To know there is no god?
- Thread starter superluminal
- Start date
- Status
*************
M*W: The Elohim were the creator gods of the OT. Are you saying they are who christians worship?
- thus an electron is imaginary for the high school drop out - which is why he appears like such a case from the perspective of the physicist
they can go as far as establishing a process - if a person is reluctant to take up the process, as in the case of the school drop out, then I guess they will just have to learn how to be satisfied by stabilizing on an unsatisfactory level of knowledge instead ....
the obvious difference is that you have no process nor any claim of direct perception in regards to Martian life
snakelord
if the results are repeatable then we have something to discuss
once again, if you have a process to advocate along with your claim, rather than just making a claim, then we have something to discuss
I find it disheartening the way you determine the extent of a genre by its worst stereotype
Isn't it obvious? -you haven't met someone who has direct perception
erm ... application (how many times do I have to say that??)
lightgigantic said:
snakelord said:
I claim I have direct perception of Lenny the leprechaun. so now you have somthing to discuss. get to it.lightgigantic said:
no - you just have a claim - when you have a claim of a process then we will have something to examine
This because you don't understand the epistemology, ontology of Lenny, we do have a claim of his existence, and a direct process of how we come to believe in Lenny, greatest Leprechaun of all time, the god of all the universe. it's a tentative attempt of yours to undermine and be little our beliefs!
Ok - then the process that I think I know has worked for some:no - you just have a claim - when you have a claim of a process then we will have something to examine
1. Unshackle yourself fully from all other forms of theistic worship and/or religion.
2. Seek out saintly persons as initially granted that status by Lenny Himself, and then through persons awarded that status by those initially that had it granted to them - and so on down the ages. You shall know a saintly person only when you have applied 1 correctly.
3. There is no point in doing 2 if you have not truly done 1.
4. Honestly - go back and do 1.
5. Understand what these saintly persons have to say - and abide by their teachings and wisdom.
Only then will you truly be able to see Lenny in all His glory and greatness.
This is a proven process to work.
It has worked for Godless and Mustafhakofi (I think) - and litterally... SOME others (possibly).
I could turn round and say "it's about faith, not science", (as I have been told time and time again by the religious). However, it is completely testable.. All you need to do is be honestly and truthfully willing to know the truth and Lenny will appear before you.
That is the only qualification that is needed.
I have done so. Although I have asked you countless times now, you still have not provided me with a process to becoming qualified in regards to your god.
You being disheartened is of little concern to me, especially given that I didn't "determine" anything, I merely pointed out a fact in my life - (i.e I have never personally seen one god claim stand up under scrutiny).
But they all claim they did. So how exactly do we distinguish who really has had direct perception and who hasn't?
And that entails what exactly? Now, you would only have to say it once but you never answer the questions that follow - and thus lead people to asking the same questions over and over. So, explain the "process" in detail.
Snakelord
science means one can carry out an experiment to validate a claim - in other words the claims, whether of lenny or a saintly person, should have a process that goes with such claims - in the case of a saintly person there are normative descriptions given in scripture which can act as a starting base ..... in the case of lenny .....????
then the words "honestly" and "truthfully willing" require to be further qualified I guess
and countless times i have replied - Normative descriptions given in scripture
which is why I constantly bring into question the extent of your serious investigation of th e subject
to begin with - normative descriptions given in scripture
in general - normative descriptions given in scripture
then it seems you have no basis for direct perception since the process does not go any further than coming to the direct perception of those who claim direct perception
Last edited by a moderator:
LOL!
Now you finally see the issue we have with your claimed process (not that I think we've ever actually seen it put forward).
Or please feel free to explain the difference with the process you follow... ?
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
How do you determine the probability? And what liklihood, in numbered %, do you give to this.
RAtionalists are overconident in their abilities to determine liklihood like this. And even a look WITHIN the history of science, where scientists with new ideas were told how unlikely their ideas were, should have trained in a little humility.
100 years ago black holes would have seemed incredibly unlikely.
A few years ago, many scientists thought that really you couldn't have a universe without them.
Now I hear they are being brought into question again.
quite simply - there are claims made by persons who also claim a process that enables direct perception - hence the numerous references to the high school drop out and the physicist etc -
what else do you think I have claimed?
"probability" = confidence statement
Last edited by a moderator:
There is the book of Lenny. What now? What are we looking for in that book exactly that will somehow justify the claims of 'saintly persons', (or Lenny followers)?
Dictionary.com should suffice.
Such as?
Well, I've read dozens of ancient 'scripture' dozens of times, I've looked under the rocks in my garden, swam to the bottom of Loch Ness, (only found a plesiosaur), searched the cosmos in my battery powered space ship bought from Toys R Us for £299.99... Was there anything in specific you had in mind?
