Torture

[Non-Logical-Idea-Guy]

I watched HOSTEL 2 the other night. Not for the squeamish. There's a hostel in Eastern Europe where backpackers are abducted and then taken to a nearby factory where they are tortured to death by people who have paid for the privilege of doing it.

Torture has been practised through the ages by certain barbaric people who enjoy the pain of others, people who are usually sick in the head.

And yet a central tenet of many faiths is that solely for not believing in the diety concerned, he will torture you FOREVER. Not like human torture, for a few hours or maybe even stretching it out for a few days, but FOREVER.

Christians and muslims accept this, blandly saying that "God is Love" or that God made us so he can do what he wants with us. Is it any wonder why religionists are accused of being delusional because they worship a being who is infinitely CRUEL.

whats wrong with worshipping something thats cruel? it ios indeed fairly silly for certain religions to say god is love when he tortures you but if you take it away from organised religion for a moment.

isnt the fact hes cruel the most important reason to worship? we all bow down (worship) things that are unfair /cruel because we know if we don't then bad stuff could happen so it kinda backfires a bit

 

[SnakeLord]

erm - in case you didn't realize it, getting "an education" would make one qualified

According to your insanely nonsensical statement, these students can't ever be shown evidence of anything until they're qualified in that which they're studying - of which getting evidence is a key part in providing.

According to your insanely nonsensical statement I can't provide evidence of the existence of mars using our telescope until my daughter's a qualified astronomer.

What complete and utter foolishness.

certainly, but since your standard for evidence is classical empiricism many things will not become evidenced to you

Lol, so your evidence comes in what form exactly? Inaudible whispers in the wind?

the fact is though that you are an openly antagonistic to the very principle of approaching theistic qualification

Until anyone out of the millions can show any validity in their claims or worth of their claims, why should they be taken seriously? Because they say so.. right?

maybe it would be more progressive for you to discuss any logical fallacies you see with the "idea" of hell

You made the claim that such a place exists. It is therefore your job to support your claim. Whenever you're ready..

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

erm - in case you didn't realize it, getting "an education" would make one qualified
”
According to your insanely nonsensical statement, these students can't ever be shown evidence of anything until they're qualified in that which they're studying - of which getting evidence is a key part in providing.

no
my statement suggests that first comes theory then practice and then validation (evidence)

According to your insanely nonsensical statement I can't provide evidence of the existence of mars using our telescope until my daughter's a qualified astronomer.

if she didn't have some degree of theory before hand the whole experience of peering through a telescope would be meaningless (although she would probably just accept your indication of what mars is on faith, since the theory would probably be a bit beyond her)

What complete and utter foolishness.

once again, it appears that you have issues more with how knowledge actually functions as opposed to any intrinsic religious issues

“
certainly, but since your standard for evidence is classical empiricism many things will not become evidenced to you
”
Lol, so your evidence comes in what form exactly? Inaudible whispers in the wind?

no
et al justice, the president etc etc

“
the fact is though that you are an openly antagonistic to the very principle of approaching theistic qualification
”
Until anyone out of the millions can show any validity in their claims or worth of their claims, why should they be taken seriously? Because they say so.. right?

for a person who would rather stab their testicles with an ice pick than apply the prerequisites for qualification, perhaps a discussion of logic (as opposed to truth) would be more progressive

“
maybe it would be more progressive for you to discuss any logical fallacies you see with the "idea" of hell
”
You made the claim that such a place exists. It is therefore your job to support your claim. Whenever you're ready.

.
and if you insist that classical empiricism is the truth, the light and the way, topics for discussion become greatly reduced, since one cannot even discuss the evidence for the president existing or the foundations of things like justice
:shrug:

 

[SnakeLord]

my statement suggests that first comes theory then practice and then validation (evidence)

This is a new and different statement. However, am I to now conclude that you're in disagreement and that you can provide evidence to the unqualified? If not then it seems your earlier implications stand but if you can then kindly show me that evidence. Thanks.

if she didn't have some degree of theory before hand the whole experience of peering through a telescope would be meaningless

So one doesn't need to be qualified anymore, one just needs an idea of something? I'm glad we've got that established. Now what you need to do is give me the idea of this specific hell of yours that you boldly claim exists and then provide the evidence. Thanks.

et al justice, the president etc etc

Oh, the president. So you mean via the eyes, photographs and video? Please lg, do feel free to use those methods. Evidence please. Thanks.

for a person who would rather stab their testicles with an ice pick..

