Why worship an imperfect God?

[lightgigantic]

SnakeLord

“
even in this life we experience changing body - like you are the same person (you have th esame sense of "I" or awareness)
”
I disagree that we have the same sense of "I". 20 years ago I was invicible, I was a woman eater, I was the bomb. 20 years on my entire identity and sense of "I" has changed.

the very fact that you can recall what you used to be serves my purpose

“
as for the evidence, you don't need me to direct you to the right thread to discuss this do you?
”
I've read every thread on this forum. A while back this forum went down for a while and many of the regulars here spent the time on another forum. I popped over there too briefly and during one discussion one of the posters asked who SnakeLord was. Another poster informed him that SnakeLord, (me), was a person that was only found on the religious section. I confess it's true, but continue in saying that anyone here that knows anything about me will know that I have read every thread, (although I might not have contributed). Yes, after several years you sometimes realise the futility in replying to something you've already answered 1000 times. Out of all those threads I have yet to see anyone provide any actual evidence for gods, afterlives, reincarnations, souls and all the other mumbo-jumbo that resides on this forum subsection. By all means attempt it if you feel you can, but expect one of my "harsh" replies if you waste my time.

perhaps you should establish how evidence can be established bereft of a foundation of knowledge/qualities

“
it says that the baby was born blind not because of the sins performed by the parents but because of the sins performed by the baby
”
No it doesn't.

"Jesus answered, 'Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents, but the works of God were to be made manifest in him.'"

Where does that say the baby sinned? I'm sorry, but unless it's in invisible ink I just don't see it. Kindly point out exactly where it says the baby sinned - I have tried everything, yes - even using the 3rd letter of every word which only resulted in 'ssisinrsrte..."

Please, I'm intrigued now..

if action is established as being independant of sin you would be correct

 

[lightgigantic]

Quantum Quack


”

To begin with I wished to say that I appreciate and respect your POV.

What I see as being the issue here is simply that in the usual orthadox sense Christianity requires or more importantly demands that one must accept the notion of original sin for Jesus Christ sacrifice and suffering to have meaning.
If one does not accept the notion of original sin then all we have is a man that was nailed to a cross and executed for no other crime other than telling all the religious bigots that they were fools. [ my opinon only ]

I have found that there is a variety of defintions on what exactly is meant by original sin etc - ar eyou saying that the very nature of having a corporeal existence (ie living in the material world,as opposd to the spiritual one) indicates the nature of our piety?

So to me the issue of original sin, that being perpetrated by Adam and Eve is the crux of granting value to Jesus Christs apparent sacrifice.
With out the notion of original sin The christ has died in vane.

It appears that Adam and Eve were granted freewill and chose to risk death and loose there immortal servitude rather than live a life with out it. [Self determination is considerably more dear to mankind than mere survival as shown by many examples over the millenia]

wisdom by hindsight seems to be our favoured method of comprehension

So any act of self determination is ultimately an act against Gods Influence.

Not really
Just beacuse someone is in jail for acting inappropriately doesn't mean that everyone deserves to be in jail - on the contarry there are some people getting rewarded by the gov't by dint of their expressions of freedom (nobel prize, art/literature awards etc)

Thus any act of self determination including the act of choosing to worship God is a sin. As self determination, acka Freewill is the product of that sin.

the fact that we are inthe world to begin with tends to indicate the natur eof our free will
Actually without free will there is no possibility of love, and this is why we have it and why the material world is the place where we blow it (we love anything and everything except god, therefore we suffer)

So Christianity and religions of similar basis generate a huge dilemma within people when they know that doing anything that is contra to Gods will or it's agents [ the Churches of various persuasions ] and use self determination or freewill is considered as sinning.

if that was true they would also have no platform for advocating love of god

Now it seems obvious to me that if you wanted to control a population that this could be seen as a perfect set up. The Church being the only medium for which persons can find out what Gods will apparently is and there fore subject to the corruption that having such power tends to generate.

A perfect population control marketing scam if there ever was one.

actuallythe authority of theism is not an institution but saintly people - knowing this, the compilers of scripture give ample focus on the qualifications of a saintly person (meaning pious person who has perfectly applied religious principle to fruition) and no focus to a particular institution - it is the nature of any type of knowledge to be institutionalized to assist in its comprehension at large - hopefully theistic institutions are composed of saintly persons, but of course this is not always the case, so therefore it pays to have a foundation in theistic knowledge to enable successful discrimination (rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater)

However there is only one significant weakness to the scheme and that is one has to some how irratinally consider a new born baby as a sinner who will burn in hell unless christened or baptised and accepts the self disgust that accepting such a burden entails.

actually coming to the perfection of religiousity is not so easy as accepting some external ritual - such a person who thinks so is no better than an ass or cow

If one is prepared to deny assuming responibility for a perfect Gods actions sin is no longer available as a tool to market the sacrifice of JC.

I think the point is that they are our actions - god has merely created the framework of action and reaction - just like a murderer cannot blame the state for denying him privledges by being in jail

To accept responsibiity for that which a perfect God has created is in itself a sin. For would this not make man diminish the author of that creation?

There are many responsibilities given in scriptural injunctions, but they all hinge on one being responsible for oneself (ie self controlled, or free from the influence of lust, anger, illusion etc)

An important point that I want to make perfectly clear is that IMO people are not born intinctively or some how genetically Christian and that they must exercise self determination when choosing to worship and this is where the essence of the paradox exists.

I agree that it is ridiculous to suggest birth in a particular time place and circ umstance confers liberation , particularly since god's nature tends to suggest eternality (which would tehrefore suggest eternal religious principles)

The use of free will thus self determination does not lead to sin simply because it IS the sin....and a sin of freedom supposely given by God.

free will is not a problem
the misuse of a free will is a problem
And the material creation is the medium for the expression of such free will (the ol favourite, wisdom in hindsight, to guide us along the way)

 

[SnakeLord]

the very fact that you can recall what you used to be serves my purpose

Not really, no. Memory and sense of 'I' are not really the same thing. However, it was merely an example taken from what I know of younger people in general.

perhaps you should establish how evidence can be established bereft of a foundation of knowledge/qualities

Oh man, we're not going to go through this electron analogy nonsense again are we? I think others have adequately pointed out the problems with it and admittedly it does come across as being merely a way to side step the issue. Is there any evidence and if so what? We can judge from there whether it has value and whether I need any special "qualities" to be able to understand it.

if action is established as being independant of sin you would be correct

... You've got this uncanny ability to write an entire sentence that says absolutely nothing. Anyway, I'm still intrigued so kindly show me where it even implies that the baby sinned.

It is often stated that [with regards to the jewish/christian god] this god 'tests' people, and the passage shown actually alludes to that - stating that neither of them sinned, but god wanted it to be.

 

[lightgigantic]

snakelord

“
the very fact that you can recall what you used to be serves my purpose
”
Not really, no. Memory and sense of 'I' are not really the same thing.

thats my point - you are saying that because your memory invokes change therefore your sense of "I" is different - the fact that youhave memories indicates that there is a you quite distinct from the you of your next door neighbour, hence despite the ebb and flow of time, you are still the same person (legally you arethe same person, socially you are the same person - your mother still thinks you are her son etc etc)

However, it was merely an example taken from what I know of younger people in general.

however you base such a world view on your own perception of "I" (thinking "everyone else must think like me") so it doesn't really change anything

“
perhaps you should establish how evidence can be established bereft of a foundation of knowledge/qualities
”
Oh man, we're not going to go through this electron analogy nonsense again are we? I think others have adequately pointed out the problems with it and admittedly it does come across as being merely a way to side step the issue. Is there any evidence and if so what? We can judge from there whether it has value and whether I need any special "qualities" to be able to understand it.

if thats what you sincerely think then, just to get the ball rolling, give a single example of any type of knowledge that doesn't hinge on the possession of prerequisites

“
if action is established as being independant of sin you would be correct
”
... You've got this uncanny ability to write an entire sentence that says absolutely nothing. Anyway, I'm still intrigued so kindly show me where it even implies that the baby sinned.

It is often stated that [with regards to the jewish/christian god] this god 'tests' people, and the passage shown actually alludes to that - stating that neither of them sinned, but god wanted it to be.

where is the scriptural example of god exerting a reaction on someone who is sinless (or a reaction on someone that wasn't due to the sins of others)

 

[SnakeLord]

the fact that youhave memories indicates that there is a you quite distinct from the you of your next door neighbour

I would never try and claim otherwise. I think however that we need to step back a bit and look how this came about. You stated that:

"you are the same person (you have th esame sense of "I" or awareness) that you were 20 years ago, but your body has changed immensely"

To this I have disagreement, and it is quite clear that people change both physically and mentally over that 20 years while you would assert it to be just the former. Having memories of past events, past feelings, thoughts and whatever else does not mean who you are hasn't changed, it just means you can remember who you used to be. Of course you still have the same shell and same brain that you were born with - and as far as that goes I agree with you. You don't swap brains with someone else down the line.

However, it also needs to be said that this all came about because I asked for evidence concerning your claims of past lives and reincarnation. While I fell for it, it seems apparent that the only goal was to completely avoid my question and request for evidence. You went on to say:

"you don't need me to direct you to the evidence do you?"

The answer to which I would have thought was apparent, (given that I had indeed asked you to provide evidence).