Out of interest I even spoke to a saintly person last week who informs me you're full of shit. As he is qualified and you're clearly not qualified, is he right?
You keep saying this even though it doesn't answer the question. Text in a book does not provide any evidence to suggest that anyone that claims he has direct perception actually has direct perception. So again, how do you actually distinguish who really has direct perception?
No offence, but I asked you to explain the process in detail. I don't understand what you're trying to say exactly.. A person reads scripture and then claims he has direct perception and because he has read scripture his claim is valid? In detail please.
People who have seen and believe Lenny the Leprechaun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nda_OSWeyn8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoJU8lLvFOo&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE48rZ7-Kjg&mode=related&search=
There you have it, the video proves the existence of Lenny!
Others eye witness accounts proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is real!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nda_OSWeyn8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoJU8lLvFOo&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE48rZ7-Kjg&mode=related&search=
There you have it, the video proves the existence of Lenny!
Others eye witness accounts proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is real!
Snakelord
In short though it begins with faith, much like any other field of knowledge you care to mention, then it develops into association with like minded persons (much like any other field of knowledge you care to mention, then comes applying the process, much like any other field of knowledge you care to mention, then comes reaping the result from applying the process, much like any other field of knowledg e you care to mention, an d then comes increasing increments of direct perception, much like any other field of knowledge you care to mention
in short it begs the question why you think you can transgress the established norms of any field of knowledge you car e to mention
normative descriptions = qualifications - in other words how (or what) you have to 'be' in order to know something
but when applied to nouns it becomes a bit more complex - like for instance what does it mean to be an honest businessman - what does it mean to be an honest husband etc etc - what to speak of what it means to be an honest spiritual seeker - it all requires further clarification and qualification of terms
you are not familiar with any normative descriptions given in scripture?
the processes recommended by persons already familiar with the topic could be helpful - actually its a common misconception by atheists that reading is sufficient to understand something given in scripture - even in standard fields of knowledge there is practical knowledge and value based knowledge as well as theory
even assuming you knew how to identify a saintly person by quality (as opposed to appearance) , I guess it would bring in to the question your capability to act as a reliable medium between mine and his or her communication
it does however offer an indication how one can perceive such evidence -- for instance a normative description for physics might be something like "go to university and get a degree in science"
no - a person reads scripture, applies a process (usually in the association of persons who have already applied the process) and then develops a degree of direct perception.
In short though it begins with faith, much like any other field of knowledge you care to mention, then it develops into association with like minded persons (much like any other field of knowledge you care to mention, then comes applying the process, much like any other field of knowledge you care to mention, then comes reaping the result from applying the process, much like any other field of knowledg e you care to mention, an d then comes increasing increments of direct perception, much like any other field of knowledge you care to mention
in short it begs the question why you think you can transgress the established norms of any field of knowledge you car e to mention
Last edited:
Ok so kindly cite an example and explain to me how that justifies/validates the claims of saintly persons/lenny followers.
Well, 'honestly' and 'truthfully' are adverbs and 'honest' is an adjective so you should understand those actual words regardless to what noun you put after it.
Typical way to avoid answering a question.. pose another question in return. For now take it whatever way you like - I am not familiar, or I am familiar.. it's irrelevant. Kindly answer the question.
It's a common theist misconception that it's a common misconception by atheists that reading is sufficient. To cite my example I didn't just read, I ended up searching the entire galaxy in my £299.99 Toys R Us spaceship. However, none of this leads us any closer to being able to verify/justify the claims of direct perception of 'saintly persons'.
Well, I keep asking you. You keep saying "normative descriptions in scripture" and think it suffices. If I have a problem identifying 'saintly persons' it's your fault because you're incapable of answering a damn question.
Tell me exactly how to identify a saintly person and we'll go from there. If you are going to once again, for the gazillionth time, give it the old "normative description" horse poo then at least cite specific examples.
Why would it, other than a simple refusal on your part to accept that you're full of shit?
*yawn*. Once again: how do you actually distinguish who really has direct perception?
Says who? How can you show that they have this degree of direct perception? How can you validate their claims? You can't say "they do this and then they do have this" without being able to show that they do indeed have what it is you and they claim they do. How do you validate my claim that I have direct perception to Lenny?
This is where I could go on about nouns and how it's going to make it all the more complex. A faithful husband for example, or a faithful dog, or a faithful god. :bugeye:
Still, purely out of interest cite me direct examples of how 'it begins with faith' in other fields of knowledge.
No. In short it begs the question why you waffle on with irrelevant verbal flatulence instead of answering actual questions - namely how does one validate the claim of direct perception? I claim to have direct perception of Lenny the Leprechaun for example.. How could my claim be validated?
snakelord
as for an example
BG 3.28: One who is in knowledge of the Absolute Truth, O mighty-armed, does not engage himself in the senses and sense gratification, knowing well the differences between work in devotion and work for fruitive results.
