any chance you can concisely express the key points or general principles
mew mew mew mew
myuu myuu myuu myuu
pokemon pokemon pokemon pokemon
in my head, in my head, in my head, in my head
worship worship worship worship
any chance you can concisely express the key points or general principles
I've been asking you, and I would respect your answer, (and not concerning other fields).
I could answer it but I am trying another approach
M*W: We've heard it time and again. Some of the christians on this forum hear the voice of god in their heads. They've admitted it. They believe it. They worship it.
I call this a delusion. They're sick people.
Am I alone here, or do you agree?
Hey Med Woman, if you can't defeat 'em, ban 'em, way to go, I just love your intellectual honesty, ahahahaha.
Don't try "another approach", (which is actually your usual approach of not answering questions). I would have thought you'd do it straight away, (considering it is "not a difficult question").
So please, without resorting to answering in terms of police officers/lawyers etc ... go ahead, shoot.
if one does not have a process to rely on to determine the qualification of persons beyond their jurisdiction, one is a mad man - I have such a process, and I am sure I am not unique - I'm am trying to determine whether you are unique.
They believe what they will, but they cannot back-up anything they say, ...
No one on this forum should be put into a position of responding to someone who is delusional.
Do you believe in "love"? Have you ever been in "love"? If so, can you back it up with rational, logical arguments and solid, scientific evidence?
Is your answer that you can understand the processes innvolved in whatever is beyond your jurisdiction in other fields of expertise in 5 minutes. Consideringthat it usually takes 1-3 years in academies of higher education, it appears to be a tall claim.Assume I am.. answer the damn question. I am a doctor - I'm not entirely clued up on the lives of teachers, mechanics, airplane pilots etc. However, all it takes is 5 minutes and I can know the process that these people go through to become qualified. They do not shy away under the pathetic little statements that you consistently attempt.
i agree - it is not a difficult question - but since it seems on this forum there are academic tendencies to render simple things incomprehensible, I am awaiting your answer (assuming of course you don't want to stick with your first one)It is really not as hard to determine who is qualified or not as you try to make out.
I never said all people are unqualified, I said that anyone who has not appied a process is most likely unqualified - just like a scientific researcher without a uni degree usually doesn't get farWhat I want is your statement on what these people must go through to be considered qualified. You asked:
"However if, as an atheist, one could theoretically accept the concept that god exists, is there any reason tha t he could not speak to someone?"
I have brought up that reason that you have mentioned many times - that people are unqualified and therefore cannot get close to god in any way.
and the route to getting to this point is the discussion of general principles - since you seem to indicate that it is easy to determine the general principles one applies to determine whether a person is qualified in fields beyond one's jurisdiction, and you are eager to get the ball rolling, it s not clear why you just simply don't say what the general principles areI went on to say:
"Well according to you, the possibility of it being true is entirely dependant upon qualification. Thus if you were right it would be easy to work out who are the blatant fakes, and then get round to discussing evidence for 'qualified claims' later on. To do that of course one would need to know exactly what is needed to make a person "qualified" to be able to tell who is and who isn't, and who is therefore full of shit when they say god speaks to them.
If you recind your earlier statements and now say even the unqualified can engage in conversation with a god, you would need to work out how we are supposed to tell the real cases from the fraudulent ones. Content of message is really not sufficient."
agreedSo..
A) We would need to know exactly what is needed to make a person "qualified"
agreedB) If the unqualified can engage in conversation with a god, we would need to work out how we are supposed to tell the real cases from the fraudulent ones.
so tell us what the general principles are you would apply to determine whether this is in fact a correct scientific diagramAnswers are welcome, non-answers are not. Either answer what has been posed or quit replying. I don't have the time to keep asking the same thing over and over to deaf ears.