Now, for the sake of argument I will agree with anything you want me to. Now, can you show me some evidence please for your claims of past lives or another life after we're dead?

however you base such a world view on your own perception of "I" (thinking "everyone else must think like me")

"everyone else must think like me" - amusing but pointless. I deal with people of all ages on a daily basis, I wouldn't be very good at my job if I didn't understand a lot about the mind.

just to get the ball rolling, give a single example of any type of knowledge that doesn't hinge on the possession of prerequisites

I was trying to get that very same ball rolling by asking you to provide me with some evidence. I consider it a rude tactic when someone asks something of you and you avoid it by asking something from them. Now, whether I can understand the 'evidence' or not, kindly provide it nonetheless.

where is the scriptural example of god exerting a reaction on someone who is sinless (or a reaction on someone that wasn't due to the sins of others)

There are many such examples where god 'tests' man. From Abraham and so on. The problem here is the way you have worded your question. You say "someone who is sinless". Considering the belief that we are all born as sinners, then you know damn well I could never answer that question sufficiently enough for you. It is believed that we are born sinners not because we personally have sinned prior to birth in some former life, but that we have been made culpable for Adam and Eve's transgressions. Again: We are born sinners not because anything suggests we once lived before being born, but as a direct result of the sins of Adam and Eve, known as the "fall of man". The latter part of your question is equally redundant considering that as we are sinners because of Adam and Eve, I could never give an example that you've requested.

Now, kindly show me where anything in the passage you posted implies that either the child personally sinned or that the child ever lived before being born. I make it a habit to always try my hardest to answer questions, but I find it rude when others continually side step what I have asked.

 

[Sarkus]

where is the scriptural example of god exerting a reaction on someone who is sinless (or a reaction on someone that wasn't due to the sins of others)

You're discussing it.
You can not ask for more scriptoral examples for what is itself a scriptoral example of what you're asking for!

The issue with this example is not the scripture itself but with the interpretation you quoted:
"The disciples ask the Lord if the man himself could have committed the sin causing him to be born blind. Given the fact the man has been blind from birth, we are confronted with an unusual question. When could the man have committed such sins as to make him blind at birth? The only conceivable answer is in some past life. The question assumes an ability for people to commit sins prior to birth which suggests a prior life."

I have bolded the relevant part.
This is a logical fallacy - as it is clearly NOT the only conceivable answer.

The more rational answer is that being born blind has nothing whatsoever to do with sin (original or otherwise), and that the disciples reaction was due to the incorrect interpretation and excuses from their initial teachings, prior to Jesus' arrival.

And note the last sentence of the assessment:
"The question assumes an ability for people to commit sins prior to birth which suggests a prior life."
That's right - the question ASSUMES.
At no point is it ever stated that this is correct.
In fact the answer Jesus gives indicates that the assumption is NOT CORRECT.

So - instead of assessing the answer, the quote you give only assesses the question. Which can only give an idea of what people thought prior to Jesus' arrival on the scene to correct them.

Very poor assessment.
It starts with the assumption of reincarnation and tries to fit the scripture to it, rather than starting with an unbiases position.

 

[lightgigantic]

snakelord

“
the fact that youhave memories indicates that there is a you quite distinct from the you of your next door neighbour
”
I would never try and claim otherwise. I think however that we need to step back a bit and look how this came about. You stated that:

"you are the same person (you have th esame sense of "I" or awareness) that you were 20 years ago, but your body has changed immensely"

To this I have disagreement, and it is quite clear that people change both physically and mentally over that 20 years while you would assert it to be just the former.

therefore there is more to a sense of self than the mere physical/mental, or gross and subtle body - distinct from the soul, as indicated in vedic literature

Having memories of past events, past feelings, thoughts and whatever else does not mean who you are hasn't changed, it just means you can remember who you used to be. Of course you still have the same shell and same brain that you were born with - and as far as that goes I agree with you. You don't swap brains with someone else down the line.

hence the term - self as context

However, it also needs to be said that this all came about because I asked for evidence concerning your claims of past lives and reincarnation. While I fell for it, it seems apparent that the only goal was to completely avoid my question and request for evidence. You went on to say:

"you don't need me to direct you to the evidence do you?"

The answer to which I would have thought was apparent, (given that I had indeed asked you to provide evidence).

Now, for the sake of argument I will agree with anything you want me to. Now, can you show me some evidence please for your claims of past lives or another life after we're dead?

so just to clear things up - you are agreeing, or at least willing to ride with as a concept, that the self as context remains a constant through out one's corporeal existence that innvolves changing from the body and desires of an infant to the body and desires of an elderly person at the time of death?

“
however you base such a world view on your own perception of "I" (thinking "everyone else must think like me")
”
"everyone else must think like me" - amusing but pointless. I deal with people of all ages on a daily basis, I wouldn't be very good at my job if I didn't understand a lot about the mind.

I am not contending your knowledge base - I am contending whether it is exhaustive enough to establish a uniform analysis of the nature of consciousness

“
just to get the ball rolling, give a single example of any type of knowledge that doesn't hinge on the possession of prerequisites
”
I was trying to get that very same ball rolling by asking you to provide me with some evidence. I consider it a rude tactic when someone asks something of you and you avoid it by asking something from them. Now, whether I can understand the 'evidence' or not, kindly provide it nonetheless.

a physicist might also consider it rude if a high school dropout says their occupation, their foundation of knowledge, the processes of acquiring knowledge that they advocate and the books of knowledge they hold as authoratative regarding these processes and claims of direct perception are "full of shit" etc

you seem to belabour the point that evidence is somehow self evident (or perhaps you deem the ability to read and write as sufficient to verify/confirm transcendental claims), so I think this has to be addressed - otherwise it is just like your average fruit vendor being presented withthe scribblings of a rocket scientist (the fruit vendor however could hear the claims of the rocket scientist and accept them on faith, provided of course he deemed the rocket scientist as credible - and since you lack that perception of credibility in any theistic presentation it doesn't seem like a fruitful avenue)

“
where is the scriptural example of god exerting a reaction on someone who is sinless (or a reaction on someone that wasn't due to the sins of others)
”
There are many such examples where god 'tests' man. From Abraham and so on. The problem here is the way you have worded your question. You say "someone who is sinless". Considering the belief that we are all born as sinners, then you know damn well I could never answer that question sufficiently enough for you. It is believed that we are born sinners not because we personally have sinned prior to birth in some former life, but that we have been made culpable for Adam and Eve's transgressions. Again: We are born sinners not because anything suggests we once lived before being born, but as a direct result of the sins of Adam and Eve, known as the "fall of man". The latter part of your question is equally redundant considering that as we are sinners because of Adam and Eve, I could never give an example that you've requested.

I find the christian paradigm a bit clumsy to work with - but then I don't claim to be a representative of the field - but it still stand s that your assertion that reactions in this world are deemed outside the performance of sin (or that god does it for the hell of it) is not a fundamental principle of general religious understanding

Now, kindly show me where anything in the passage you posted implies that either the child personally sinned or that the child ever lived before being born. I make it a habit to always try my hardest to answer questions, but I find it rude when others continually side step what I have asked.

being proficient in fields of human psychology, you must be aware how people tend to react proportionately to displays of rudeness - you could probably learn a few pointers from prince james - he also pursues answers with strong intention (and he is also an atheist too) but he does not resort to fourth class behaviour - this is the quality of a gentleman

 

[SnakeLord]

therefore there is more to a sense of self than the mere physical/mental, or gross and subtle body - distinct from the soul, as indicated in vedic literature

A) The statement requires evidence for a soul.

B) "More" as in what?

so just to clear things up - you are agreeing, or at least willing to ride with as a concept, that the self as context remains a constant through out one's corporeal existence

We do not swap bodies or brains. To that I will concur.

I am not contending your knowledge base - I am contending whether it is exhaustive enough to establish a uniform analysis of the nature of consciousness

It was an example quite common amongst young individuals.. It wasn't a statement to "uniform analysis of the nature of conciousness".

a physicist might also consider it rude if a high school dropout says their occupation, their foundation of knowledge, the processes of acquiring knowledge that they advocate and the books of knowledge they hold as authoratative regarding these processes and claims of direct perception are "full of shit" etc

O..k, none of this is you providing me with evidence.

the fruit vendor however could hear the claims of the rocket scientist and accept them on faith

He could accept the claims on faith or he could get the rocket scientist to present evidence, (which while I understand can be difficult for the layman, is not by any means impossible).

What you're attempting to do is fallacious. Basically you're stating that there are people, (priests etc), that are in direct contact with gods. I cannot understand that because I am not in direct contact with gods and therefore there is no evidence to be presented unless I come into direct contact with gods - the overall outcome of which is that these people are in direct contact with gods because they say they are, and I can't argue with that because I'm not. It's a ludicrous argument. This is probably where you tell me I can't prove the president exists or Canada or some other such equally fallacious argument.

However, what I will do now is use this argument, (again), against you in the "defining god" thread. I have stated that I am in direct contact with the gods. You have argued against this but it's quite clear you have no place to do so because as far as it goes you are the fruit vendor unless you too are in direct contact with those gods which means we agree.

