforting port of the storm-beaten, drowning and those incapable of swimming and in need of rescue.

you don't have plans to participate in mortality I take it

The cold, dark waters are dangerous and frightening. Not meant for the feint of heart.

Actually this rhetoric is not much different from the brainless corner preachers who you abhor

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince James

I read such things and I think: How conveinent. How conveinent that this world, where we actually could verify the miracles that took place in prior "golden ages", that it is apparently "too sinful" because we are in a "fallen age".

convenient can also mean rational too - I mean, hypothetically speaking, if there are in fact 4 universal ages that are cyclic, like the seasons of winter to spring (satya, treta, dvarpa and kali yuga) and each is successively more degenerated than the previous (not because god is out of control but because the living entity has a desire to act in a certain way, and can only act a certain way in a certain atmosphere - like a certain tree can only flower in spring or winter summer or whatever) - wouldn't you expect an appearance of god in all his glories to put a dampaner in that - I mean suppose a living entity wanted to engage in grossly improper activity, wouldn't the direct appearance of god prevent that - just like suppose a young boy goes to a young girl's house with the idea of pursuing activities in the guise of romance, and the girls' father is there in the corner and says "don't mind me" while reading the newspaper, - what will happen? Absolutely nothing - the absence of god (apparently) in this age is a special facility for us to exhibit our free will (and suffer accordingly of course)

"Therefore part of the proces of seeing god requires pure unmotivated devotuional service without any tinges for fruitive gain or mental speculation"

That is rather ridiculous, is it not? If one's results are not certain, whyever would one want to seek it? Specifically when one could enjoy things far more in this life and be certain of that?

Just like along with god, comes god's opulence - just like someone may declare they want to be the friend of a rich man but actually they just want to enjoy the opulence - similarly when people say "I want god" it can mean many things, but that person who only wants the personality of god (as opposed to his opulences) is the true candidate for "heaven" and will not take an exit to a material heaven (or hell) on the way to pursuing god -

"Yes - that said it is not easy - in fact it is arguably the most difficult thing to do, or at least it is simple for the simple hearted"

And you are aware of any person in this world has achieved this?

I am reluctant to answer this because you don't know whether I would be lying or not - in other words you lack the knowledge to discriminate on the matter - which just leads to more confusion - I don't mean to sound condescending but it is my practical experience to answering these types of q's

"basically there are three types of perfected beings - one is perfected by epistomological application , one is eternally perfected, and one is perfected by the lord's causeless mercy - inotherwords it happens out of the blue - the last catergory is most rare and theer is no methodology one can apply to receive or manifest that because it is entirely dependant on god's mercy (the first example involves the endeavour to secure god's mercy)"

So one would have to rely on these "perfected beings"?

yes - definitely its better than relying in an imperfect one,

"If you purchase and sell in sea shells its meaningless"

What are a sage's words but counterfit coins in a world of matter?

Well if all you are interested in is the body and things related to the body (all of which gets lost at the point of death, and very often on numerous occassions before that event) than I guess that is a true statement - the word's of sages definitely won't enable you to become a bigger animal

"On what grounds do you say they are nonsense - perhaps they weren't exactly the same as nuclear weapons - they were more advanced - there is the idea that time causes de-evolution rather than evolution, until the winter finally gives way to spring for a rejuvenation - so to speak"

The complete and utter lack of any anthropological/archaeological record of advanced civilization until the ancient period refutes any notion of "high-technology" in past epochs. In fact, it seems the greatest things people were able to accomplish were moving tremendous rocks over great distances to arrange as standing stones. Or in essence, the fact that we pretty much have proof that it was cavemen, and not nuclear-physicists, which preceded Sumer, Egypt, the Indus Valley, et cetera.

I take it you are responding to the recent excavation of sites in INdia that have revealed unsafe levels of radiation and seem to indicate a nuclear explosion has taken place (as if people got suddenly vapourised while in the middle of daily life - and in the absence of volcanic activity) - what's your angle on this?

"so there is where the issue lies"

Yes. Modern science does not recognize religious documents as 100 percent valid.

How can they say 100% when they are not in a position to guage 100%?

"Eurocentric also includes americancentric"

Then let me rephrase: Considering current academia's bias against the West, it can hardly be charged with occidentalcentrism. (I had taken "Europe", or "The West" to include America and Canada, also).

I am not aware what this bias against the west is - maybe you could describe it as something post post modern - but it certainly doesn't indicate the acceptance of any other cultural paradigm outside of the euro/american one - - in other words its just a re-digestion of already established western values (or an acknowledgement of their failure)

"Maybe it is better to use some other word which suggests the economic biasis of first world countries - can you think of one?"

