Does God need to exist as a separate entity, or could God exist in the same way as music does?

Does God need to exist as a separate entity, or could God exist in the same way as music does?

Music is a complex collection of air vibrations that stimulate the pleasure center of humans.

Is your question really does 'God' exist as a complex collection of air vibrations that stimulate the pleasure center of humans?

Does God need to exist as a separate entity, or could God exist in the same way as music does?


BG 9.4: By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them.

BG 9.5: And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the very source of creation.

In other words nothing exists separate from god, yet god exists separate from everything

Genesis: http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/

Music is a complex collection of air vibrations that stimulate the pleasure center of humans.

Is your question really does 'God' exist as a complex collection of air vibrations that stimulate the pleasure center of humans?
Say an alien were to visit the earth, and came from a planet where there was no comprehension of music. Would that alien not say the same thing about musicians as non believers say about religious people. That they were deluding themselves.

Say an alien were to visit the earth, and came from a planet where there was no comprehension of music. Would that alien not say the same thing about musicians as non believers say about religious people. That they were deluding themselves.

I think I sort of understand what you're saying. Like how if an entire species were deaf, they wouldn't hear music and they wouldn't think it exists, and perhaps atheists are the same way. But I don't think that's a good comparison as music can be detected as vibrations through the air, whereas God can't really be detected in anything (unless you're one of those who sees existence itself being proof of God).

But I understand the concept, god is to atheists what music is to the deaf.

god is to atheists what music is to the deaf.non sequitur, deaf people have other senses, whereas any hearing man can not sense god with any of his senses.

non sequitur, deaf people have other senses, whereas any hearing man can not sense god with any of his senses.

I agree, I said the same in my post.

I think I sort of understand what you're saying. Like how if an entire species were deaf, they wouldn't hear music and they wouldn't think it exists, and perhaps atheists are the same way. But I don't think that's a good comparison as music can be detected as vibrations through the air, whereas God can't really be detected in anything (unless you're one of those who sees existence itself being proof of God).

But I understand the concept, god is to atheists what music is to the deaf.

Yes deaf people to a certain extent, but I'm sure that many deaf people come to an understanding of music, and without doubt many of them can play musical instruments, and compose it. What I mean is some being whose species does not have music at all. How would they consider what we were doing.

please clarify, how many senses would such a being have.
why would they not have some kind of sound detection, be it through vibration or other, any species, of any sort would experiment with all there senses as we do even down to enhancing them with recreational drugs.
so they would most likly have some form of sound/vibration entertainment. something they could get a buzz from (pun intended)
sorry I dont see your arguement.

please clarify, how many senses would such a being have.
why would they not have some kind of sound detection, be it through vibration or other, any species, of any sort would experiment with all there senses as we do even down to enhancing them with recreational drugs.
so they would most likly have some form of sound/vibration entertainment. something they could get a buzz from (pun intended)
sorry I dont see your arguement.
The aliens can hear perfectly well, but music is not something they understand. When music is played all they hear is a succession of sounds. They can hear that some sounds are of a higher pitch and some lower, and can tell that the sounds are made in a regular manner, but they do not hear music.

Say an alien were to visit the earth, and came from a planet where there was no comprehension of music. Would that alien not say the same thing about musicians as non believers say about religious people. That they were deluding themselves.

Probably not. Regardless of if an alien has a concept of music, sound waves are objectively measurable and MRI scans will objectively show the pleasure center of peoples brains stimulated by it.

Probably not. Regardless of if an alien has a concept of music, sound waves are objectively measurable and MRI scans will objectively show the pleasure center of peoples brains stimulated by it.
In that case, the aliens would accept that the act gave humans pleasure. They would stilll have no idea of what music was like. They might develop theories of what was happening such as the rhythms being related to brainwaves, but the experience of listening to music would always be a mystery to them.

This argument would work better if those aliens came from another universe. But if they are from this universe, it doesn't make sense why they would not be able to detect sound and thus music. The laws of this universe are pretty uniform I'm assuming so they would evolve in some capacity to detect it. Even if they didn't, the fact they can't more likely would signify that your creator isn't their creator so therefore it is a moot point.

non sequitur, deaf people have other senses, whereas any hearing man can not sense god with any of his senses.

on the contrary there are numerous accounts of persons have direct perception of god/transcendence as well as normative descriptions to boot

In that case, the aliens would accept that the act gave humans pleasure. They would stilll have no idea of what music was like. They might develop theories of what was happening such as the rhythms being related to brainwaves, but the experience of listening to music would always be a mystery to them.