I find the christian paradigm a bit clumsy to work with - but then I don't claim to be a representative of the field - but it still stand s that your assertion that reactions in this world are deemed outside the performance of sin (or that god does it for the hell of it) is not a fundamental principle of general religious understanding

Uhh... you quoted the bible, it is only natural that I would use the bible as basis for a response. In the bible god does do things "for the hell of it", (which is a very bizarre statement to use). Perhaps a more accurate statement is that this god does things without proper cause - i.e getting Abraham to murder his own son just to show he had fear of the lord - not because Abraham's son had done anything bad. Likewise he also closed the wombs of a bunch of women because a guy they knew innocently tried to pull Abraham's missus.

There are a gazillion examples of where god did things not because a specific person had sinned but because god wanted to make a point, prove to himself that he was loved and what not.

being proficient in fields of human psychology, you must be aware how people tend to react proportionately to displays of rudeness

It varies. What I do tend to know is that people are quite quirky, getting "offended" by things that to everyone else would seem quite harmless. I've seen people getting offended by being called 'dude', which to me is neither here nor there. You can never accomodate everyone - hell, some governments are trying. PC brigade is how it's known, and that's causing more harm than good. Some councils in England even banned the term "merry christmas" for "happy holidays" or some such nonsense. This is what happens see, you might get offended by something that to the rest of us seems quite harmless.

you could probably learn a few pointers from prince james

Hey, don't mess with my sense of I. I am who I am.. I don't want to be Prince James, he doesn't want to be me.. everyone's happy.

but he does not resort to fourth class behaviour - this is the quality of a gentleman

Please I've been more than polite, but I'm not part of the PC brigade. Tell you what, I've got a plan..

I get offended by people avoiding questions, side stepping those questions by asking other, (often irrelevant), questions in return and I also get offended by nonsensical statements that I would need a degree in cryptology to be able to figure out.

Now it's your turn.. tell me exactly what offends you. Once that's done we can then work together to ensure that we're both happy. You'll start answering questions and I'll stop doing whatever it is that bothers you.

 

[lightgigantic]

snakelord

“
therefore there is more to a sense of self than the mere physical/mental, or gross and subtle body - distinct from the soul, as indicated in vedic literature
”
A) The statement requires evidence for a soul.

which gets back to the question of whether evidence is self evident

B) "More" as in what?

self as context

“
so just to clear things up - you are agreeing, or at least willing to ride with as a concept, that the self as context remains a constant through out one's corporeal existence
”
We do not swap bodies or brains. To that I will concur.

but we do 'swap' bodies and brains - if it wasn't the case the brain and body of a three year old would be indistinguishable from the brain and body of a ninety-three year old

“
a physicist might also consider it rude if a high school dropout says their occupation, their foundation of knowledge, the processes of acquiring knowledge that they advocate and the books of knowledge they hold as authoratative regarding these processes and claims of direct perception are "full of shit" etc
”
O..k, none of this is you providing me with evidence.

but it certainly does explain why expressing evidence is futile as long as the other party is overcome by a a set of general principles

“
the fruit vendor however could hear the claims of the rocket scientist and accept them on faith
”
He could accept the claims on faith or he could get the rocket scientist to present evidence, (which while I understand can be difficult for the layman, is not by any means impossible).

so such things as this wouldn't put the fruit vendow in a state of perplexity?

What you're attempting to do is fallacious. Basically you're stating that there are people, (priests etc)

,
actually what I am saying is that there are persons distinguished by possessing certain qualifications called saintly persons - a priest is an institutional designation - ideally a priest should be a saintly person, but obviously, as is the natur eof all institutionalized designations, that is not always the case

that are in direct contact with gods. I cannot understand that because I am not in direct contact with gods and therefore there is no evidence to be presented unless I come into direct contact with gods -

then the next question is whether you can define the process that a saintly person or qualified priest has applied to grant their qualification and if you have successfully applied that process - if the answer is no, then you have your answer - it also explains why you may not be a rocket scientist, carpenter or even fruit vendor too

the overall outcome of which is that these people are in direct contact with gods because they say they are, and I can't argue with that because I'm not.

anyone can make any claim
therefore what I actually reiterated was that there is a person who, having applied a process, is making a claim - this explains why we have qualified doctors, physicists, school teachers etc (and of course their nefarious counterparts, the unqualified ones)

It's a ludicrous argument. This is probably where you tell me I can't prove the president exists or Canada or some other such equally fallacious argument.

no - the president analogy is more to do with why isn't god (a superior entity) submissive to my desires (an inferior entity) to be directly perceivable to me.
I could bring that one in later, but at the moment we are dealing with something more basic, namely the connection between qualification, practice and perception

However, what I will do now is use this argument, (again), against you in the "defining god" thread. I have stated that I am in direct contact with the gods. You have argued against this but it's quite clear you have no place to do so because as far as it goes you are the fruit vendor unless you too are in direct contact with those gods which means we agree.

therefore the method of determining the bonafide from the bogus is to examine the process advocated - basically there are three counterparts -

1. theoretical knowledge of relationship,
2. practical application and
3. goal or fruition of practice

(BTW all systems of knowledge work like this - like for instance a doctor would have to have a theoretical anatomical basis(1) and have practiced or attended surgical proceedures - in case they passed out at the sight of blood (2) to come to the point of performing a proceedure on the spleen (3)

- as evidenced by your struggling with the implications of omnipotent, it seems that you fall off the way side with your omnipotent banana ... what to speak of meeting the demands of the other two criteria

“

I find the christian paradigm a bit clumsy to work with - but then I don't claim to be a representative of the field - but it still stand s that your assertion that reactions in this world are deemed outside the performance of sin (or that god does it for the hell of it) is not a fundamental principle of general religious understanding
”
Uhh... you quoted the bible, it is only natural that I would use the bible as basis for a response. In the bible god does do things "for the hell of it", (which is a very bizarre statement to use). Perhaps a more accurate statement is that this god does things without proper cause - i.e getting Abraham to murder his own son just to show he had fear of the lord - not because Abraham's son had done anything bad.

does it assert that his son was sinless?

Likewise he also closed the wombs of a bunch of women because a guy they knew innocently tried to pull Abraham's missus.

does it assert that they were sinless?
Its the nature of receiving a reaction from previous sin that it will come through an avenue other than the context of one's performance of sin, particularly in terms of karma from previous life times - for instance it would be strange to insist that the self same person you stole $5 from as a youth would come up to you as a 90 year old man to biff you one as a transcendental representative of god's supreme justice

There are a gazillion examples of where god did things not because a specific person had sinned but because god wanted to make a point, prove to himself that he was loved and what not.

the specific nature of sin and piety in all circumsatnces is very difficult to determine, even for an exalted spiritual person , what to speak of an atheist trying to penetrate a theistic composition by dint of their unerstanding - you may think you have a better way to run your local city, but the mayor probably doesn't care - what to speak of your limited perceptions of the background of reward and punishment on a universal level

“
being proficient in fields of human psychology, you must be aware how people tend to react proportionately to displays of rudeness
”
It varies. What I do tend to know is that people are quite quirky, getting "offended" by things that to everyone else would seem quite harmless. I've seen people getting offended by being called 'dude', which to me is neither here nor there. You can never accomodate everyone - hell, some governments are trying. PC brigade is how it's known, and that's causing more harm than good. Some councils in England even banned the term "merry christmas" for "happy holidays" or some such nonsense. This is what happens see, you might get offended by something that to the rest of us seems quite harmless.

so how would you rank, hypothetically, a high school drop out labelling the claims of a physicist and all the processes advocated to verify such claims,as 'full of shit'

“
you could probably learn a few pointers from prince james
”
Hey, don't mess with my sense of I. I am who I am.. I don't want to be Prince James, he doesn't want to be me.. everyone's happy.

I never asserted that you should become Prince James - still it seen that people develop certain traits according to whom they deem as superior - so I was suggesting that you investigate his disposition - as far as the conceived self goes, its only the fool who is self satisfied

“
but he does not resort to fourth class behaviour - this is the quality of a gentleman
”
Please I've been more than polite,

(cough cough)

but I'm not part of the PC brigade. Tell you what, I've got a plan..

I get offended by people avoiding questions, side stepping those questions by asking other, (often irrelevant), questions in return and I also get offended by nonsensical statements that I would need a degree in cryptology to be able to figure out.

then it seems that you have character traits that are not conducive to discussion,particularly of the conceptual variety that falls outside of your field of speculation, since anything outside your 'knowledge base' becomes more inaccessable due to a lack of inquiring skills - philosophy is not for you - better you stick to discussions of points where you already know what it is

Now it's your turn.. tell me exactly what offends you. Once that's done we can then work together to ensure that we're both happy. You'll start answering questions and I'll stop doing whatever it is that bothers you.

ad homs and other faulty devices of logic

 

[SnakeLord]

which gets back to the question of whether evidence is self evident

It's merely a request for evidence.. any evidence. I mean give me whatever evidence you have - whether you think I'm in a position to understand it or not and we can work from there. This constant refusal to show anything is frankly quite inexcusable.

self as context

This doesn't answer anything. You said: there is more to the self than physical/mental. What "more" is there?

but we do 'swap' bodies and brains

I think you're well aware of what I was alluding to, at least I would hope you are.

but it certainly does explain why expressing evidence is futile as long as the other party is overcome by a a set of general principles

Futile or not futile, at least try.

so such things as this wouldn't put the fruit vendow in a state of perplexity?

