What do you think?

[Godless]

Ah! but gold is something one can perceive, it's a material thing that one can perceive and know that it's gold by a simple chemical test, however how is one to "test" the validity of those who claim direct perception? If you claim you've got gold, that's not such a hard thing to believe, however if you claim to walk on water, cause your enlightened, I and everyone here would require evidence!

If you make a claim, and another asks for evidence of such a claim, your retort is; you don't qualify to understand my claim cause you've not been through the process! So again I ask what is the process, your retort is; to read ancient texts that explain the ways of god, gods, goblins, demons or what not, and have a comprehending knowledge of these beliefs, but then again my retort is; "what makes them qualified?" How the hell should I know that these were not just schizophrenics nomads who wrote down a bunch of garb? and YOU happen to believe the BS! While I on the other hand using REASON and LOGIC come to the conclusion that these text were just written by usurpers to fool the masses, to believe their rhetoric, and keep order of the clans.

 

[lightgigantic]

Ah! but gold is something one can perceive, it's a material thing that one can perceive and know that it's gold by a simple chemical test, however how is one to "test" the validity of those who claim direct perception?

you answered it already - knowledge of qualities = qualification

If you claim you've got gold, that's not such a hard thing to believe, however if you claim to walk on water, cause your enlightened, I and everyone here would require evidence!

I don't recall making the claim that I can walk on water

If you make a claim, and another asks for evidence of such a claim, your retort is; you don't qualify to understand my claim cause you've not been through the process!

actually we ar eat the point of determining qualities - like for instance to determine who is qualified to walk on water it is quite easy to perceive the evidence (sink or swim) - however the claims of a person on the transcendental platform are not so easily verified (after all, expecting to verify the claims of transcendence with empiricism is like the attempt to jump over one's knees)

So again I ask what is the process, your retort is; to read ancient texts that explain the ways of god, gods, goblins, demons or what not,

i don't recall the reference to goblins and the like

and have a comprehending knowledge of these beliefs, but then again my retort is; "what makes them qualified?"

okay lets try again - here is the general paradigm for knowledge

theoretical foundation => practical application => values/realization/direct perception

all branches of knowledge work like this - if one expects to jump to the 3rd stage by neglecting the previous two, they are known merely as persons who hold opinions - at the moment we were somewhere around stage one (defining qualities), so to make do or die claims for step three is ludicrous

How the hell should I know that these were not just schizophrenics nomads who wrote down a bunch of garb?

you could examine the qualities of insane people for a start

and YOU happen to believe the BS!

if you cannot distinguish between an insane person and a saintly person I imagine one will have severe difficulties

While I on the other hand using REASON and LOGIC come to the conclusion that these text were just written by usurpers to fool the masses, to believe their rhetoric, and keep order of the clans.[/QUOTE]
given that your logic and logic is that there is no distinction between an insnae and a saintly person, I would argue that your original premise is flawed - much like a person who claims gold is valueless because they can only get a crummy price for gold spray painted lead on the market

 

[Godless]

I don't recall making the claim that I can walk on water

It's an example LG don't be obtuse!

like for instance to determine who is qualified to walk on water it is quite easy to perceive the evidence (sink or swim) - however the claims of a person on the transcendental platform are not so easily verified (after all, expecting to verify the claims of transcendence with empiricism is like the attempt to jump over one's knees)

Not so, if a person claims to walk on water, we would require physical demonstration, as the same if some one claims to transcend also requires physical evidence! Empiricism is how we perceive reality and existence any claim beyond this is ludicrous and not valid by our senses.

okay lets try again - here is the general paradigm for knowledge

theoretical foundation => practical application => values/realization/direct perception

all branches of knowledge work like this - if one expects to jump to the 3rd stage by neglecting the previous two, they are known merely as persons who hold opinions - at the moment we were somewhere around stage one (defining qualities), so to make do or die claims for step three is ludicrous

Eh? Non-sequirtus garb LG!