What the aliens would find is that both vibration and tone make humans feel pleasure. While listening to music wouldn't have the same effect on aliens, I am sure they could translate music into something that gives them pleasure. Regardless why does it matter?

What the aliens would find is that both vibration and tone make humans feel pleasure. While listening to music wouldn't have the same effect on aliens, I am sure they could translate music into something that gives them pleasure. Regardless why does it matter?
Good question. Possibly the alien analogy is leading us off track.

We do not say when someone is appreciating music that it is just something in their own minds. We don't say to the people listening to it that they are just listening to an ordered set of sounds. We accept that it is something more than that because we can all understand it.

With religion, some people can appreciate it and some can't. The people who can't appreciate it believe that those who can are deluding themselves.
They can see that there is an ordered set of rules and beliefs, but they don't understand it.

As for whether it matters. Probably not.

on the contrary there are numerous accounts of persons have direct perception of god/transcendence as well as normative descriptions to boot

Lol. :bugeye:

We do not say when someone is appreciating music that it is just something in their own minds.

Perhaps not music in general, but I for example could never understand how a person could appreciate Beatles music. So, liking a bit of music or not certainly is something in their own mind.

on the contrary there are numerous accounts of persons have direct perception of god/transcendence as well as normative descriptions to boot
we been through this numerous times and you have yet to prove anybody has or could have had direct perception, so do shut up and go away.

Lol. :bugeye:



Perhaps not music in general, but I for example could never understand how a person could appreciate Beatles music. So, liking a bit of music or not certainly is something in their own mind.
Interesting variation. There is music that no-one disputes though. If someone was to say they thought Beethoven's 9th was rubbish, you wouldn't accept that as a reasonable point of view. You'd just say that they were not musical enough or mature enough to understand it.

There is music that no-one disputes though. If someone was to say they thought Beethoven's 9th was rubbish, you wouldn't accept that as a reasonable point of view. You'd just say that they were not musical enough or mature enough to understand it.

It's purely subjective. I can't say I've ever liked Beethoven - it just aint my thing.. It's not about maturity or being musical enough, my ears just don't like it. If someone said it was rubbish I'd accept it as their personal take on what good music or bad music sounds like. Doesn't mean I have to be of the same opinion, but it doesn't in any way stop theirs.

I would be interested to see any music that "no-one disputes".

Music is a complex collection of air vibrations that stimulate the pleasure center of humans.

Is your question really does 'God' exist as a complex collection of air vibrations that stimulate the pleasure center of humans?

For me it's more like God exists as a "complex collection of SPIRITUAL vibrations that stimulate the pleasure center." I have never experienced a higher high than when in His presence. And it's more than vibrations. It's a personal relationship.

Good question. Possibly the alien analogy is leading us off track.

We do not say when someone is appreciating music that it is just something in their own minds. We don't say to the people listening to it that they are just listening to an ordered set of sounds. We accept that it is something more than that because we can all understand it.

With religion, some people can appreciate it and some can't. The people who can't appreciate it believe that those who can are deluding themselves.
They can see that there is an ordered set of rules and beliefs, but they don't understand it.

As for whether it matters. Probably not.

As you alluded to with your last sentence, I can't see how it matters if people appreciate religion or not. What does matter are assertions of objective truth that religions make. When someone accepts that 'God', 'Angels', 'Heaven', 'Hell', 'Demos', 'Angels', 'Souls', 'Ghosts', 'Spirits', 'Magic', 'Good', 'Evil', 'Monsters', 'Vampires', 'Zombies', 'Werewolves', 'Psychic Powers', etc. as being true when there is clearly no supportive evidence and heaps of contradictory evidence then they are objectively delusional.

Everyone on this planet is delusional about something; however, the delusion that comes from fantasies such as 'God' tends to have a much greater potential for negative impact.