BG 12.15: He for whom no one is put into difficulty and who is not disturbed by anyone, who is equipoised in happiness and distress, fear and anxiety, is very dear to Me.
BG 12.16: My devotee who is not dependent on the ordinary course of activities, who is pure, expert, without cares, free from all pains, and not striving for some result, is very dear to Me.
BG 12.17: One who neither rejoices nor grieves, who neither laments nor desires, and who renounces both auspicious and inauspicious things — such a devotee is very dear to Me.
BG 12.18-19: One who is equal to friends and enemies, who is equipoised in honor and dishonor, heat and cold, happiness and distress, fame and infamy, who is always free from contaminating association, always silent and satisfied with anything, who doesn't care for any residence, who is fixed in knowledge and who is engaged in devotional service — such a person is very dear to Me.
faith (or inductive knowledge) is the primary foundation of any field of knowledge you care to mention (if it is absent one does not make any advancement in the field - for instance, since you like calling anything related to theism horse poo and the like its obvious that you are completely unwilling to undergo any of the prerequisites for knowledge in the field, much like the high school drop out is completely unwilling to take up the required discipline of physics)
if you disagree perhaps you could explain how one can validate or invalidate any claim in physics
knowledge has prerequisites
as for an example
BG 3.28: One who is in knowledge of the Absolute Truth, O mighty-armed, does not engage himself in the senses and sense gratification, knowing well the differences between work in devotion and work for fruitive results.
obviously the adverb is easily defined - when used in conjunction with a noun however you have a topic for debate
I just find it strange that a person should ask for an example of a normative description in scripture since you would be hard pressed to find an example that is not normative (or can not be placed in a normative context)
regarding your toy spaceship - it seems you have more misconceptions than your average atheist
you jumped the gun by saying you spoke to one the other day - my question to you is how did you identify him?
BG 12.13-14: One who is not envious but is a kind friend to all living entities, who does not think himself a proprietor and is free from false ego, who is equal in both happiness and distress, who is tolerant, always satisfied, self-controlled, and engaged in devotional service with determination, his mind and intelligence fixed on Me — such a devotee of Mine is very dear to Me.
BG 12.15: He for whom no one is put into difficulty and who is not disturbed by anyone, who is equipoised in happiness and distress, fear and anxiety, is very dear to Me.
BG 12.16: My devotee who is not dependent on the ordinary course of activities, who is pure, expert, without cares, free from all pains, and not striving for some result, is very dear to Me.
BG 12.17: One who neither rejoices nor grieves, who neither laments nor desires, and who renounces both auspicious and inauspicious things — such a devotee is very dear to Me.
BG 12.18-19: One who is equal to friends and enemies, who is equipoised in honor and dishonor, heat and cold, happiness and distress, fame and infamy, who is always free from contaminating association, always silent and satisfied with anything, who doesn't care for any residence, who is fixed in knowledge and who is engaged in devotional service — such a person is very dear to Me.
and you wonder why I doubt you can neutrally represent me?
*yawn*Once again how do you distinguish between a person who really has direct perception of phenomena in physics?
if you examine the general principles of the above process of acquiring knowledge you will see that you have applied the same general principles to become qualified in your field of knowledge (theory - > practical -> values) - alternatively you could have just got your degree over the net
and you complain about me repeating the eg with the physicist? - how can you validate the claims of a physicist unless one has the knowledge foundations of a physicist (why can't a linguist validate the claims of a physicist?)
a rocket scientist could show you many things but you probably wouldn't be able to tell if they were upside down or not.
at least I know how one can become a qualified rocket scientist, physicist or saintly person (in other words i have knowledge of the process) - since you have yet to offer a process that leads to direct perception, all you have are unsubstantiated claims.
maybe you don't understand me - or perhaps more correctly you take special delight in not understanding me
faith (or inductive knowledge) is the primary foundation of any field of knowledge you care to mention (if it is absent one does not make any advancement in the field - for instance, since you like calling anything related to theism horse poo and the like its obvious that you are completely unwilling to undergo any of the prerequisites for knowledge in the field, much like the high school drop out is completely unwilling to take up the required discipline of physics)
if one didn't have faith that the claims of a physicist were true (like for instance when one is a young child and not capable of verifying or invalidating such claims) one would not have the slightest interest in being a physicist - much like you don't have the slightest interest in being a theist (nothing wrong with not having an interest in a field of knowledge - only becomes a problem when you start passing opinions about it)
easy - BECOME QUALIFIED
if you disagree perhaps you could explain how one can validate or invalidate any claim in physics
examine the process you advocate as a prerequisite (which you haven't done yet)
Now kindly explain how that validates the claims of saintly persons/Lenny followers.