Nothing that couldn't be corrected with some explanation.

actually what I am saying is that there are persons distinguished by possessing certain qualifications called saintly persons

What qualifications are those exactly?

ideally a priest should be a saintly person, but obviously, as is the natur eof all institutionalized designations, that is not always the case

So how do you decide who is truly qualified and those that are not so but claim to be? Listing what those qualifications consist of would be helpful.

then the next question is whether you can define the process that a saintly person or qualified priest has applied to grant their qualification

Who exactly "grants" that qualification and on what valid testable basis?

it also explains why you may not be a rocket scientist, carpenter or even fruit vendor too

Having said all of that I would then question why you went to such trouble to try and argue against evolution. You are not qualified to do so. It isn't one rule for you, another rule for everyone else..

As a result of that I would state that you no longer try and debate against evolution unless you go through "the process that a qualified person has applied to grant their qualification"

It would seem that the link I provided for you is equal to the picture you showed to the fruit vendor.. No wonder it didn't do any good.

anyone can make any claim
therefore what I actually reiterated was that there is a person who, having applied a process, is making a claim

Applied what testable process?

basically there are three counterparts -
theoretical knowledge of relationship,
practical application and
goal or fruition of practice

1) I talk directly to the gods

2) .. ? What do you mean 'practical application'? I talk to gods that's all there is to it.. do I need to market it, slap it on lunch boxes.. what?

3) Goal or fruition? I talk to gods.. The goal is irrelevant, it's just something I do.

BTW all systems of knowledge work like this

Not really, no.

as evidenced by your struggling with the implications of omnipotent

Uhh.. it was you that had made the error. Nevermind though, such is life.

it seems that you fall off the way side with your omnipotent banana

Only if using your faulty 'beliefs' in what makes a person "qualified" in talking to gods or omnipotent bananas.

does it assert that his son was sinless?

Divert course! Stop doing that. I clearly pointed out where god does things "for the hell of it", and so you change tact. I clearly pointed out that the biblical passage you used nowhere implied previous lives.. you diverted to something else.. You even tried to divert course by changing a biblical passage you used to "religions in general". It is dishonest.

Further to that I have already explained to you that what you asked is an impossibility considering the 'belief' that mankind are born sinners, (no, not because of past lives but because of the actions of Adam and Eve).

However, in the case of Abimelech, the women who's wombs were closed had not sinned. It was Abimelech that "sinned", (even though he was technically innocent to which god admitted). Of course what you want is the bible to say: '"god said "Abraham, kill your son. He hasn't ever sinned, I'm just a nasty bastard"'. I cannot provide that for you and you know it. I've already explained it to you before and now you're just cheating your way through while ignoring what has previously been said.

does it assert that they were sinless?

Again with your extremely dishonest question. It's loaded and you know it. Sod it, I'll use your tactics..

Does it say past lives? Does it say the children sinned? The answer is a big fat no. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Ah, what a lovely way to avoid real discussion.

particularly in terms of karma from previous life times

Does the bible mention karma or previous lives once? Nope.

This is fun.

what to speak of an atheist trying to penetrate a theistic composition by dint of their unerstanding

Enough with the tripe. Until you show anything that gives any theist any validity in anything they say concerning gods/afterlives and anything else with no evidence to support it then you're talking nothing but hogwash. Being an "atheist" is utterly meaningless in the argument.

so how would you rank, hypothetically, a high school drop out labelling the claims of a physicist and all the processes advocated to verify such claims,as 'full of shit'

Dunno, same as a theist trying to debate against evolution I suppose.

its only the fool who is self satisfied

A curious statement indeed. We should talk sometime.

then it seems that you have character traits that are not conducive to discussion

I'd tend to disagree. Still, what do my qualifications in that field have against yours? No offence Light, but you're the fruit vendor here.

since anything outside your 'knowledge base' becomes more inaccessable due to a lack of inquiring skills

I don't remember you asking me what my qualifications were. Let it also be said that I enquire non-stop, it's just people like you don't have the ability to answer.

ad homs and other faulty devices of logic

Strange, because you're seemingly the champion of faulty logic. As for ad homs, you'd do well to take a look at some of your own posts. Hypocricy does not suit you well.

However, I shall certainly try my best to please you.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

which gets back to the question of whether evidence is self evident
”
It's merely a request for evidence.. any evidence. I mean give me whatever evidence you have - whether you think I'm in a position to understand it or not and we can work from there. This constant refusal to show anything is frankly quite inexcusable.

so the evidence is the claims of saintly persons (both their direct perceptions and the processes advocated) - all of which falls within the fold of revealed scripture (in otherwords theintelligence to apply aspects of revealed scripture grants a certain result)
seems like we are still struggling with such elementary observations as the distinction between the conceived self and the self as context

“
self as context
”
This doesn't answer anything. You said: there is more to the self than physical/mental. What "more" is there?

I thought we had already established that he selff as context has certian properties that are not visible in the conceived self

“
so such things as this wouldn't put the fruit vendow in a state of perplexity?
”
Nothing that couldn't be corrected with some explanation.

and doesn't explanations require a foundation of theory?
And doesn't a person who rejects such theoretical foundations, like the high school drop out, prevent further discussion?

“
actually what I am saying is that there are persons distinguished by possessing certain qualifications called saintly persons
”
What qualifications are those exactly?

they are numerous, but in essence, the possession of unmotivated love for god bereft of tinges of frutive gain and mental speculation
tons of scriptural quotations but here is a good one to begin on

NoI 1: A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world.

“
then the next question is whether you can define the process that a saintly person or qualified priest has applied to grant their qualification
”
Who exactly "grants" that qualification and on what valid testable basis?

it can be tested either by results (like a car mechanic can be tested by his ability to repair cars) or by theoretical foundations (a car mechanic can be tested by persons who can quiz them on the basis of relevant know how) - making this distinction between who is qualified and who is not is over 75% of the struggle of spiritual life, so it represents an enormous topic in theistic literature.
Just like if I was to ask you for a defintion of "who is not crazy" it would be difficult for you to produce a few succinct lines for all times places and circumstances

“
it also explains why you may not be a rocket scientist, carpenter or even fruit vendor too
”
Having said all of that I would then question why you went to such trouble to try and argue against evolution. You are not qualified to do so. It isn't one rule for you, another rule for everyone else..

I however do not contend the processes offered - I don't think the means they use to determine evidence is false - I think they (or more specifically, persons who post here on the subject) have lost sight that their assumptions on reality are inductive with no claims of direct perception (unlike, say, claims of metal smelting, whichis also scientific but has the added element of testability due to direct perception)

As a result of that I would state that you no longer try and debate against evolution unless you go through "the process that a qualified person has applied to grant their qualification"

alternatively you could try and offer arguments against theism that at least work on the basis of theistic conclusions, since you don't have the means or knowledge of the means how to arrive at such conclusions

It would seem that the link I provided for you is equal to the picture you showed to the fruit vendor.. No wonder it didn't do any good.

I didn't even click on it because I am already so familiar with that web site and the empirical foundation of evolution - however feel free to excerpt something that you feel is relevant and something new that is offerred on the evolutionary scene - who knows, it may inspire me to investigate it

“
anyone can make any claim
therefore what I actually reiterated was that there is a person who, having applied a process, is making a claim
”
Applied what testable process?

in short - given up sinful activity, worshipped god in humility and maintained the association of saintly persons - once again, big topic, since it is part of the topic of identifying a saintly person

“
basically there are three counterparts -
theoretical knowledge of relationship,
practical application and
goal or fruition of practice
”
1) I talk directly to the gods

your claim is 3) - if you mess up on 1) and exhibit complete ignorance of 2) your claims are not very credible

2) .. ? What do you mean 'practical application'? I talk to gods that's all there is to it.. do I need to market it, slap it on lunch boxes.. what?

then it begs the question why does god talk to you and not others - what is your qualification? What makes you special?

3) Goal or fruition? I talk to gods.. The goal is irrelevant, it's just something I do.

actually your example illustrates teh claim of a bogus person - like for instance if I said "i can do heart surgery" and repeated it constantly to queries such as "where is the heart" (ie I was asked to display theoretical knowledge )
"how did you learn it" (ie what processes did you apply)
- in other words a fool makes demands at 3) and has nothing to offer on 1) and 2)

“
BTW all systems of knowledge work like this
”
Not really, no.

theory,prac and realisation- I think so - at least anyone innvolved in teacher training would think so (of course a fruit vendor could think something else)

“
does it assert that his son was sinless?
”
Divert course! Stop doing that. I clearly pointed out where god does things "for the hell of it",

and I pointed out that that idea runs contrary to religious principles - so either religious principles are wrong, or your assertion that the son was sinless is wrong

and so you change tact. I clearly pointed out that the biblical passage you used nowhere implied previous lives.. you diverted to something else.. You even tried to divert course by changing a biblical passage you used to "religions in general". It is dishonest.

Is it an atheistic or theistic idea that god does things for no reason?