For me it's more like God exists as a "complex collection of SPIRITUAL vibrations that stimulate the pleasure center." I have never experienced a higher high than when in His presence. And it's more than vibrations. It's a personal relationship.

I've seen that psychological progression in other believers. 'God' starts off as the typical human behavior of putting human characteristics on reality (making it magically sentient, emotional, full of intent. etc). Next a relationship is established with 'God'... which becomes the act of turning 'God' into a proxy between a person and their subconscious and working hard to establish a relationship with the proxy. That personal relationship and high that is often experienced is the result of having a great relationship with yourself through the artificial 'God' proxy.

It's probably an excellent way to work psychologically and it has the unfortunate side-effect of reinforcing the objective claims of the religion that the proxy was spawned from.

Good question. Possibly the alien analogy is leading us off track.

We do not say when someone is appreciating music that it is just something in their own minds. We don't say to the people listening to it that they are just listening to an ordered set of sounds. We accept that it is something more than that because we can all understand it.

With religion, some people can appreciate it and some can't. The people who can't appreciate it believe that those who can are deluding themselves.
They can see that there is an ordered set of rules and beliefs, but they don't understand it.As for whether it matters. Probably not.

I'm glad you stated that as it makes for an important point. You see, religionists can delude themselves into believing everyone should share their point of view and convert them and that is the major delusion they have. That's why people should seek thier kind not convert everyone to be just like them when it's impossible when they genuinely are different. It's also a form of prejudice, intolerance and self-centeredness. If someone does not appreciate or feel a need for something and you don't recognize that, you are just as delusional. I can't fit in another's size clothes no matter how well it fits them. Everyone has thier personal version of reality and then the general reality we agree on, theists are so subjective to lose all perspective and don't realize they are confusing the two. They need to step back, shut the hell up and THEY need to realize as well how subjective they are being. If I forced my opinion that a certain flavor of ice cream was the best-tasting because it is to me and I can't understand why others would be constructed differently is idiotic and shallow. An alien would simply be different from you which doesn't make them less just because you enjoy something they could care less about.

I've seen that psychological progression in other believers. 'God' starts off as the typical human behavior of putting human characteristics on reality (making it magically sentient, emotional, full of intent. etc). Next a relationship is established with 'God'... which becomes the act of turning 'God' into a proxy between a person and their subconscious and working hard to establish a relationship with the proxy. That personal relationship and high that is often experienced is the result of having a great relationship with yourself through the artificial 'God' proxy.

It's probably an excellent way to work psychologically and it has the unfortunate side-effect of reinforcing the objective claims of the religion that the proxy was spawned from.
People certainly don't kill each other over musical differences of opinion.

People certainly don't kill each other over musical differences of opinion.

I certainly wouldn't believe it. People will potentially kill each over minor inconvenience (ever head of road rage?) let alone full blown disagreement. The bottom line is that any experience that causes a 'moment of pain' for a person is potentially a motive for that person to kill the perceived source of the pain (after all feeling 'wronged' is swiftly satisfied by feeling 'avenged').

Does God need to exist as a separate entity, or could God exist in the same way as music does?


What difference does it make?
Why concern oneself with "need" and "could"?

we been through this numerous times and you have yet to prove anybody has or could have had direct perception, so do shut up and go away.

indeed proving something to a person bereft of the necessary qualifications to either confirm or validate something is indeed difficult - you don't even find such examples existing in science so its not clear why you expect religion to somehow work out of such a framework

indeed proving something to a person bereft of the necessary qualifications to either confirm or validate something is indeed difficult - you don't even find such examples existing in science so its not clear why you expect religion to somehow work out of such a framework

Do they let you out for therapeutic sessons?

Do they let you out for therapeutic sessons?
To head up sessions with groups of persons like yourself?
:p

indeed proving something to a person bereft of the necessary qualifications to either confirm or validate something is indeed difficult - you don't even find such examples existing in science so its not clear why you expect religion to somehow work out of such a frameworkyet you still haven't shown anybody has the necessary qualifications, to have direct perception of god, please do go away your arguement is extremely stale.
go back to your padded cell.

indeed proving something to a person bereft of the necessary qualifications to either confirm or validate something is indeed difficult

Let's just reflect on what you've said for a second.. You have stated that it is extremely difficult to confirm or validate something to someone bereft of qualification. In saying, I can only now ask you how anyone ever becomes qualified. Surely they have things confirmed and validated in order to ever get the damn qualification lol? I know I sure did.