I'd love to continue down this path but alas, we are not talking about my testicles. Would you mind, once you have finished daydreaming about my gonads, answering the actual question posed? Thanks.

Oh, to save you scrolling up: "Until anyone out of the millions can show any validity in their claims or worth of their claims, why should they be taken seriously?"

Thanks.

and if you insist that classical empiricism is the truth, the light and the way, topics for discussion become greatly reduced

I haven't insisted anything other than you to show evidence. It can be given in any form you choose. If you can show it via inaudible whispers in the wind then feel free. Evidence please. Thanks.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

my statement suggests that first comes theory then practice and then validation (evidence)
”
This is a new and different statement. However, am I to now conclude that you're in disagreement and that you can provide evidence to the unqualified?

yes
(hint : normative descriptions)

“
if she didn't have some degree of theory before hand the whole experience of peering through a telescope would be meaningless
”
So one doesn't need to be qualified anymore, one just needs an idea of something?

theory does tend to offer a fresh dimension to practice

I'm glad we've got that established. Now what you need to do is give me the idea of this specific hell of yours that you boldly claim exists and then provide the evidence. Thanks.

basic idea of hell is that any system of social order must have recourse to justice

“
et al justice, the president etc etc
”
Oh, the president. So you mean via the eyes, photographs and video?

in case you haven't noticed video is not direct perception
so I guess if the president isn't visible before your eyes, he remains unevidenced

“
for a person who would rather stab their testicles with an ice pick..
”
I'd love to continue down this path but alas, we are not talking about my testicles.

there is however the issue of your antagonism towards religious practice, which is why I suggested discussions of logic could be more progressive

Oh, to save you scrolling up: "Until anyone out of the millions can show any validity in their claims or worth of their claims, why should they be taken seriously?"

ditto above

“
and if you insist that classical empiricism is the truth, the light and the way, topics for discussion become greatly reduced
”
I haven't insisted anything other than you to show evidence.

ok then lets cut to the chase (yet again)
In your opinion, how are claims evidenced?

 

[SnakeLord]

yes
(hint : normative descriptions)

Sorry, don't see what you're trying to say to me with relevance to you showing me evidence to support your claim which you can apparently do regardless to my qualification or lack thereof, (although I have personally never heard of a qualified hellologist). Further explanation please.

theory does tend to offer a fresh dimension to practice

I'm truly pleased for it.. now can you show me this evidence?

basic idea of hell is that any system of social order must have recourse to justice

I don't quite follow although this statement certainly seems of some value if applied to hell being a human creation intended to keep that social order. If not that, what exactly are you trying to get at?

in case you haven't noticed video is not direct perception

I see, so as it's direct perception we're after, can you directly show me this hell of yours?

so I guess if the president isn't visible before your eyes, he remains unevidenced

Not really, no. You need to sit down and work out where you've gone wrong. In the meantime I gratefully request that you show me this evidence in any form it might take. Once again: I fully allow inaudible whispers in the wind. Why are you stalling?

there is however the issue of your antagonism towards religious practice

That's another claim that lies solely in your mind, however.. my anatagonism or lack thereof does not prevent you from showing me this evidence. Throw it on me lg, I'm ready and waiting. If you want to know where my issue lies it's with people that haven't got the courage or decency to answer questions asked of them. I resent that there are some people that believe it more worthwhile to avoid questions as if they have a plague attached, but I suppose I do at least recognise that they avoid the questions purely because they cannot answer them. Consider this an opportunity to show me what kind of a person you are, (although I think that's been established quite a few times). Here is my question for the third time:

"Until anyone out of the millions can show any validity in their claims or worth of their claims, why should they be taken seriously?"

In your opinion, how are claims evidenced?

In this instance whatever way you deem appropriate. Given that it is your claim I will give you the opportunity to present the evidence in the way that you think is valid and worthwhile. I am not here to tell you how to support your own claims, do whatever you think you must.





Waiting..

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
yes
(hint : normative descriptions)
”
Sorry, don't see what you're trying to say to me with relevance to you showing me evidence to support your claim which you can apparently do regardless to my qualification or lack thereof, (although I have personally never heard of a qualified hellologist). Further explanation please.