Further to that I have already explained to you that what you asked is an impossibility considering the 'belief' that mankind are born sinners, (no, not because of past lives but because of the actions of Adam and Eve).

so I guess your question is answered then - the son wasn't sinless

However, in the case of Abimelech, the women who's wombs were closed had not sinned. It was Abimelech that "sinned", (even though he was technically innocent to which god admitted). Of course what you want is the bible to say: '"god said "Abraham, kill your son. He hasn't ever sinned, I'm just a nasty bastard"'. I cannot provide that for you and you know it.

well since it appears obvious to you that god does thing s for no reason, it certainly would be helpful for your argument if you could locate such passages

I've already explained it to you before and now you're just cheating your way through while ignoring what has previously been said.

the point is that it is not sufficient for a person to say god has no reasoning if that reasoning cannot be established within the confines of human reasoning - you are revealing another inability to come to grips with the notion of omnipotence, which makes it all the easier to chuck out the window your mystical banana claims

“
does it assert that they were sinless?
”
Again with your extremely dishonest question. It's loaded and you know it. Sod it, I'll use your tactics..

Does it say past lives? Does it say the children sinned? The answer is a big fat no. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Ah, what a lovely way to avoid real discussion.

it is however asserted that god does things for a reason

“
particularly in terms of karma from previous life times
”
Does the bible mention karma or previous lives once? Nope.

wrong, at least according to some early christian scholars who's ideas were disbanded due to political (as opposed to theological) ideas -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen

“
what to speak of an atheist trying to penetrate a theistic composition by dint of their unerstanding
”
Enough with the tripe. Until you show anything that gives any theist any validity in anything they say concerning gods/afterlives and anything else with no evidence to support it then you're talking nothing but hogwash. Being an "atheist" is utterly meaningless in the argument.

so provide evidence of an electron to an antagonistic high school drop out

“
so how would you rank, hypothetically, a high school drop out labelling the claims of a physicist and all the processes advocated to verify such claims,as 'full of shit'
”
Dunno, same as a theist trying to debate against evolution I suppose.

a theist does not deny the processes of science - they deny the inductive conclusion based on t he absence of direct perception and even th e absence of a process that enables direct perception

“
then it seems that you have character traits that are not conducive to discussion
”
I'd tend to disagree. Still, what do my qualifications in that field have against yours? No offence Light, but you're the fruit vendor here.

not really - I work with scientific processes to question evolutionary claims - you reject the process, persons who have applied the process and the claims of persons who have applied the process ... all without exhibiting a thread of knowledge about the persons, the claims and the process

“
since anything outside your 'knowledge base' becomes more inaccessable due to a lack of inquiring skills
”
I don't remember you asking me what my qualifications were.

you just revealed them by declaring that you find it offensive when confronted with knowledge outside of your knowledge base

Let it also be said that I enquire non-stop, it's just people like you don't have the ability to answer.

you are revealing once again that inquiry is not your strong suit if you think all that is required for successful inquiry is the ability to ask questions

“
ad homs and other faulty devices of logic
”
Strange, because you're seemingly the champion of faulty logic. As for ad homs, you'd do well to take a look at some of your own posts. Hypocricy does not suit you well.

However, I shall certainly try my best to please you.

posting a string of ad homs followed by a conciliatory note does not come across as sincerity

 

[SnakeLord]

so the evidence is the claims of saintly persons (both their direct perceptions and the processes advocated)

I see you're struggling to recognise the difference between "evidence" and "claims".

all of which falls within the fold of revealed scripture

So the evidence in this case is ancient written texts? What from those texts has been "revealed"? (that isn't just a claim of being revealed)

I thought we had already established that he selff as context has certian properties that are not visible in the conceived self

Right now I fail to see how any of that alludes to something other than physical/mental.

and doesn't explanations require a foundation of theory?
And doesn't a person who rejects such theoretical foundations, like the high school drop out, prevent further discussion?

Rejects outright, sure I guess.. But if he actually asks for testable evidence that gives consistent results and yet receives none? I'm not claiming that it's easy, but as long as the guy has reasonable intelligence/a functioning brain it isn't quite what you'd make it out to be.

they are numerous, but in essence, the possession of unmotivated love for god bereft of tinges of frutive gain and mental speculation

Now you need to show results concerning these people that are all in "possession of unmotivated love for god bereft of tinges of frutive gain and mental speculation". Are the results consistent? When one fails to gain those results you would undoubtedly label him as "obviously not qualified enough", and so you need to establish exactly what level must be achieved in those qualifications to get the result you would claim occurs.

it can be tested either by results (like a car mechanic can be tested by his ability to repair cars) or by theoretical foundations (a car mechanic can be tested by persons who can quiz them on the basis of relevant know how)

The correct answer is what exactly? If you were to quiz these mechanics on car know how they would give consistent results: what does an alternator do, what colour wire do you attach to the positive cell on a battery etc, (my car know how is not very good). What consistent results do qualified god talkers give.. Do they even talk to the same one and how can you quiz them on it exactly? Do you talk to god: yes. It's kinda pointless because you end up with nothing but a claim.. there is nothing testable.

making this distinction between who is qualified and who is not is over 75% of the struggle of spiritual life, so it represents an enormous topic in theistic literature.

So even you guys don't really know who is qualified and who is not and so have nothing but claims to guide you - nothing testable whatsoever.

Just like if I was to ask you for a defintion of "who is not crazy" it would be difficult for you to produce a few succinct lines for all times places and circumstances

A few succinct lines? What's that all about?

I think they (or more specifically, persons who post here on the subject) have lost sight that their assumptions on reality are inductive with no claims of direct perception

By that same token then have you not "lost sight that your assumptions on reality yada yada.. because you have no direct perception of god, (not being a saintly person), but are indeed taking the word of those that claim to be qualified and to have direct perception? With the added problem that even with claimed direct perception you cannot verify that it is a god. It might be a fairy that's a compulsive liar and claims to be a god, it might be the devil confusing you, or you might just be communicating with your own brain. That is not testable, the conclusion is nothing more than assumption.

alternatively you could try and offer arguments against theism..

Alternatively you could just concur with what I've said, unless you claim you are qualified and have gone through the process that a qualified person has applied to grant that qualification, instead of ignoring the issue while trying to turn it on me.

alternatively you could try and offer arguments against theism that at least work on the basis of theistic conclusions, since you don't have the means or knowledge of the means how to arrive at such conclusions

Seeings as you have already decided that I don't have the knowledge or means to arrive at the conclusions you undoubtedly want me to arrive at, your whole statement is pointless. Why ask me to try when you've already said I can't? Now, kindly support your claim that I don't have the knowledge or means.

Not to mention that unless you're going to claim that you are a qualified saintly person, then you and I are in the same boat so might as well both shut up. What it would then come down to is opinion and knowledge of what we've read or been told. You were using biblical text to try and support past lives, when the biblical text implies no such thing, (and don't say that it doesn't need to say it for you to be able to interpret it because you've tried to assert that it must say those exact words to have any value twice already). It would seem in that department I'm one up on you, although you've certainly got me beat on the opinion front.

I didn't even click on it because I am already so familiar with that web site and the empirical foundation of evolution

Clearly you're not. Monkey turned into a human? Do me a favour.


"like for instance if I said "i can do heart surgery" and repeated it constantly to queries such as "where is the heart""

Once more: Monkeys don't turn into humans. You can repeat your claim of good evolution knowledge all you like, (just like the fake heart surgeon). It doesn't mean anything at the end of the day.

however feel free to excerpt something that you feel is relevant

Monkeys didn't turn into humans.

in short - given up sinful activity, worshipped god in humility and maintained the association of saintly persons

Ok, and the results show what, are they consistent etc etc?

your claim is 3) - if you mess up on 1) and exhibit complete ignorance of 2) your claims are not very credible

A lot of "ifs", little meat with those potatoes.

then it begs the question why does god talk to you and not others - what is your qualification? What makes you special?

You are under the delusion that you need have qualification or be special for gods to talk to you? A bizarre notion.

actually your example illustrates teh claim of a bogus person

Sorry, you're unqualified to make that statement.

"how did you learn it" (ie what processes did you apply)

Learn? I was chosen.

in other words a fool makes demands at 3) and has nothing to offer on 1) and 2)

You clearly have very low opinion of gods.

theory,prac and realisation- I think so

You would be wrong, and I will cite an example to show it:

You managed to come to a 'realisation' concerning evolution without doing either of the first two.

and I pointed out that that idea runs contrary to religious principles - so either religious principles are wrong, or your assertion that the son was sinless is wrong

Eh? This current part was concerned with your statements that a god does not do things "for the hell of it", or because god so desired. My assertion concerning the son is that he was born a sinner - because of the actions of others, not through his own acts of sin. In this instance I pointed out several moments where god did things specifically for his own benefits - to which you've given up on the bible altogether and moved on to "religious principles" - which doesn't say anything considering there are so many differing religious principles.

Is it an atheistic or theistic idea that god does things for no reason?

What does that have to do with anything? Further to which I would contend that is is a theistic idea.. unless you would claim that god has no will of his own and can't do what he wants to do but is governed by what he must do - in which case omnipotence goes down the pan. To quote my earlier statement:

"It is often stated that [with regards to the jewish/christian god] this god 'tests' people"

Now, surely you're not implying that those tests, (Abraham going to murder his son), are things that god must do because the child was born a sinner? He surely doesn't have to do things which leads to only one logical conclusion: that he chooses to do them. You said "for the hell of it", which has now strangely changed to "for no reason", when originally I did indeed point out that "for the hell of it" was a bizarre statement to use. Let's go through this slowly:

Here is the quote you used:

"And as he was passing by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, 'Rabbi, who has sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?" Jesus answered, 'Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents, but the works of God were to be made manifest in him.'""