My teachers managed to explain to me, show me, validate and confirm that which they were trying to teach. Likewise I have done the same with others including my children.

Your religion and beliefs do not work in this manner. You take the word of ancient people and that's that. You can't confirm or validate it, you can't confirm or validate any of it's claims to yourself or anyone else and yet insist that people believe it to be true regardless to the fact that you can't confirm any of it.

Finally I want to ask for your qualifications regarding this. Are you a "saintly person"? Are you qualified? If not you have no place to speak according to your own arguments. Yes/no?

What difference does it make?
Why concern oneself with "need" and "could"?
If you mean that God would not concern himself with need and could, I can accept that. But for human beings need and could are everything. Otherwise why do anything?

yet you still haven't shown anybody has the necessary qualifications,
you've never encountered a normative description in scripture?
:m:

Snakelord
“
indeed proving something to a person bereft of the necessary qualifications to either confirm or validate something is indeed difficult
”
Let's just reflect on what you've said for a second.. You have stated that it is extremely difficult to confirm or validate something to someone bereft of qualification. In saying, I can only now ask you how anyone ever becomes qualified. Surely they have things confirmed and validated in order to ever get the damn qualification lol? I know I sure did.
yes, knowledge works like this
theory -> practice -> realization/values

what the atheistic consensus is demanding in regards to theistic realizations/values is something like this

theory (ranging from adequate to most minuscule) -> realization values
or perhaps even
adhoms -> realization/values

my question is why?

My teachers managed to explain to me, show me, validate and confirm that which they were trying to teach. Likewise I have done the same with others including my children.
therefore the successful student accepts the words of their teacher to at least bring them to the platform of practice (realizations/values is of course something internal and separate that comes from the practice) - this is why the high school drop out is at an impasse


Your religion and beliefs do not work in this manner.
the do for the person who accepts the theory to come to the point of practice

You take the word of ancient people and that's that.
no
you accept the word and put it into practice
much like any student of any field of knowledge accepts the word of their teacher and puts it into practice (a student who sits back and disses their teacher won't learn anything in a million years, assuming of course that the subject matter is not the advancement of quarrelsome behaviour)

You can't confirm or validate it, you can't confirm or validate any of it's claims to yourself or anyone else and yet insist that people believe it to be true regardless to the fact that you can't confirm any of it.
on the contrary you cannot validate it, since it is quite clear from our previous discussions that you don't have an adequate level of theory (eg - the relationships between god, the living entity and the phenomenal world) that would even enable the possibility of practice

Finally I want to ask for your qualifications regarding this. Are you a "saintly person"? Are you qualified? If not you have no place to speak according to your own arguments. Yes/no?
I think we approached this subject before briefly

I asked you whether you had direct perception of atoms and you cited that you had, referencing spectroscopy.
In otherwords you confirmed your perception through terms commonly found in literature on the subject - if I had no capacity (or a deep disregard) for entering into the literature (aka theory) on the subject matter, your confirmation would be completely meaningless to me, even though it would be valid.

However when I reference qualification/realization through scripture (normative descriptions) it tends to send you on a spin of ad homs - so my question to you is what authority do you expect me to draw on in answering your inquiries?

what the atheistic consensus is demanding in regards to theistic realizations/values is something like this

theory (ranging from adequate to most minuscule) -> realization values
or perhaps even
adhoms -> realization/values

That's actually nonsense given that a large portion of atheists were practicing theists at some point in their lives.

They believed and practiced the same crap you do, they've just developed one stage further. Technically they'd be the qualified, you're still training.

therefore the successful student accepts the words of their teacher

The more successful debate the teacher.

on the contrary you cannot validate it, since it is quite clear from our previous discussions that you don't have an adequate level of theory

According to who, you? Show me what qualifications you have for your statement to be of any worth.

I asked you whether you had...

Up to your usual tactics heh. We're not talking about me here lg, we're talking about you. Kindly pay attention to that fact and tell me what qualifications you have. Are you a 'saintly person'?