I'm sure we have been through this millions of times before, but just to recap

1. right theory leads to right practice
2. right practice leads to right conclusion
3. right conclusion leads to the ability to validate/invalidate a claim

if you mess up with normative descriptions you mess up at first base

“
theory does tend to offer a fresh dimension to practice
”
I'm truly pleased for it.. now can you show me this evidence?

a few theoretical ideas in your noggin tends to be the difference between looking at mars through a telescope and looking at some blurry thing by poking your eye into a funny cylindrical thing

“
basic idea of hell is that any system of social order must have recourse to justice
”
I don't quite follow although this statement certainly seems of some value if applied to hell being a human creation intended to keep that social order. If not that, what exactly are you trying to get at?

god also has social issues for the universe

“
in case you haven't noticed video is not direct perception
”
I see, so as it's direct perception we're after, can you directly show me this hell of yours?

depends on you
kind of like if you want to directly perceive the president, you might have to work on a few things before he would grant you audience

“
there is however the issue of your antagonism towards religious practice
”
That's another claim that lies solely in your mind, however.. my anatagonism or lack thereof does not prevent you from showing me this evidence.

I am afraid you are wrong
if you are antagonistic you can't begin to approach any claim of knowledge
certainly explains why the high school drop out and the physics professor are at an impasse in regards to the electron

Throw it on me lg, I'm ready and waiting. If you want to know where my issue lies it's with people that haven't got the courage or decency to answer questions asked of them.

decent answers require decent questions

I resent that there are some people that believe it more worthwhile to avoid questions as if they have a plague attached, but I suppose I do at least recognise that they avoid the questions purely because they cannot answer them.

I also cannot answer this question either
where are the corners on a circle?
:shrug:

Consider this an opportunity to show me what kind of a person you are, (although I think that's been established quite a few times). Here is my question for the third time:

"Until anyone out of the millions can show any validity in their claims or worth of their claims, why should they be taken seriously?"

your very use of the word "validity" indicates that there are strong issues of "value" behind your question (erm - value to whom?)
Your opening premise is that there is no value in the claims
Technically this is called a loaded question
:shrug:

“
In your opinion, how are claims evidenced?
”
In this instance whatever way you deem appropriate. Given that it is your claim I will give you the opportunity to present the evidence in the way that you think is valid and worthwhile. I am not here to tell you how to support your own claims, do whatever you think you must.





Waiting..

in short

1. right theory leads to right practice
2. right practice leads to right conclusion
3. right conclusion leads to the ability to validate/invalidate a claim

if you mess up with normative descriptions you mess up at first base

 

[SnakeLord]

right theory leads to right practice

Actually not really. It can but it can just as easily end up with faulty practice regardless to the reality of the theory. Sorry, but if you're going to make statements at least make them accurate.

So, surely in this instance seeings as we are discussing the existence of a hell, one must go to this hell in order to know it exists. You have already expressed to me the worthlessness of not having direct perception. So lg, have you been to hell lately?

right practice leads to right conclusion

The conclusion would be: "hell exists". The only way to establish that as a fact is to have been there. You've already expressed to me the serious problems with even thinking the president exists without having "directly perceived" him. Are you now going to be the hypocrite and state it is somehow different for you?

right conclusion leads to the ability to validate/invalidate a claim

The only way to validate such a claim is if you have been there. Have you?

if you mess up with normative descriptions you mess up at first base

Alas, I still don't get your "normative descriptions" statement. I asked you to explain what you meant by it, I didn't ask you to give me an inaccurate look at the learning process.

a few theoretical ideas in your noggin tends to be the difference between looking at mars through a telescope and looking at some blurry thing by poking your eye into a funny cylindrical thing

O...k, I'm very pleased for you. Can you now show me this evidence of yours? Take into account that you should also be the one to provide the idea given that it is your claim. For all I know right now you could consider "hell" some mere body rash or something similar. In fact wait, isn't that what you said was hell? So you see, you must provide the idea so I then know what it is you're supposed to be providing evidence for. Shoot.

god also has social issues for the universe

Great, another unsubstantiated claim. Have you seen this god?

kind of like if you want to directly perceive the president, you might have to work on a few things before he would grant you audience

Directly perceiving and being granted an audience are the same thing? O...k

if you are antagonistic you can't begin to approach any claim of knowledge

Ok, so force it upon me. Hold my head onto that telescope. The thing is you don't need to. As you can see I actually fact of the matter welcome it. I want you to show me. I insist that you show me.