A) The man was blind from birth.

B) Jesus clearly states that this man had not sinned.

C) Jesus clearly states that the mans parents had not sinned.

D) Jesus clearly states that god chose for his works to be made manifest in this person.

What we can gather from this is that the boy didn't sin, the parents didn't sin but that god chose for him to blind.

Your post goes on to say that the only conceivable answer is that there are past lives - which is simply fallacious and, (if I were to use your arguments), I'd now be asking you to show me exactly where those very words are written.

so I guess your question is answered then - the son wasn't sinless

The actual question was how many lives do we have and do you have any evidence? Pay attention.

"Last? This is getting too much. Next lives, last lives.. How many do we have? Further than that I would ask for any evidence that supports the claim."

"It doesn't even remotely point at reincarnation. What it does say is that god decided to make him blind, nothing else. god apparently does those kind of things to test people, but not once anywhere in that passage is there any indication that this person was alive before being born."

See?

You then went on to claim:

"it says that the baby was born blind not because of the sins performed by the parents but because of the sins performed by the baby"

But if you pay 1 seconds attention to the quote you'll see it says no such thing, indeed saying the exact opposite.

well since it appears obvious to you that god does thing s for no reason, it certainly would be helpful for your argument if you could locate such passages

It's been done already, you just keep changing the phrase to make it look like something new. "no reason"... Everything has a reason for doing anything. Your statement is moot. The key here is that god doesn't specifically do things due to sin, but because he wants to for other reasons - which is seen quite clearly in the very passage you used. Then again, you seemingly didn't even read the passage you used.

the point is that it is not sufficient for a person to say god has no reasoning if that reasoning cannot be established within the confines of human reasoning

I didn't say he had "no reason", I stated that the reason was not due to past lives or specifically due to sin. Pay attention.

you are revealing another inability to come to grips with the notion of omnipotence

Omnipotence is irrelevant right here and now. I know you're eager to just keep repeating it because you think the more you say it the more real it will become, but needless to say that's pretty silly.

it is however asserted that god does things for a reason

Again, everything does anything for a reason - but the reason in this instance is not past lives or sin.

wrong, at least according to some early christian scholars who's ideas were disbanded due to political (as opposed to theological) ideas

I've checked. The bible does not say karma once, not does it say past lives once. "According to some early christian scholars" is not being in the bible is it?

so provide evidence of an electron to an antagonistic high school drop out

I will. Now you provide me some for gods/past lives etc.

I work with scientific processes to question evolutionary claims

Yeah right.. Sorry but that "monkeys turn into humans" speech gave you away.

you reject the process, persons who have applied the process and the claims of persons who have applied the process ... all without exhibiting a thread of knowledge about the persons, the claims and the process

I call you on your lie. I didn't reject anything, indeed I am still sitting here asking for evidence, asking you to support your claims, asking questions concerning the processes, how those processes are tested, what results they give etc etc etc. You just sit there insulting atheists and claiming monkeys turn into humans. Your apology is accepted.

you just revealed them by declaring that you find it offensive when confronted with knowledge outside of your knowledge base

Sorry, were you going to ask what my qualifications were or just keep up with the nonsense?

you are revealing once again that inquiry is not your strong suit if you think all that is required for successful inquiry is the ability to ask questions

Point out where I implied that it was "all that is required". But right here and now, being on this forum.. questions are a good start. You are revealing once again that you don't really pay attention or think things through.

posting a string of ad homs followed by a conciliatory note does not come across as sincerity

My point about not paying attention. You said you were offended by ad homs to which I had to point out that every single one of your posts contains ad homs - which is hypocrisy. If I use them I use them, it's irrelevant to the point.. But if you have problem with them you should not continually do them - because it's more likely you'll get that thing you don't like in return.

Goodnight.

 

[heliocentric]

Ive been lurking in this thread abit, lightgigantic i believe your opinions are largely based on faith rather than a critical process.
And i do feel youre creating a verbal fog between your beliefs and the person your in dialog with as a means to evade this simple fact.
Your posts seem to be filled with double-speak and convulted language that when stripped down to the bare basics simply reads as 'i believe xy and z to be true because i do'.
I think youre going to extreme lengths to create the appearance of a reasoned process that simply doesnt exist.
Sorry if this comes across as an ad hom, its not intended as such, im just calling it as i see it.

 

[SkinWalker]

Your posts seem to be filled with double-speak and convulted language that when stripped down to the bare basics simply reads as 'i believe xy and z to be true because i do'.
I think youre going to extreme lengths to create the appearance of a reasoned process that simply doesnt exist.

Exactly. Thank you.

 

[lightgigantic]

Ive been lurking in this thread abit, lightgigantic i believe your opinions are largely based on faith rather than a critical process.

as it stands at the moment, until you come up with something to reference, your statement is equally unfounded

And i do feel youre creating a verbal fog between your beliefs and the person your in dialog with as a means to evade this simple fact.

the fact being?

Your posts seem to be filled with double-speak and convulted language that when stripped down to the bare basics simply reads as 'i believe xy and z to be true because i do'.

once again, without a reference, all you have offerred is an opinion or a confidence statement

I think youre going to extreme lengths to create the appearance of a reasoned process that simply doesnt exist.

then you have to venture the general principles you apply to determine whether something exists or not - this works better than holding one's opinions as infallible authorities

Sorry if this comes across as an ad hom, its not intended as such, im just calling it as i see it.

no I wouldn't call it an ad hom - I would call it a confidence statement because it lacks references - in other words it doesn't come across as a legitimate criticism or critique but just as a typical knee jerk reaction of an atheist in relation to a theistic concept

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

so the evidence is the claims of saintly persons (both their direct perceptions and the processes advocated)
”
I see you're struggling to recognise the difference between "evidence" and "claims".

a claim, particularly in regards to direct perception, is one of evidence - obviosuly the claim is the claim of perception of the transcendental

“
all of which falls within the fold of revealed scripture
”
So the evidence in this case is ancient written texts? What from those texts has been "revealed"? (that isn't just a claim of being revealed)

predicting I would get such a response i tagged
(in otherwords theintelligence to apply aspects of revealed scripture grants a certain result)

“
and doesn't explanations require a foundation of theory?
And doesn't a person who rejects such theoretical foundations, like the high school drop out, prevent further discussion?
”
Rejects outright, sure I guess.. But if he actually asks for testable evidence that gives consistent results and yet receives none?

he gets it - th eproblem is that he doesn't have the theoretical foundation to appreciate it

I'm not claiming that it's easy, but as long as the guy has reasonable intelligence/a functioning brain it isn't quite what you'd make it out to be.

actually its not a question of intelligence so much but attitude

“
they are numerous, but in essence, the possession of unmotivated love for god bereft of tinges of frutive gain and mental speculation
”
Now you need to show results concerning these people that are all in "possession of unmotivated love for god bereft of tinges of frutive gain and mental speculation". Are the results consistent?

it is determined by quality - like for instance its quite obvious what happiness is but, as with many psychological conditions, they are verified by behavioural as opposed to reductionist paradigms

When one fails to gain those results you would undoubtedly label him as "obviously not qualified enough", and so you need to establish exactly what level must be achieved in those qualifications to get the result you would claim occurs.

there are numerous scriptural quotes to qualify such things

CC Madhya 23.18-19: "'When the seed of ecstatic emotion for Kṛṣṇa fructifies, the following nine symptoms manifest in one's behavior: forgiveness, concern that time should not be wasted, detachment, absence of false prestige, hope, eagerness, a taste for chanting the holy name of the Lord, attachment to descriptions of the transcendental qualities of the Lord, and affection for those places where the Lord resides — that is, a temple or a holy place like Vṛndāvana. These are all called anubhāva, subordinate signs of ecstatic emotion. They are visible in a person in whose heart the seed of love of God has begun to fructify.'

“
it can be tested either by results (like a car mechanic can be tested by his ability to repair cars) or by theoretical foundations (a car mechanic can be tested by persons who can quiz them on the basis of relevant know how)
”
The correct answer is what exactly? If you were to quiz these mechanics on car know how they would give consistent results: what does an alternator do, what colour wire do you attach to the positive cell on a battery etc, (my car know how is not very good). What consistent results do qualified god talkers give.. Do they even talk to the same one and how can you quiz them on it exactly? Do you talk to god: yes. It's kinda pointless because you end up with nothing but a claim.. there is nothing testable.

questions like "what is the relationship between the living entity and god", "what is the relationship between the living entity and the phenomenal world" "What is the constitutional position of the living entity" etc etc

“
making this distinction between who is qualified and who is not is over 75% of the struggle of spiritual life, so it represents an enormous topic in theistic literature.
”
So even you guys don't really know who is qualified and who is not and so have nothing but claims to guide you - nothing testable whatsoever.

no
its just a vast topic and hardly a suitable beginning point for the cynical skeptic

“
Just like if I was to ask you for a defintion of "who is not crazy" it would be difficult for you to produce a few succinct lines for all times places and circumstances
”
A few succinct lines? What's that all about?

well suppose I asked you to give a concise defintition of how to determine who is crazy and who is not in all time places and circumsatnces - it is the topic for a series of books and not a one paragraph response on a forum like this

“
I think they (or more specifically, persons who post here on the subject) have lost sight that their assumptions on reality are inductive with no claims of direct perception
”
By that same token then have you not "lost sight that your assumptions on reality yada yada.. because you have no direct perception of god, (not being a saintly person), but are indeed taking the word of those that claim to be qualified and to have direct perception?

regardles of what I may or may not be, the difference is that there is a claim of direct perception and a claim to a process that enables direct perception - there is no such claim in inductive knowledge

With the added problem that even with claimed direct perception you cannot verify that it is a god.

how would you know?
If I say "I have seen god" how would you know if I was lying or not?