Snakelord
]“
what the atheistic consensus is demanding in regards to theistic realizations/values is something like this

theory (ranging from adequate to most minuscule) -> realization values
or perhaps even
adhoms -> realization/values
”
That's actually nonsense given that a large portion of atheists were practicing theists at some point in their lives.

They believed and practiced the same crap you do, they've just developed one stage further. Technically they'd be the qualified, you're still training.
if as an atheist they can not elaborate on what is the process advocated by scripture and saintly persons (except perhaps to place one's back side on a chair in a place of worship) the nature of their practice is questionable


“
therefore the successful student accepts the words of their teacher
”
The more successful debate the teacher.
A - "Now class this is a bunsen burner"
B - "It is not!!"

The successful student has intelligent inquiry, as opposed to being prone to obnoxious displays of stubborness

“
on the contrary you cannot validate it, since it is quite clear from our previous discussions that you don't have an adequate level of theory
”
According to who, you?
no
scripture and saintly persons

Show me what qualifications you have for your statement to be of any worth.
that my friend, would require a discussion of scripture and saintly persons, preferably in a congenial atmosphere

“
I asked you whether you had...
”
Up to your usual tactics heh. We're not talking about me here lg, we're talking about you. Kindly pay attention to that fact and tell me what qualifications you have. Are you a 'saintly person'?
that is why there is the bit at the end - namely is it possible to approach a discussion on qualification that prohibits referencing established literature in the field?

if as an atheist they can not elaborate on what is the process advocated by scripture and saintly persons (except perhaps to place one's back side on a chair in a place of worship) the nature of their practice is questionable

I'm afraid you can't say that.. You guessed it: you're not qualified. You are currently stuck in the middle of training and until you come to realisation or qualification there is simply nothing you can say that anyone should listen to - including yourself. Sure, I understand it is common for students half way through a course to think they know it all, but they are wrong, and so are you.

Let me point it out to you, it works like this:

theory -> practice -> realization/values

You haven't reached the end bit yet, you're not qualified to speak. Come back when you are.

The successful student has intelligent inquiry, as opposed to being prone to obnoxious displays of stubborness

Certainly, never did I imply otherwise. I dunno what orifice you pulled that from.

no
scripture and saintly persons

Scripture is the beginning of study, saintly persons are people halfway through study. None of them are qualified to speak.

I know, I know.. this is where you argue that scripture is old and therefore valid. Simply put it's ludicrous. You argue that your beliefs work on the same principle as everything else you'd care to imagine, (theory - practice - realisation). Now, as you assert that these beliefs work on the same principle I would ask you to show me anything else, (use science as an example as you indeed used it as one earlier), where old = more valid than new?

Scripture has no place in this discussion, it's like the welcome letter to any university course. Once you're qualified you'll understand that.

that my friend, would require a discussion of scripture and saintly persons, preferably in a congenial atmosphere

So in short.. You don't have any qualifications. We're done here.

namely is it possible to approach a discussion on qualification that prohibits referencing established literature in the field?

I asked for your qualifications, nothing else. What qualifications do you have? There are qualified accountants who have this degree and that degree etc etc. There are qualified brain surgeons who have this degree and that degree.. So.. what qualifications do you have?

Snakelord
“
if as an atheist they can not elaborate on what is the process advocated by scripture and saintly persons (except perhaps to place one's back side on a chair in a place of worship) the nature of their practice is questionable
”
I'm afraid you can't say that.. You guessed it: you're not qualified. You are currently stuck in the middle of training and until youcome to realisation or qualification there is simply nothing you can say that anyone should listen to - including yourself. Sure, I understand it is common for students half way through a course to think they know it all, but they are wrong, and so are you.
I don't say it
scripture does

(don't tell me you have never encountered normative descriptions in scriptures that give more elaborate indications than the above mentioned?)