You'll find high school dropouts don't insist that you show them - indeed the opposite. Simply put, you're obviously wrong.

I also cannot answer this question either

That's not much of a surprise. What you quoted wasn't a question, it was a statement. No wonder you're having such difficulty, I hereby forgive you for failing to answer any question posed... you don't know what a question is.

Clue: A question ends with '?'.

Your opening premise is that there is no value in the claims
Technically this is called a loaded question

Inaccurate but I forgive you. The question asks what value there is in the claims of those that cannot show their claims as being valid. If for instance you said to me that mermaids exist off the west coast of Ireland. What value is there in that claim unless you can support it?

The question, (yes it's a question), is a simple one lg. Here it is for the fourth time:

"Until anyone out of the millions can show any validity in their claims or worth of their claims, why should they be taken seriously?"

in short

right theory leads to right practice
right practice leads to right conclusion
right conclusion leads to the ability to validate/invalidate a claim

if you mess up with normative descriptions you mess up at first base

Ok, suffice it to say this is not evidence, (which is what I asked for). Yes, again I stipulate that you can provide that evidence in any form you deem fit.


Waiting..

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
right theory leads to right practice
”
Actually not really. It can but it can just as easily end up with faulty practice regardless to the reality of the theory. Sorry, but if you're going to make statements at least make them accurate.

therefore a fault in practice tends to result in backtracking back to theory .....

So, surely in this instance seeings as we are discussing the existence of a hell, one must go to this hell in order to know it exists.

just like the only way you know the president really exists and is because you have seen him in the flesh?

You have already expressed to me the worthlessness of not having direct perception. So lg, have you been to hell lately?

actually I was expressing the worthlessness of your standards for evidence, since according to such a standard, even the existence of the president is dubious

“
if you mess up with normative descriptions you mess up at first base
”
Alas, I still don't get your "normative descriptions" statement. I asked you to explain what you meant by it, I didn't ask you to give me an inaccurate look at the learning process.

the problem is that you want to discuss evidence when you are not even properly decked out with theory
this is kind of like wanting to discuss algebra when one is not familiar with simple multiplication

“
a few theoretical ideas in your noggin tends to be the difference between looking at mars through a telescope and looking at some blurry thing by poking your eye into a funny cylindrical thing
”
O...k, I'm very pleased for you. Can you now show me this evidence of yours? Take into account that you should also be the one to provide the idea given that it is your claim. For all I know right now you could consider "hell" some mere body rash or something similar. In fact wait, isn't that what you said was hell? So you see, you must provide the idea so I then know what it is you're supposed to be providing evidence for. Shoot.

hell is something similar to jail - in the sense that not all criminals end up there (only those that require severe consequences for their acts)

“
god also has social issues for the universe
”
Great, another unsubstantiated claim. Have you seen this god?

if you have difficulty with god you will have difficulty with hell
for instance if I don't think the america exists I will also probably have difficulty in discussing american jails

“

kind of like if you want to directly perceive the president, you might have to work on a few things before he would grant you audience
”
Directly perceiving and being granted an audience are the same thing? O...k

when you bring in empiricism its slightly different
for instance if I say "show me the president" and you reply "sorry I can't because you are not qualified" its not like you can become qualified simply by undergoing some sort of training to refine your abilities of sense perception

In the same way, to demand that god, hell, etc be evidenced before you is a bit presumptuous considering your insignificance
“

if you are antagonistic you can't begin to approach any claim of knowledge
”
Ok, so force it upon me. Hold my head onto that telescope. The thing is you don't need to. As you can see I actually fact of the matter welcome it. I want you to show me. I insist that you show me.

if you don't want to fall in line with normative descriptions its clear your insistence is simply another aspect of your insincerity

You'll find high school dropouts don't insist that you show them - indeed the opposite. Simply put, you're obviously wrong.

that is true
instead they make shows of insistence to further their antagonism

“
I also cannot answer this question either
”
That's not much of a surprise. What you quoted wasn't a question, it was a statement. No wonder you're having such difficulty, I hereby forgive you for failing to answer any question posed... you don't know what a question is.