It might be a fairy that's a compulsive liar and claims to be a god, it might be the devil confusing you, or you might just be communicating with your own brain. That is not testable, the conclusion is nothing more than assumption.

therefore there is a vast body of theoretical knowledge, which comes in to play before practice and upon which such applications realization or comprehension is built - like for instance your inability to form a cohesive argument about a community of omnipotent personalities came about due to a lack of foundation

“
alternatively you could try and offer arguments against theism..
”
Alternatively you could just concur with what I've said, unless you claim you are qualified and have gone through the process that a qualified person has applied to grant that qualification, instead of ignoring the issue while trying to turn it on me.

amongst an assembley of persons bereft of foundational knowledge, there is no point asserting one's qualification or disqualification - just like the physicist attains nothing withthe high school drop out by asserting their experience, etc

“
alternatively you could try and offer arguments against theism that at least work on the basis of theistic conclusions, since you don't have the means or knowledge of the means how to arrive at such conclusions
”
Seeings as you have already decided that I don't have the knowledge or means to arrive at the conclusions you undoubtedly want me to arrive at, your whole statement is pointless. Why ask me to try when you've already said I can't?

I have had many a discussion with Prince James like this - even had a few with cris - both of whom are staunch atheists - their capacity for philosophical thought enabled them to entertain theoretical ideas

Now, kindly support your claim that I don't have the knowledge or means.

you don't know what the word god implies (evidenced by your omnipotent banana and finger clicking assembly of gods with nagging wives in miniskirts) and you don't know what processes are advocated (evidenced by your inability to distinguish between a saintly person and a loon)

Not to mention that unless you're going to claim that you are a qualified saintly person, then you and I are in the same boat so might as well both shut up.

compared to yourself, i could be catagorized as a saintly person perhaps, but in the wider picture of saintly persons, probably not

What it would then come down to is opinion and knowledge of what we've read or been told.

No
It comes down to what we have practiced (and generally we are inspired to practice something as a response to a body of theoretical knowledge)

You were using biblical text to try and support past lives, when the biblical text implies no such thing, (and don't say that it doesn't need to say it for you to be able to interpret it because you've tried to assert that it must say those exact words to have any value twice already). It would seem in that department I'm one up on you, although you've certainly got me beat on the opinion front.

knowledge of previous lives is not an integral lesson in spiritual life since the comprehension of it culminates in bringing one's behaviour within the realm of piety (at least as a starter anyway), which is the precise change in behaviour that religion works at accomplishing
Saying that god is a whimsical creature that acts for no reason goes against every foundational principle of theism you could care to mention
Without knowledge of past lives one can practice a higher level of religious principles than one can practice without knowledge that god is a just and rational entity.

"like for instance if I said "i can do heart surgery" and repeated it constantly to queries such as "where is the heart""

Once more: Monkeys don't turn into humans. You can repeat your claim of good evolution knowledge all you like, (just like the fake heart surgeon). It doesn't mean anything at the end of the day.

so your argument is that without the primate species coming into being humans would still come into being?

t

“
your claim is 3) - if you mess up on 1) and exhibit complete ignorance of 2) your claims are not very credible
”
A lot of "ifs", little meat with those potatoes.

quite simply, if you don't meet a requirement, you don't get the fruits of it

“
then it begs the question why does god talk to you and not others - what is your qualification? What makes you special?
”
You are under the delusion that you need have qualification or be special for gods to talk to you? A bizarre notion.

if you don't know what god is, what a saintly person is, and what is the process for becomign saintly, yes, it would be difficult to distinguish between a loon and a saintly person - much like if you don't know how to identify gold you invite all sorts of problems in the endeavour to determine it
“

actually your example illustrates teh claim of a bogus person
”
Sorry, you're unqualified to make that statement.

given that you just run home with comprehension/realization bereft of knowledge and processing skills, its quite obvious

“
"how did you learn it" (ie what processes did you apply)
”
Learn? I was chosen.

once again, statements of comprehension isolated from knowledge and processing skills appears like an orphan

“

in other words a fool makes demands at 3) and has nothing to offer on 1) and 2)
”
You clearly have very low opinion of gods.

no
I have a low opinion of persons who falsify theistic practices

“
theory,prac and realisation- I think so
”
You would be wrong, and I will cite an example to show it:

You managed to come to a 'realisation' concerning evolution without doing either of the first two.

I accept the theory that evolution works off (I don't say that the world is 5000 years old)
I accep the prac that evoltion works off (I don't say that the archeological relics were laid by the CIA)
I contend the realization because it is inductive -

Is it an atheistic or theistic idea that god does things for no reason?
”
What does that have to do with anything? Further to which I would contend that is is a theistic idea.. unless you would claim that god has no will of his own and can't do what he wants to do but is governed by what he must do - in which case omnipotence goes down the pan. To quote my earlier statement:

"It is often stated that [with regards to the jewish/christian god] this god 'tests' people"

Now, surely you're not implying that those tests, (Abraham going to murder his son), are things that god must do because the child was born a sinner? He surely doesn't have to do things which leads to only one logical conclusion: that he chooses to do them. You said "for the hell of it", which has now strangely changed to "for no reason", when originally I did indeed point out that "for the hell of it" was a bizarre statement to use. Let's go through this slowly:

Here is the quote you used:

"And as he was passing by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, 'Rabbi, who has sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?" Jesus answered, 'Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents, but the works of God were to be made manifest in him.'""

A) The man was blind from birth.

B) Jesus clearly states that this man had not sinned.

C) Jesus clearly states that the mans parents had not sinned.

D) Jesus clearly states that god chose for his works to be made manifest in this person.

if you read the next verse it would be clear what the works of god are

What we can gather from this is that the boy didn't sin, the parents didn't sin but that god chose for him to blind.

your pont D) is faulty

"Last? This is getting too much. Next lives, last lives.. How many do we have? Further than that I would ask for any evidence that supports the claim."

If you can't see how you are changing bodies in this life, your prospects of seeing previous or future ones don't appear good

"It doesn't even remotely point at reincarnation. What it does say is that god decided to make him blind, nothing else. god apparently does those kind of things to test people, but not once anywhere in that passage is there any indication that this person was alive before being born."

See?

You then went on to claim:

"it says that the baby was born blind not because of the sins performed by the parents but because of the sins performed by the baby"

But if you pay 1 seconds attention to the quote you'll see it says no such thing, indeed saying the exact opposite.

all onthe basis of your point you raise in D)

“
well since it appears obvious to you that god does thing s for no reason, it certainly would be helpful for your argument if you could locate such passages
”
It's been done already, you just keep changing the phrase to make it look like something new. "no reason"... Everything has a reason for doing anything. Your statement is moot. The key here is that god doesn't specifically do things due to sin, but because he wants to for other reasons - which is seen quite clearly in the very passage you used. Then again, you seemingly didn't even read the passage you used.

as far as materialpunishment and reward are concerned, its all due to sin and piety. And as you acknowledged previously, no one is sinless (its the nature of living in the material atmosphere), and the flipside side is that no one is consistently sinful either

“
the point is that it is not sufficient for a person to say god has no reasoning if that reasoning cannot be established within the confines of human reasoning
”
I didn't say he had "no reason", I stated that the reason was not due to past lives or specifically due to sin. Pay attention.

which amounts to the same thing - god does bad things to people for no good reason

“
wrong, at least according to some early christian scholars who's ideas were disbanded due to political (as opposed to theological) ideas
”
I've checked. The bible does not say karma once, not does it say past lives once. "According to some early christian scholars" is not being in the bible is it?

given the historical period of origen and the historical period of the KIng james, it s not surprising

“
so provide evidence of an electron to an antagonistic high school drop out
”
I will. Now you provide me some for gods/past lives etc.

I guess its just a coincidence that i get the same response from you that one would imagine drawing from a high school drop out huh?