Let me point it out to you, it works like this:

theory -> practice -> realization/values

You haven't reached the end bit yet, you're not qualified to speak. Come back when you are.
come back to us when you get around to explaining how one can elaborate on realization or values without referencing normative descriptions in the said field of knowledge
:rolleyes:

“
The successful student has intelligent inquiry, as opposed to being prone to obnoxious displays of stubborness
”
Certainly, never did I imply otherwise. I dunno what orifice you pulled that from.
your display of behavior on the religious discussion threads on scirforums I guess

“
no
scripture and saintly persons
”
Scripture is the beginning of study, saintly persons are people halfway through study. None of them are qualified to speak.
just like science text books are the beginning of study, and the persons who compiled them are people halfway through study. None of them are qualified to speak, eh
:rolleyes:


Scripture has no place in this discussion, it's like the welcome letter to any university course. Once you're qualified you'll understand that.
just like science text books have no place in the discussion of science, eh?

“
that my friend, would require a discussion of scripture and saintly persons, preferably in a congenial atmosphere
”
So in short.. You don't have any qualifications. We're done here.
to demand that a discussion on the nature of physics is not allowed to reference any term or discovery mentioned in journals or text books certainly makes for a limited discussion

“
namely is it possible to approach a discussion on qualification that prohibits referencing established literature in the field?
”[QUOTE]
I asked for your qualifications, nothing else.
ahem - you did also have a tremendous hissy fit when I mentioned scripture, which gets back to the issue of how in the hell can one discuss qualification without reference to normative descriptions in the field

What qualifications do you have?

that my friend, would require a discussion of scripture and saintly persons, preferably in a congenial atmosphere

There are qualified accountants who have this degree and that degree etc etc.
if I forbade you, due to some sort of myopic madness, to reference any normative description related to the field of accountancy, how would you progress in establishing the qualification of an accountant to me?

I don't say it
scripture does

1) Which one?

2) scripture says atheists can't elaborate on processes advocated by scripture??

don't tell me you have never encountered normative descriptions in scriptures that give more elaborate indications than the above mentioned?

What are you trying to ask me and where is it's relevance? The point is that scripture is merely a process in itself to becoming qualified, (atheist). Until you get that qualification you can't talk.

come back to us when you get around to explaining how one can elaborate on realization or values without referencing normative descriptions in the said field of knowledge

What are you asking me that is relevant to what I said?

The qualification is atheism. So you have this idea, (gods exist), you go through the process, (read scripture - let's say the enuma elish), and then come to the realisation that the book is make believe and that god doesn't exist. See, you're not qualified, you're stuck in the middle of the process. In saying, there's nothing you can say on the matter.

your display of behavior on the religious discussion threads on scirforums I guess

If you say so. :bugeye:

just like science text books are the beginning of study, and the persons who compiled them are people halfway through study. None of them are qualified to speak, eh

Well no disrespect but the science book "chemistry for 7 year olds" most certainly is the beginning of study and the people that compiled the book and indeed the teachers that teach chemistry to young children are on the lower ranks. You read more as you go along.. So, how many "scriptures" have you read? If you say just 1 or 2 then you're that 7 year old. And.. what qualifications exactly did the people that compiled them have? Support your answer please.

just like science text books have no place in the discussion of science, eh?

One does not tend to discuss "physics for idiots" in the middle of a physics degree. They do however still look at many sources.

How many have you looked at?

to demand that a discussion on the nature of physics is not allowed to reference any term or discovery mentioned in journals or text books certainly makes for a limited discussion

Perhaps, but no such demand was ever made. I asked a simple question, you refused to answer it. Hardly my problem. Stop being dishonest.

ahem - you did also have a tremendous hissy fit when I mentioned scripture

Oh really? Anyway, stop changing the subject. What qualifications do you have? Your qualifications are that you've read scripture, yes? How many? 1? 2? That's hardly "qualified".

that my friend, would require a discussion of scripture and saintly persons, preferably in a congenial atmosphere

1) No it wouldn't. You can tell me right here, right now. You can say "well, I read three different scriptures, went to church on sunday blah de blah". Not that difficult. List your qualifications.

2) Get it straight, we ain't friends.


if I forbade you, due to some sort of myopic madness, to reference any normative description related to the field of accountancy, how would you progress in establishing the qualification of an accountant to me?

"I have a degree in accountancy".

1) I'm not asking to check your documents f00, I'm asking what your qualifications are, nothing more.

2) I have not forbidden you from doing or saying anything.

3) So... what qualifications do you have?