I'm only asking a simple question LG, how does one validate the claim "direct perception?" That is all! There's no amount of epistemological models that you can display here of how knowledge works to derive that so, and so has direct perception of space beings, god, leprechauns, list any myth you would like how does one go about validating such a claim? That's all I'm asking. If I were to claim I live with Lenny the Leprechaun and have direct perception of him, how would you interpret this? Well the same way I interpret the claims of direct perception of god!

you could examine the qualities of insane people for a start

I'm beginning to think you "qualify" for such a test!

if you cannot distinguish between an insane person and a saintly person I imagine one will have severe difficulties

As you do trying to explain "direct perception"?

 

[lightgigantic]

Godless

“
like for instance to determine who is qualified to walk on water it is quite easy to perceive the evidence (sink or swim) - however the claims of a person on the transcendental platform are not so easily verified (after all, expecting to verify the claims of transcendence with empiricism is like the attempt to jump over one's knees)
”
Not so, if a person claims to walk on water, we would require physical demonstration, as the same if some one claims to transcend also requires physical evidence!

you don't understand - if a transcendental claim could be verified physically, it would be a physical phenomena and not a transcendental one - hence the whole issue is moot

Empiricism is how we perceive reality and existence any claim beyond this is ludicrous and not valid by our senses.

given that the senses are completely fallible, do you realize what you are claiming?

“
okay lets try again - here is the general paradigm for knowledge

theoretical foundation => practical application => values/realization/direct perception

all branches of knowledge work like this - if one expects to jump to the 3rd stage by neglecting the previous two, they are known merely as persons who hold opinions - at the moment we were somewhere around stage one (defining qualities), so to make do or die claims for step three is ludicrous
”
Eh? Non-sequirtus garb LG!

i thought it was quite straight forward - theory leads to practice and practice leads to realization/values - generally most people in the educated world have at least 12 years experience with this paradigm between the ages of 5 and 18 - sometimes with columns titled like this with a range of ticks to show their progress

I'm only asking a simple question LG, how does one validate the claim "direct perception?"

and I thought I gave you a simple answer - first comes theory, not realization

That is all! There's no amount of epistemological models that you can display here of how knowledge works to derive that so, and so has direct perception of space beings, god, leprechauns, list any myth you would like how does one go about validating such a claim?

i could just as easily be talking about geography or algebra

That's all I'm asking. If I were to claim I live with Lenny the Leprechaun and have direct perception of him, how would you interpret this? Well the same way I interpret the claims of direct perception of god!

to begin with lenny has a very weak level of theory that surrounds him

“
you could examine the qualities of insane people for a start
”
I'm beginning to think you "qualify" for such a test!

does that also mean you think I am saintly too

“
if you cannot distinguish between an insane person and a saintly person I imagine one will have severe difficulties
”
As you do trying to explain "direct perception"?

if you can't bridge the gaps between theory, practice and direct perception, progress in any field of knowledge will be quite difficult

 

[Godless]

if a transcendental claim could be verified physically, it would be a physical phenomena and not a transcendental one - hence the whole issue is moot

Thanks for agreeing with me, now we can agree that transcendental claims are moot!

given that the senses are completely fallible, do you realize what you are claiming?

Where did I claim that one has to rely on their senses alone? we use tools to help our senses, clarify objective reality.

first comes theory, not realization

So when you were a child you had to have a theory of falling on your ass, to show that it would hurt your ass if you fell? I think you first "realized" the pain on your ass when you fell, then the theory of falling harder on your ass would hurt more! no?

to begin with lenny has a very weak level of theory that surrounds him
“
“

So does your god, given that there have been thousands of god throughout human history, what makes your god, real and all other simply non existent? Lenny is just one more on that list! and that's the point SL and several others have been trying to make you see, however your either to washedupwithbs, or just don't want to accept the reality of the argument!

does that also mean you think I am saintly too

Yes! Your a God Warrior LG!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCh2FXzD6R4&mode=related&search=

And here's another saintly person;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yMdpdaf21Q

 

[SnakeLord]

to begin with lenny has a very weak level of theory that surrounds him

Oh? Tell me LG, from your unqualified position, what 'theory' surrounds Lenny? Have you studied the book of Lenny, do you have direct perception of Lenny? If not, you can't say anything.