“
I work with scientific processes to question evolutionary claims
”
Yeah right.. Sorry but that "monkeys turn into humans" speech gave you away.

lol

“
you reject the process, persons who have applied the process and the claims of persons who have applied the process ... all without exhibiting a thread of knowledge about the persons, the claims and the process
”
I call you on your lie. I didn't reject anything, indeed I am still sitting here asking for evidence, asking you to support your claims, asking questions concerning the processes, how those processes are tested, what results they give etc etc etc. You just sit there insulting atheists and claiming monkeys turn into humans. Your apology is accepted.

how magnanimous

 

[SnakeLord]

a claim, particularly in regards to direct perception, is one of evidence

A claim is not evidence. Period.

predicting I would get such a response i tagged

Once more: So the evidence in this case is ancient written texts? What from those texts has been "revealed"? (that isn't just a claim of being revealed)

The first question requires a simple yes or no answer. The second asks for slightly more details.

it is determined by quality - like for instance its quite obvious what happiness is but, as with many psychological conditions, they are verified by behavioural as opposed to reductionist paradigms

How does your statement provide evidence of gods etc? It doesn't. Kindly provide some data - show the results that are consistent and testable.

there are numerous scriptural quotes to qualify such things

Not to 'qualify' but to claim. The book merely states the claim made by humans that have read the book. It is still an evidence-less claim.

questions like "what is the relationship between the living entity and god", "what is the relationship between the living entity and the phenomenal world" "What is the constitutional position of the living entity" etc etc

The answers to which are? And what evidence is there that shows those answers to be real in any way?

the difference is that there is a claim of direct perception and a claim to a process that enables direct perception

Oh which, being a non-saintly person, you have no evidence to support either of those claims.

how would you know?
If I say "I have seen god" how would you know if I was lying or not?

The question was: How would you? It could say it was god, you could 'feel' that it was a god, you could be adamant that it is a god - but you could never justify the claim.

therefore there is a vast body of theoretical knowledge

"Knowledge" is an inaccurate word to use and has no bearing on something that suffers complete lack of evidence.

like for instance your inability to form a cohesive argument about a community of omnipotent personalities came about due to a lack of foundation

There you go again with the fallacious codswollop.

amongst an assembley of persons bereft of foundational knowledge, there is no point asserting one's qualification or disqualification

Are you qualified or not? A yes or no answer.

I have had many a discussion with Prince James like this - even had a few with cris - both of whom are staunch atheists - their capacity for philosophical thought enabled them to entertain theoretical ideas

That's truly wonderful for them, but it does not answer my question. Try again.

you don't know what the word god implies (evidenced by your omnipotent banana and finger clicking assembly of gods with nagging wives in miniskirts) and you don't know what processes are advocated (evidenced by your inability to distinguish between a saintly person and a loon)

More gibberish. The fact that you do not seemingly comprehend the basics is not just cause to try and blame me for it. Further to which, I am the one here "qualified" to distinguish what a "loon" is. You have absolutely no say in the matter.

compared to yourself, i could be catagorized as a saintly person perhaps, but in the wider picture of saintly persons, probably not

You're unqualified. Need say no more. Whether you regard yourself as better than me or above me doesn't change that in any way whatsoever.

Saying that god is a whimsical creature that acts for no reason goes against every foundational principle of theism you could care to mention

I would therefore ask why YOU keep saying "no reason" while I keep saying there is reason, just not the reasons you claimed. Sometimes you have to listen..

so your argument is that without the primate species coming into being humans would still come into being?

My "argument" is that monkeys do not turn into humans - as you falsely claimed.

if you don't know what god is, what a saintly person is, and what is the process for becomign saintly, yes

A low opinion of gods. You don't need a degree for them to talk to you, but I guess clearly you do with concerns to your gods. Oh well..

it would be difficult to distinguish between a loon and a saintly person

Not, if like me, you're qualified.

your pont D) is faulty

Are you sure? Point D just says that god chose his works to be manifest in this person - which is supported by the text, and the only way you could claim it's faulty is if you're going to say god didn't choose. Are you contending that god didn't choose?

You could say point D was incomplete and needed "god chose to make works manifest because of the mans sin", but then that wouldn't be accurate given B and C - again, both supported by the text.

If you can't see how you are changing bodies in this life, your prospects of seeing previous or future ones don't appear good

Try me. Provide the evidence.. You have any? Didn't think so. You're all gas and air.

all onthe basis of your point you raise in D)

Point D just says god chose and is irrelevant to my statement and your error in saying that "it says that the baby was born blind.. because of the sins performed by the baby", which it doesn't. Point D is irrelevant to that fact.

which amounts to the same thing - god does bad things to people for no good reason

"Good reason" is purely subjective. Because something is "good" to you does not mean it is good to anyone else. Testing Abraham to see if he feared god is a clearly a "good" reason to god, it's just the rest of us that fail to see the value of such a thing to an omniscient being.

given the historical period of origen and the historical period of the KIng james, it s not surprising

I checked more than the King James.

I guess its just a coincidence that i get the same response from you that one would imagine drawing from a high school drop out huh?

Whatever you say. I'll take that as a "no, I cannot provide any evidence".

 

[heliocentric]

as it stands at the moment, until you come up with something to reference, your statement is equally unfounded

Im referencing your entire debating style in this thread, although i'll reference something specific as you'll see bellow.

once again, without a reference, all you have offerred is an opinion or a confidence statement

See above, and it is an opinion yes and was never intended as anything beyond that. Im simply making a judgement on your style of debate in this entire thread,.

no I wouldn't call it an ad hom - I would call it a confidence statement because it lacks references - in other words it doesn't come across as a legitimate criticism or critique but just as a typical knee jerk reaction of an atheist in relation to a theistic concept

Again im using this entire thread as a reference (sorry i thought that was clear from the outset).
And im not an atheist (agnostic) and have no problem with theistic concepts, i simply think youre being disingenuous about your own faith.
To give and example - You talk of using the opinions of qualified spritual people to gauge the nature of god. This doesnt work as a reasoned process since there is no agreed apon critera for what constitutes a person who is in communication with god(s).
It is not the same as invoking the statements of a qualified scientist, a scientist has verifiable qualifications that conform to an agreed apon standard to which he studies for and passes.
Nothing like this exists for the spiritual guru - therefore you are taking the opinions of someone claiming to be in spritual communication on faith, trust, and gut instinct. Nothing wrong with that, but pretending that this is not the case is clearly a misrepresentation of the process of your own judgement.
I do however think that if you were as critical and descerning towards the opinions of spiritual leaders/gurus as you are to those of myself or anyone who disagrees with you, you would infact have a real and genuine reasoned process in place.
As it stands unless youre working off the basis of a profound personal spiritual experience of your own then youre going on nothing more than a conviction in the words of others who do not have any objective evidence to back up their claims.

 

[lightgigantic]

Again im using this entire thread as a reference (sorry i thought that was clear from the outset).
And im not an atheist (agnostic) and have no problem with theistic concepts, i simply think youre being disingenuous about your own faith.
To give and example - You talk of using the opinions of qualified spritual people to gauge the nature of god. This doesnt work as a reasoned process since there is no agreed apon critera for what constitutes a person who is in communication with god(s).
It is not the same as invoking the statements of a qualified scientist, a scientist has verifiable qualifications that conform to an agreed apon standard to which he studies for and passes.
Nothing like this exists for the spiritual guru - therefore you are taking the opinions of someone claiming to be in spritual communication on faith, trust, and gut instinct. Nothing wrong with that, but pretending that this is not the case is clearly a misrepresentation of the process of your own judgement.
I do however think that if you were as critical and descerning towards the opinions of spiritual leaders/gurus as you are to those of myself or anyone who disagrees with you, you would infact have a real and genuine reasoned process in place.
As it stands unless youre working off the basis of a profound personal spiritual experience of your own then youre going on nothing more than a conviction in the words of others who do not have any objective evidence to back up their claims.

well , first lets look at how a scientist verifies their claims
Is it possible for anyone to verify their claims without a foundation of theory and practice?
Why is it that physcists (or persons familiar with the foundation of physics) verifies the claims of physicists?
Why not archeologists, biologists or proctologists?

Now if one lacks the necessary skills to verify the claims of direct perception, all one will have to work with is an opinion - in other words it boils down to the hearer's perceived credibility of the speaker .

Interestingly enough, when standards of practice deteriorate (like say the standards of medical practice around 200 years ago before it got institutionalized, with quacks and miracle cures and tonic water), peoples estimations of credibility diminish - I would argue that at the moment, due to a lack of standardized knowledge about theistic claims, the perception of the credibility of theistic claims is greatly reduced - this creates an extreme dichotomy, with fools on one hand accepting the claims of any lunatic (with charisma) who says that god speaks to them, and on the other extreme, the flat out rejection of all claims of theism by those staunchly situated in reductionist paradigms

- both however,like virtually all extreme dualities, share the same foundation (in this case an absence of the standards of knowledge for theism)

 

[heliocentric]

Now if one lacks the necessary skills to verify the claims of direct perception, all one will have to work with is an opinion - in other words it boils down to the hearer's perceived credibility of the speaker .

Yes that pretty much is all you have to go on.
Id also ask that the person in question demonstrate knowledge currently outside of the grasp of human understanding, since crediblity in itself isnt really enough to convince me.

I would argue that at the moment, due to a lack of standardized knowledge about theistic claims, the perception of the credibility of theistic claims is greatly reduced - this creates an extreme dichotomy, with fools on one hand accepting the claims of any lunatic (with charisma) who says that god speaks to them, and on the other extreme, the flat out rejection of all claims of theism by those staunchly situated in reductionist paradigms

- both however,like virtually all extreme dualities, share the same foundation (in this case an absence of the standards of knowledge for theism)

I disagree, i dont think there are any standards within theism, theism isnt really a discipline its more like a collection of attitudes, ideas, and concepts.
And i personally dont think knowledge of theists themes and buzzwords will make any difference either way really when it comes down to it.
The only way i can see is by the method i outlined above - a demonstration of knowledge that represents a quantum leap of knowledge or information.