Snakelord
“
I don't say it
scripture does
”
1) Which one?
all of them

2) scripture says atheists can't elaborate on processes advocated by scripture??
No

if as an atheist they can not elaborate on what is the process advocated by scripture and saintly persons (except perhaps to place one's back side on a chair in a place of worship) the nature of their practice is questionable

if a person has screwed up theory it tends to reflect in their practice

“
don't tell me you have never encountered normative descriptions in scriptures that give more elaborate indications than the above mentioned?
”
What are you trying to ask me and where is it's relevance? The point is that scripture is merely a process in itself to becoming qualified, (atheist). Until you get that qualification you can't talk.
then, if you are apparently at a more advanced level of understanding, it would beg the question why you cannot coherently elaborate on any aspects of theory based practice in scripture

“
come back to us when you get around to explaining how one can elaborate on realization or values without referencing normative descriptions in the said field of knowledge
”
What are you asking me that is relevant to what I said?
the problems you are having at the theory end of theism stick out a mile - the margin of error increases when you talk of practice - what to speak of when you arrive at conclusion/values.

The qualification is atheism.
actually as far as theistic discussion goes, thats the disqualification
:D

So you have this idea, (gods exist), you go through the process, (read scripture - let's say the enuma elish),
erm - reading scripture is still on the theory platform (the one mile gap widens ....)

and then come to the realisation that the book is make believe and that god doesn't exist.
lol - hello Timbuktu

“
just like science text books are the beginning of study, and the persons who compiled them are people halfway through study. None of them are qualified to speak, eh
”
Well no disrespect but the science book "chemistry for 7 year olds" most certainly is the beginning of study and the people that compiled the book and indeed the teachers that teach chemistry to young children are on the lower ranks.
then I guess "chemistry for 7 year olds" is not the beginning if you take into account "chemistry for 6 year olds".
also, I sincerely hope that by the time we get to university chemistry text books the authors know what they are talking about

You read more as you go along.. So, how many "scriptures" have you read?
quite a few

If you say just 1 or 2 then you're that 7 year old.
then what does this (http://www.bhagavata.org/bn/avadhuta/#Index_of_avadhutafilesDevotion_-) make me?

And.. what qualifications exactly did the people that compiled them have?
in short

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.

Support your answer please.
I certainly hope my submitting a normative description from literature about the subject doesn't disturb your mind

“
just like science text books have no place in the discussion of science, eh?
”
One does not tend to discuss "physics for idiots" in the middle of a physics degree.
its not unusual however to call upon physics books

They do however still look at many sources.
yes
most of them are physics books

How many have you looked at?
physics books?
:confused:

“
to demand that a discussion on the nature of physics is not allowed to reference any term or discovery mentioned in journals or text books certainly makes for a limited discussion
”
Perhaps, but no such demand was ever made.
yes you did
on two separate occasions

1 -
Scripture is the beginning of study, saintly persons are people halfway through study. None of them are qualified to speak.

2-
Scripture has no place in this discussion, it's like the welcome letter to any university course. Once you're qualified you'll understand that.

I asked a simple question, you refused to answer it. Hardly my problem. Stop being dishonest.
once again, how the hell do you propose to establish qualification (like say for an accountant) without referencing normative descriptions in the field?

“
ahem - you did also have a tremendous hissy fit when I mentioned scripture
”
Oh really? Anyway, stop changing the subject. What qualifications do you have? Your qualifications are that you've read scripture, yes? How many? 1? 2? That's hardly "qualified".
I didn't say reading scripture is qualification (just like merely reading an accountancy book is not a qualification in and off itself)
I did say however that one can find clues on the characteristics of qualified religious practitioners from scripture (just like one can find clues on the characteristics of a qualified accountant by reading accountancy books)

“
that my friend, would require a discussion of scripture and saintly persons, preferably in a congenial atmosphere
”
1) No it wouldn't.
yes it would
if you are talking about the ideals of qualification, it requires a discussion of the characteristics and literature that surround the exemplary leaders of that ideal

You can tell me right here, right now. You can say "well, I read three different scriptures, went to church on sunday blah de blah". Not that difficult. List your qualifications.
without reference to scriptures and saintly persons, such a description would simply be my hearsay