Clue: A question ends with '?'.

In your haste to appear antagonistic I think you didn't read the post properly - but hey, forget it ....

“
Your opening premise is that there is no value in the claims
Technically this is called a loaded question
”
Inaccurate but I forgive you. The question asks what value there is in the claims of those that cannot show their claims as being valid. If for instance you said to me that mermaids exist off the west coast of Ireland. What value is there in that claim unless you can support it?

once again, the problem is that you think that the claims aren't valid
the claim is that you can determine the validity by falling in with normative descriptions of scripture
the problem is that you are dreadfully opposed to that
the result is that you simply rely on your imagination to determine the validity of normative descriptions
this is kind of like going from theory to conclusion without practice

The question, (yes it's a question), is a simple one lg. Here it is for the fourth time:

"Until anyone out of the millions can show any validity in their claims or worth of their claims, why should they be taken seriously?"

maybe you should try practice instead of theory

 

[Michael]

I watched HOSTEL 2 the other night.

I thought HOSTEL 1 was better.

Yeah, Gods got serious issues - venerate me or eternal torture! Bwaaa Haa Haaa Haaa Haaaaaaa....

 

[SnakeLord]

therefore a fault in practice tends to result in backtracking back to theory .....

Pleased I made you aware of it. "Right theory leads to right practice" didn't quite make the grade.

Anyway.. now all we need is the theory. So lg, give me your theory on hell and the practice needed to ascertain that there is indeed a hell. Thanks.

just like the only way you know the president really exists and is because you have seen him in the flesh?

Ok. So, you been to hell?

actually I was expressing the worthlessness of your standards for evidence

An interesting claim, but anyone with eyes will notice that I have... four times now told you that you can use anything that you deem suitable - be it inaudible voices in the wind.. whatever. Everyone can see this, even you. Your claim to my standards of evidence is flawed.

the problem is that you want to discuss evidence when you are not even properly decked out with theory

Most truly interesting. It is however not an adequate response to me asking you to explain "normative descriptions". Please try harder.

Secondly.. As shown, the "theory" needs to come from you as it is your claim. At that stage I will be properly "decked out" with theory and then you can get on with showing me the evidence. So.. get on with it.

hell is something similar to jail

Hell is a big building with bars and lousy food? Please, you need to be specific else you'll accuse me of not having the theory properly "decked out".

if you have difficulty with god you will have difficulty with hell

Difficulty? I don't see where that comes from. I only asked if you've had direct perception of it.
I also don't see where the relevance or value of comparison of talking about the existence of America when I ask you if you've had direct perception of this god being. Are you stalling again?

for instance if I say "show me the president" and you reply "sorry I can't because you are not qualified"

I wouldn't say any such thing.. do remember that it is you espousing that evidence can only be given to the qualified. I'll take you qualified or unqualified.

if you don't want to fall in line with normative descriptions

You know I find it quite odd... It's now the fourth time I have asked you to explain what you're going on about with your "normative description" as it is not a term found in normal debate. You have consistently avoided answer while thinking it pertinent to keep repeating the same term. No disrespect but that's plain stupid. Suffice it to say I'll "fall in line" with whatever you want me to. I am open here... I want to see this evidence, I am happy to fall in line yada yada. I just wait on you.

once again, the problem is that you think that the claims aren't valid

Wrong. There are, contrary to theistic ideas, 3 key positions: 1) against, 2) neutral, 3) For. I am at 2. I am passing no judgement I am asking you a very simple question that is naturally going to be asked from number 2. Here it is for the fifth time:

"Until anyone out of the millions can show any validity in their claims or worth of their claims, why should they be taken seriously?"