 

[lightgigantic]

Godless

“
if a transcendental claim could be verified physically, it would be a physical phenomena and not a transcendental one - hence the whole issue is moot
”
Thanks for agreeing with me, now we can agree that transcendental claims are moot!

If you are hooked on empiricism as the truth and the light and the way, then yes, there is not much scope for much progress in understanding the transcendental - there is not even much scope for establishing that such material articles as the mind exist either

“
given that the senses are completely fallible, do you realize what you are claiming?
”
Where did I claim that one has to rely on their senses alone? we use tools to help our senses, clarify objective reality.

empiricism means the senses, since that is what rates as the final authority ... and even if a more highly sensitive instrument is utilized, it merely amplifies the inherent flaws of empiricism (with my naked eye I can see 900 metres, with a pair of binoculars I can see 3000 metres, but in both cases my seeing ability is limited)

“
first comes theory, not realization
”
So when you were a child you had to have a theory of falling on your ass, to show that it would hurt your ass if you fell? I think you first "realized" the pain on your ass when you fell, then the theory of falling harder on your ass would hurt more! no?

if a child has no theory that falling will cause pain they certainly won't have the realization - and given the intelligence level of infants it sometimes takes them a few times to properly develop such a theory.
Actually there is literally tons of advice that a parent will give their children (ie the parents will try and give their realization) that falls on death ears (until of course they develop the theory that their parents can give advice)

so yes, first comes theory then realization

“

to begin with lenny has a very weak level of theory that surrounds him
“

”

So does your god, given that there have been thousands of god throughout human history, what makes your god, real and all other simply non existent?

god is defined as possessing distinct qualities- descriptions that match those qualities tend to indicate the same object - not to say that anything anyone has said to be god is acceptable, rather that a claim of god can be accepted or rejected in accordance with such descriptions

Lenny is just one more on that list! and that's the point SL and several others have been trying to make you see, however your either to washedupwithbs, or just don't want to accept the reality of the argument!

i followed snake lord's lenny rant for a while, just to humor him, and it certainly didn't appear that he shared the same characteristics - hence the lenny description can be rejeceted

“
does that also mean you think I am saintly too
”
Yes! Your a God Warrior LG!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCh2F...elated&search=

And here's another saintly person;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yMdpdaf21Q

then I would argue that your understanding of these terms is superficial

 

[SnakeLord]

i followed snake lord's lenny rant for a while, just to humor him, and it certainly didn't appear that he shared the same characteristics - hence the lenny description can be rejeceted

A) It's doubtful you can follow much judging from this very post where you seemingly can't even get my name right.

B) How do you come to the conclusion that you can reject something you have no direct perception of, no understanding of, having no qualifications, having done no process? You have argued these things time and time again and yet here show what a true and complete hypocrite you really are.

 

[AK444]

what god can do even when well educated persons committing such a crimes.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

what god can do even when well educated persons committing such a crimes.

*************
M*W: What? Speak English, please.

 

[stretched]

LG

Is your god all-powerful and all-loving?

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

"Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind is not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of 6 billion human beings. The same statistics also suggest that this girl s parents believe at this very moment that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?"

What do you think?

(http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/)

i think there might be a god and there most likely is, but watching over us and protecting us all no. he isnt protecting us he does not interact with the world directly, (obviously), because look at the world


thats why i think the holy books give the idea of god a bad image, and make it look silly,

dont base your idea of god upon a book, those people believing god is protecting there family shouldent rely on that,


it is not good to believe that no. but to say god does not exist because of that is also not good in my opinion.

peace.

 

[stretched]

I hear you Chi. But you know where fundamentalist religions lead to. So these questions need to be asked in the interest of rationality.