I find it equally strange that a person would believe, without anything in support of that belief, that text in a book somehow validates the claims of direct perception of space beings.
From what I have seen you don't know the first thing about atheists, or much else for that matter.
He made a claim to direct perception and supported it with normative descriptions in scripture. Hey don't blame me, you said it. Hell, you even show it in your next statement. You go on to quote scripture when I ask you to explain to me how to identify a saintly person. Ok, he used different scripture so I suppose we now need to debate what exact scripture to use to become a saintly person and have direct perception, but I didn't jump any gun, I merely followed what you had said.
I didn't say it, a qualified saintly person did. Take your issue up with him.
Ah, that old chestnut once again. Question with a question. Seemingly you're a very slow learner. I would ask that you not do that. Answer a question first and then pose your question in return. So, how do you actually distinguish who really has direct perception?
Nice to see there are alternative methods to becoming qualified. However, for now that is neither here nor there. When I said "says who", I was generally trying to ask who ascertains that a claim to direct perception is valid? You said, matter of factly, that they "develop direct perception" and yet still haven't explained how you have managed to validate their claim of direct perception. Did you perhaps see what they saw through their eyes?
Ah, that old chestnut once again. Question with a question. Kindly don't do it. Once more: how can you validate that they do indeed have direct perception?
Look, we're discussing space beings, let's try and keep analogies in a familiar context. Lenny will allow you to use him as an example. As a man that has direct perception of Lenny I could probably explain many things to you that you wouldn't understand. My question, which you also don't understand, is how does one go about validating my claim to direct perception of Lenny?
Indeed I asked this in my last post to which you said:
To which I should now simply give the LG answer and think that suffices. Ok, you ready for it? Here it comes.... "normative descriptions in scripture". There is a book of Lenny that I can share with you if you want and there are processes that lead to direct perception but I'm unsure, given your own statements, what use it would serve to fill you in. It would be.. hmm.. like a rocket scientist explaining things to you. You wouldn't know what was upside down or not. No offence, but you'd be the high school dropout.
If you honestly want to learn and know about Lenny - which will lead to direct perception, there are certain things that must be done and clearly the pair of us don't really agree with learning things "over the net". Would you disagree with that? Do you think a person can become a saintly person and get direct perception of god over the net?
That's nouns for you LG, they cause problems. You go on to make the claim that faith is "inductive knowledge" when faith is more: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. As a result of that, kindly cite examples of fields of knowledge that work on faith.
Seems you misunderstand. What you're saying is horse poo, not 'anything related to theism'. Furthermore, I'm far from 'unwilling', that simply goes to show how little you know the people you talk to. What I have been doing is asking you, (undoubtedly the more qualified.. *lol*), to teach me these things. If there is an issue, it's because you're doing a piss poor job.
What a load of old verbal flatulence. I gained my interest in chemistry, (for example), from being taught chemistry and having a home chemistry set. I, clearly unlike you, questioned everything my teacher said - and everything my teacher said was shown to be true via evidence. Mix this and that chemical and the house blows up. While faith is involved for those that just believe and done with it, have no questions concerning it's validity but just believe it because they can, it does not stand up to scrutiny in most cases, (other than faith issues such as believing in sky beings).
Someone tells you the cup of tea they have just made you is cool. You could take the faith method, (throw it down your throat), or the evidence gaining method, (take a sip to see). Same with crossing the road, you could take the faith method, (walk out without looking), or the evidence gaining method, (look left and right).
Everything we do is via the evidence gaining method.
By asking questions concerning it I am clearly 'evidence gaining'. You're doing absolutely nothing to validate the claims and thus without the evidence I do not just adopt faith and accept it as true - which is why I am not a theist. Likewise I have no 'faith' that what physicists say is true, if I am interested in learning about physics I would gain the required evidence to support the claims of those physicists and if it stands up and is supported then I will delve further into it.
In short: To validate/invalidate the claims of direct perception you must also have direct perception - which ultimately means that everything is true because you can't invalidate it if you have direct perception (and thus have validated it).
Certainly. The claimant provides evidence for their claim. In regards to your space beings there is no evidence, just the claim.
Ok, I have "examined the process". What now? How do I go about validating the claim of direct perception or how do you go about invalidating that claim?
For the sake of argument I'll just borrow your process: normative descriptions in scripture. What now?
Knowledge does have prerequisites. Rationalism and empiricism being among them. But quoting the mythical superstitions of primitive and ancient cultures doesn't qualify as knowledge in anything but that culture's mythology. Indeed, by stating that your BG quote is accurate, you're making a "confidence statement."
More BS from the BSer.
- Status