If someone told me mermaids exist I would also be at number 2. I would ask the same question and no lg, it is not because I think it isn't valid, I'm asking why I should believe that it is, (position 3)

So, to simplify things because you're struggling: Why should I move from position 2 to position 3 if someone can not show adequate reason to?

the claim is that you can determine the validity by falling in with normative descriptions of scripture

I see. So one reads an old book and that is considered "valid"... Here's the question.. Why? Why is that book considered valid? On what basis?

the problem is that you are dreadfully opposed to that

I am not opposed to anything. This specific figment of your imagination is causing you to constantly attack the poster instead of the post. Now, you can continue making bold statements about people you don't know, or you could pay attention to what is actually being said and respond to that. I am not opposed to anything, I'll sacrifice my neighbour if I have to. Kindly get over your own biases of those that aren't instantly what you want them to be and start being of some use.

the result is that you simply rely on your imagination to determine the validity of normative descriptions

Wait, what are you saying to me? I have asked you four times to explain your term "normative descriptions" and until you do so this entire statement wont be of much value to me. Thing is the way it's worded I am unsure what you're saying.. Are you telling me I must rely on imagination to determine the validity of these "normative descriptions" of yours? What if my imagination isn't all that great? Sure, I can imagine green eyed bogey goblins but that's about the limit of my imagination. Am I at a disadvantage in witnessing your gods and hells and whatever else because I can't imagine too much?

maybe you should try practice instead of theory

Interesting. Sixth time: "Until anyone out of the millions can show any validity in their claims or worth of their claims, why should they be taken seriously?"

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
therefore a fault in practice tends to result in backtracking back to theory .....
”
Pleased I made you aware of it. "Right theory leads to right practice" didn't quite make the grade.

not really
all you indicated is that wrong practice = wrong theory

Anyway.. now all we need is the theory. So lg, give me your theory on hell and the practice needed to ascertain that there is indeed a hell. Thanks.

hell is part of a universal arrangement for justice
universal arrangements for justice are under the jurisdiction of god
understanding god reveals all these relationships

“
just like the only way you know the president really exists and is because you have seen him in the flesh?
”
Ok. So, you been to hell?

no
just like I haven't seen the president of america
or even american jails for that matter

“
actually I was expressing the worthlessness of your standards for evidence
”
An interesting claim, but anyone with eyes will notice that I have... four times now told you that you can use anything that you deem suitable - be it inaudible voices in the wind.. whatever. Everyone can see this, even you. Your claim to my standards of evidence is flawed.

yet despite opening with such a magnanimous mannerism it always gets reduced down to issues of classical empiricism


:shrug:

“
the problem is that you want to discuss evidence when you are not even properly decked out with theory
”
Most truly interesting. It is however not an adequate response to me asking you to explain "normative descriptions". Please try harder.

we've been there before
aka lust/wrath/envy etc

Secondly.. As shown, the "theory" needs to come from you as it is your claim. At that stage I will be properly "decked out" with theory and then you can get on with showing me the evidence. So.. get on with it.

another adroit attempt at bypassing practice

“
hell is something similar to jail
”
Hell is a big building with bars and lousy food? Please, you need to be specific else you'll accuse me of not having the theory properly "decked out".

I guess further discussion relies on you seeking clarifications on the parts you omitted

“
if you have difficulty with god you will have difficulty with hell
”
Difficulty? I don't see where that comes from. I only asked if you've had direct perception of it.
I also don't see where the relevance or value of comparison of talking about the existence of America when I ask you if you've had direct perception of this god being. Are you stalling again?

just like american jails are contingent on america, hell is contingent on god

“
for instance if I say "show me the president" and you reply "sorry I can't because you are not qualified"
”
I wouldn't say any such thing.. do remember that it is you espousing that evidence can only be given to the qualified. I'll take you qualified or unqualified.

ok then

when you bring in empiricism its slightly different
for instance if you say "show me the president" and I reply "sorry I can't because you are not qualified" its not like you can become qualified simply by undergoing some sort of training to refine your abilities of sense perception

In the same way, to demand that god, hell, etc be evidenced before you is a bit presumptuous considering your insignificance

“
if you don't want to fall in line with normative descriptions
”
You know I find it quite odd... It's now the fourth time I have asked you to explain what you're going on about with your "normative description" as it is not a term found in normal debate. You have consistently avoided answer while thinking it pertinent to keep repeating the same term. No disrespect but that's plain stupid. Suffice it to say I'll "fall in line" with whatever you want me to. I am open here... I want to see this evidence, I am happy to fall in line yada yada. I just wait on you.

as already mentioned, we have been there quite a few times already

“
the claim is that you can determine the validity by falling in with normative descriptions of scripture
”
I see. So one reads an old book and that is considered "valid"... Here's the question.. Why? Why is that book considered valid? On what basis?