It is truly hard to proclaim that the West denigrates economically backwards nations and disregards their beliefs and history on that foundation alone. Again, there is even a movement - poorly founded - that celebrates the primitive. See such books as "Ishmael", and "Guns, Germs, and Steel".

primitivism? excuse me? I don't follow

"Also says that this imperishable science of yoga was lost and that it was re-established - scripture is an easy vehcle for a perfect practioner"

Lost and perhaps not reestablished in this age.

But then krishna states that he is again re-establishing it with arjuna - and there are numerous threads on different levels of performance that are constantly being maintained - in other words there is a deal of variety in the establishment of religious practices to suit what people are capable of

"It can help but is not integral - see Dhruva maharaj - or even the early life of Bddha - depends whether one is required to take the school of hard knocks or not - as it applies to western culture - it doesn't help - by the time one reaches the age for serious spiritual austerity for the inevitable apearance of death one is immersed in lawn bowls or purchsing a caravan to go visit the other coast or something "

Would not this also place religion a low-level?

low level of what? Certainly its not leading the way in society (in kaliyuga religious principles start at 25% and decrease down to practically zero over 430 000 years, at which time things get totally "reorganised by the kalki incarnation (there are some avatars called lila avatars, they appear like clockwork), to come to satya yuga starting at 100% and getting down to 75% over a period of 1 200 000 years etc etc

and then Considering that few vigorous, active, mentally growing and acute people, cling to it? That is to say, no one one would in general consider of great worth and value in society?

So is it enough to detrmine if something is of value in the world by taking a vote?

Looks like I created the monster with this one - feel free to apply the editors pen in your reply

 

[lightgigantic]

On his own he is harmless and quaint but in numbers he becomes a problem.

working on the fallacious idea that religion causes war? There's a thread for that if you really want to approach the subject ...

Muslim suicide-bombers are minds like him (let us for a minute forget that these men are fighting for their lands and their cultural identity).

In other words you want us to forget the evidence so you can establish your ideas - now that's CUTE

They, these so-called terrorists, have accepted an absolute truth and are willing to stake their entire life on it. They are willing to take us all with them because they are Sure, like this fellow is, that they will go to heaven or that there is a heaven and that they are doing God’s work.

So if all theists are potential human bombs are all atheists potential stalins?

Men like these follow blindly and are more likely to kill in the name of an absolute certainty, whether it be a religious or idealistic or political or nationalistic one.

If I follow you logic why am I any different from a person who follows blindly? You seem to be rallying a cause here - and what is the solution to get these dangerous persons
- isn't this what the war on terrorism functions on?

The only thing separating today’s Islamic fanatics and today’s Christian fanatics is that the first often live in impoverished, desperate environments whereas most Christians live in more affluent societies.

so you do conceed to the real basis being economic development and allocation of fundamental resources?

There was a time when the tables were turned and Christians were no less violent, vulgar and destructive than today’s Islamic fundamentalist.
The Crusades, the Witch Hunts, the Inquisitions the many Papal attacks on men of science, proposing ideas that explained the universe but contradicted Scripture, the centuries of repression of human nature and of suppression of knowledge is the legacy of the Christian variety of faith.

and where is the level playing field evidenced by this new era of enlightenment?

Today they’ve invented a new strategy for combating human knowledge. They’ve reinterpreted the Bible in ways so as to make it appear scientific, in an age of science and reasonable in an age of reason. They mask themselves as scientists and philosophers when they are no such thing.
A scientist and philosopher is characterized by his love of knowledge and his unprejudiced search for truth.

I guess the problem is when they are underpinned by atheistic values and turn a blind eye to knowledge in the form of scripture to protect their delicate set of values

They’ve already discovered ‘truth’ and are now seeking new ways of maintaining it and believing in it.

So if a person is proven unqualified in a field of knowledge that indicates all persons in that field ar e unqualified?

Humor them long enough and they will begin teaching their fairytales in schools alongside science, producing new generations of stunted, ignorant, fearful and prejudiced minds…..Oops, it’s already happening.
God bless America.

wouldn't the correct application of religion eliminate the incorrect one? I guess you cannot make that analysis if you haven't applied the relevant epistemology

Didn’t Jesus tell Bush to go to war?

Well, that aside, feel free to address anything I established in the opening thread, or are you just the run of the mill atheists who blindly slaps their dogma on any theistic minded thread?