 

[lightgigantic]

A) It's doubtful you can follow much judging from this very post where you seemingly can't even get my name right.

since you penned a response you seem to be able work out who I was referring to

B) How do you come to the conclusion that you can reject something you have no direct perception of, no understanding of, having no qualifications, having done no process? You have argued these things time and time again and yet here show what a true and complete hypocrite you really are.

easy
you were saying that your lenny thing follows the same general principles as understanding god
the moment a discrepancy is detected, lenny can be rejected (without me having to humor your carnival ride dialogs)

 

[lightgigantic]

LG

Is your god all-powerful and all-loving?

yes

 

[SnakeLord]

since you penned a response you seem to be able work out who I was referring to

That's not the point LG. Figure it out.

easy
you were saying that your lenny thing follows the same general principles as understanding god
the moment a discrepancy is detected, lenny can be rejected

Do you not see that you're a high school dropout dismissing physics because theres something you don't understand and so might come across to your unqualified mind as being a discrepancy? To understand these things takes time LG as you should know, instead here you are thinking you're qualified after doing no work and putting in no effort to understand.

Anyway, what discrepancy is it you believe there is?

 

[lightgigantic]

That's not the point LG. Figure it out.



Do you not see that you're a high school dropout dismissing physics because theres something you don't understand and so might come across to your unqualified mind as being a discrepancy? To understand these things takes time LG as you should know, instead here you are thinking you're qualified after doing no work and putting in no effort to understand.

Anyway, what discrepancy is it you believe there is?

the biggest one being that lenny (or the pink unicorn or so many other similar entities) is only advocated by persons like yourself who are adverse to the notion of god - hardly original, all these ideas can be traced to Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot, who also readily identifies himself as a person adverse to the notion of an omnipotent consciousness knowable to humanity
In other words its an obvious attempt at satire as oppose to a serious invitation for philosophical analysis, which probably also explains why you find the idea so attractive

 

[SnakeLord]

the biggest one being that lenny (or the pink unicorn or so many other similar entities) is only advocated by persons like yourself who are adverse to the notion of god

The biggest problem that I can see is that you are averse to the notion of leprechauns and as such are clearly unwilling to actually undergo any stated process in order to determine the truth of the matter. On what basis do you think you can claim that anything claimed by an atheist is 'satire' or a lie? There are people that could probably come under the classification of atheist that have seen ufo's, ghosts etc etc. Are you now denouncing the possible existence of these things on the basis that it was an atheist that saw them? That's rather naive.

Needless to say, I am not averse to anything, I lack a belief in gods. That has no relevance to my knowledge that Lenny is real, and you cannot comment on that unless you are willing to undergo the process one must go through to come to direct perception of Lenny. You are the unqualified high school dropout trying to blame everyone else for you being an unqualified high school dropout.

That was your discrepancy? Lol.

 

[Mosheh Thezion]

if all women were forced to take mandatory martial arts classes... with focus on killing and disabiling with one blow.... technics, then...

and only then can women walk without fear of men...

if the women are all trained to break bricks.... and the rapist is not.

then..... that rapist is in alot of trouble.


but...

until.. mandatory martial arts training is enforced.... women will continue to be victomised, due to their lack of belief in their ability to strike back.... effectively.

-MT

 

[lightgigantic]

The biggest problem that I can see is that you are averse to the notion of leprechauns and as such are clearly unwilling to actually undergo any stated process in order to determine the truth of the matter. On what basis do you think you can claim that anything claimed by an atheist is 'satire' or a lie?

erm - the fact that they are only pretending under a very thin veil

There are people that could probably come under the classification of atheist that have seen ufo's, ghosts etc etc. Are you now denouncing the possible existence of these things on the basis that it was an atheist that saw them? That's rather naive.

I thought we were talking about god and how lenny fits the bill

Needless to say, I am not averse to anything, I lack a belief in gods.

bingo

That has no relevance to my knowledge that Lenny is real, and you cannot comment on that unless you are willing to undergo the process one must go through to come to direct perception of Lenny. You are the unqualified high school dropout trying to blame everyone else for you being an unqualified high school dropout.

Bertrand russel eat your heart out

That was your discrepancy? Lol.

thats your comic relief attempt