gee
I guess reading could maybe given one an idea on practice
if that is true, it would also explain why reading physics text books gives one an insight to the practice of physics

“
the problem is that you are dreadfully opposed to that
”
I am not opposed to anything. This specific figment of your imagination is causing you to constantly attack the poster instead of the post. Now, you can continue making bold statements about people you don't know, or you could pay attention to what is actually being said and respond to that. I am not opposed to anything, I'll sacrifice my neighbour if I have to. Kindly get over your own biases of those that aren't instantly what you want them to be and start being of some use.

there are limits to how many rolling eye icons can be posted, you know ...

“
the result is that you simply rely on your imagination to determine the validity of normative descriptions
”
Wait, what are you saying to me? I have asked you four times to explain your term "normative descriptions"

and we have discussed these things at least twenty times previously
I guess it depends how long you want to keep up this charade for

“
maybe you should try practice instead of theory
”
Interesting. Sixth time: "Until anyone out of the millions can show any validity in their claims or worth of their claims, why should they be taken seriously?"

once again
loaded question
try again

 

[SnakeLord]

hell is part of a universal arrangement for justice

Intriguing. We've already established that "justice" is a mental concept, not an existing object. So you're espousing to me that "hell" is just a mental concept. I understand completely, say no more.

If I have gone wrong somewhere and hell is actually an existing object then I still await the evidence of its existence. Thanks.

understanding god reveals all these relationships

Error. Which god are we talking about? That is an essential question to know what "hell" you claim exists. If you stated hell was a street where people wore rags etc then I'd know we were talking with reference to the gods that punished Enkidu. If we're talking about other gods then it is likely to state that other versions of this supposed "hell" is what you claim exists. As a result of that you must be more specific.

no

So.. you've not been to hell, you have absolutely no direct perception that a hell exists and thus your claim is ultimately futile given your own statements regarding the president. I am glad we have got that settled. Your original statement has thus been trashed.

yet despite opening with such a magnanimous mannerism it always gets reduced down to issues of classical empiricism

Amusingly enough, only by you. I will analyse anything that you present. The fact that you bring everything down to empricism is your own issue.

we've been there before
aka lust/wrath/envy etc

You're telling me wrath, lust and envy are "normative descriptions"?

So.. you've now told me that you can give evidence of the existence of hell by.. showing lust, wrath and envy? If not I fail to see the connection.

another adroit attempt at bypassing practice

Quite bizarre. Even you just a moment ago recognised that "theory" comes before practice. We're not at practice yet my little lg, I am waiting for you to give me the theory - which is apparently that hell exists because god exists.... because justice exists - ergo mental concept.

Intriguing.

So lg, as you have argued, I must be "decked out" with your theory first. You stated this and here you are trying to forego it. Theory first kiddo.

I guess further discussion relies on you seeking clarifications on the parts you omitted

Amusingly enough those were my very last two questions. I am asking you to clarify your idea/theory concerning this "hell" that you claim exists. If that is not "seeking clarification" then what, in your weird brain, is it?

You seem to be all over the place. In your last statement you moaned that I was trying to get out of practice while here espousing that we haven't got past theory while espousing that I'm not asking you to provide your theory so we can get to that practice while I have in fact asked you for your 'theory' in the last two posts on the trot.

just like american jails are contingent on america, hell is contingent on god

That's most certainly going to make it's way in to the Snake quote book of excellence. While I'm doing that do you think you could find it in yourself to actually answer the question? Here it is yet again:

"I only asked if you've had direct perception of it." (we're talking god now)

What is it that you think "American jails blah blah" answers better than "yes" or "no"?

for instance if you say "show me the president" and I reply "sorry I can't because you are not qualified" its not like you can become qualified simply by undergoing some sort of training to refine your abilities of sense perception

I would say; "Here's a plane ticket, let's go see him". So lg, going to show me this hell of yours?

In the same way, to demand that god, hell, etc be evidenced before you is a bit presumptuous considering your insignificance

So my original argument stands. You can't show me any evidence to support your claim that hell exists. I'm glad that we finally agree. So now, for the seventh time... Of what value is the claim if it cannot be supported?

as already mentioned, we have been there quite a few times already

I must have missed it. What you did actually mention was something about theory, practice and conclusion. Alas I do not see how they are connected to the term "normative description" or its relation to you showing evidence that a hell exists. Please clear this up.

it would also explain why reading physics text books gives one an insight to the practice of physics

I see.. like how a person reads about an apple falling downwards before witnessing an apple falling downwards? Like how a 3 month old reads about gravity before witnessing gravity. Got ya.

there are limits to how many rolling eye icons can be posted, you know ...

I'm sure there are, but as most people will tell you, rolling eyes are not an argument to anything. Now forgive me but I was not a child of the internet. I'm sure things have changed since my day, but I am used to conducting discussion with professionals and as such am not used to 'smileys' or 'rollingeyeseys' and don't see what value they have. In my day when someone couldn't answer a question they just said so, they did not write : p

Now, do not let me stop you using smileys if that is your particular method of discussion escape - and yes, you can continue making inaccurate bold statements about people you don't know but again I am not opposed to anything. Whatever you say I will do. It can't get more straight than that.

and we have discussed these things at least twenty times previously

Then with all due respect but you need to do a better job. I checked it in search and found many people here asking you what you mean. An actual straight forward answer is lacking. I asked you directly what it meant to which you gave me the formula for learning. What I can gather from that is that "normative description" simply means learning. While I am happy with that I am struggling to connect it with anything said in my posts.

once again
loaded question
try again

This is now the seventh time that I have tried. We have already established that it is not loaded, it is completely natural for anyone at the default position to ask.. Look.. saying you believe in a god or saying you don't believe in a god etc is easy business. It rolls off the tongue with little effort. Being man enough to own up when you can't answer a question is much harder but failure to own up is a clear indication of someone still suffering from petty human emotional states such as lust and envy. If you can answer then do. If you can't be a man about it. I'm just a guy on the other side of the globe.. I wont kill you. Or continue with the act, it doesn't do much for your argument.

[edit] I came to the conclusion, given that it's seven attempts, that you need some help with this question. Ok..

So a guy walks up and says "mermaids exist". Now, you're not pro mermaid and neither are you anti mermaid. You are a neutral party. Now, the question asks why this person should be taken seriously if they cannot in any way support their claim. This is not coming from an anti mermaidian, it's coming from a neutral observer. We all, I would state, start off at the base rate of 0 and work our way upwards. Any single claim any person makes has to start at 0 and improve or fail. It cannot, in fact only an idiot would go to lengths to state that validity of a claim will start at say 100. No lg, validity of a claim must start at 0 and work for a living to improve its standing thus the man that claims the mermaid exists must go to some effort to support his claim and thus raise his 0 to 100.

So.. once again, (8th time): "Until anyone out of the millions can show any validity in their claims or worth of their claims, why should they be taken seriously?"

 

[stretched]

LG
"hell is part of a universal arrangement for justice"

Are you referring to the Christian view of hell?

If not, could you define your view of "hell" in a nutshell?

 

[lightgigantic]

LG
"hell is part of a universal arrangement for justice"

Are you referring to the Christian view of hell?


If not, could you define your view of "hell" in a nutshell?

if the christian view of hell is that it is eternal, no I am not referring to that

the vedic understanding of hell is that it is part of the material world, and hence there is no question of an eternal relationship with it (the only thing a living entity has an eternal relationship with is god)

ordinarily we receive reactions for wrong activity in this world - if we perform acts that are of a higher grade of criminality one gets relocated to a more suitable environment - namely hell

the act of going to hell speeds up the backlog of sinful reactions a living entity has acquired, since a little time spent there is equivalent to many lifetimes of suffering here

 

[visceral_instinct]

on the universal scale of things, your intestines are incredibly insignificant

My intestines??!! What the fuck was that about? I didn't mention my intestines.

 

[lightgigantic]

My intestines??!! What the fuck was that about? I didn't mention my intestines.

you mentioned your ass

 

[visceral_instinct]

I was inviting God to kiss my ass, not my intestines, O_O

so why the reference to intestines?

 

[lightgigantic]

I was inviting God to kiss my ass, not my intestines, O_O

so why the reference to intestines?

if your intestines are insignificant, what to speak of your ass

 

[ashpwner]

Meh we will cross that bridge when we come to it.