2) Get it straight, we ain't friends.
:bawl:

“
if I forbade you, due to some sort of myopic madness, to reference any normative description related to the field of accountancy, how would you progress in establishing the qualification of an accountant to me?
”
"I have a degree in accountancy".
and if, due to some sort of myopic madness, I contended that accountancy degrees are simply the result of concocted literature and associating with brain washed persons who run the courses, those words would mean absolutely nothing to me

1) I'm not asking to check your documents f00, I'm asking what your qualifications are, nothing more.
those qualifications can be found in scripture and through the personal example of saintly persons - hence a discussion on the subject requires the discussion of scriptures and saintly persons, preferably in a congenial atmosphere

2) I have not forbidden you from doing or saying anything.

you have however said

1 -
Scripture is the beginning of study, saintly persons are people halfway through study. None of them are qualified to speak.

2-
Scripture has no place in this discussion, it's like the welcome letter to any university course. Once you're qualified you'll understand that.

3) So... what qualifications do you have?
without room for the referencing of scripture and saintly persons, what could I say that wouldn't be hearsay?

all of them

Oh really? Point out a few examples from a few different scriptures.

if a person has screwed up theory it tends to reflect in their practice

And it says this in ALL scripture? Where?

if you are apparently at a more advanced level of understanding, it would beg the question why you cannot coherently elaborate on any aspects of theory based practice in scripture

What are you talking about lol? You can't coherently elaborate on anything.

the problems you are having at the theory end of theism stick out a mile

You're not even qualified. You're the high school dropout trying to look like he knows something he does not. These are all your own arguments.. you can't argue with them.

actually as far as theistic discussion goes, thats the disqualification

It's quite typical for a high school dropout to make scorn at the qualification.. tut tut.

erm - reading scripture is still on the theory platform (the one mile gap widens ....)

It's typical for a high school dropout to not understand. Theory is the idea, process is the action - all action related to the idea. Nevermind, you'll get there one day perhaps - although given your attitude it's unlikely.

also, I sincerely hope that by the time we get to university chemistry text books the authors know what they are talking about

Certainly. Scripture is given and shared with any old idiot on the street - there is the point. It is the "book for beginners". See, even you've read it lol which proves my point.

quite a few

Such as?

I certainly hope my submitting a normative description from literature about the subject doesn't disturb your mind

Well, it's the best you can do at your current level in the course.

1 -
Scripture is the beginning of study, saintly persons are people halfway through study. None of them are qualified to speak.

I didn't say you couldn't use it, I said it's the beginning of study - as are saintly persons that are bereft of the qualification. Your own argument is that the unqualified can't speak. Now I see you having problem with your own argument.

Scripture has no place in this discussion, it's like the welcome letter to any university course. Once you're qualified you'll understand that.

It doesn't, other than to those stuck at that level. If you're still at that level we have nothing to talk about - you even have to agree with this given your own arguments.

once again, how the hell do you propose to establish qualification (like say for an accountant) without referencing normative descriptions in the field?

I have a degree in accounting.

So.. what qualifications do you have?

I didn't say reading scripture is qualification

Well, we're getting somewhere. Now do you understand why I said scripture has no place here? So.. what qualifications do you have?

I did say however that one can find clues on the characteristics of qualified religious practitioners from scripture

So Sherlock, use those clues - match them up with what you think you have and then tell me how you're qualified.

yes it would
if you are talking about the ideals of qualification, it requires a discussion of the characteristics and literature that surround the exemplary leaders of that ideal

You have this rather pathetic little habit of avoiding any question, no matter how simple, when it's obvious you can't give an answer. Now.. whatever it takes - tell me what qualifications you have.

without reference to scriptures and saintly persons, such a description would simply be my hearsay

That's fine with me. Reference whatever you want, (no need to use extensive quotes), or just give me hearsay. Anything at this stage would be a start.

and if, due to some sort of myopic madness, I contended that accountancy degrees are simply the result of concocted literature and associating with brain washed persons who run the courses, those words would mean absolutely nothing to me

In both instances you lack qualification. If you think otherwise explain your qualification - or just cease typing.

those qualifications can be found in scripture and through the personal example of saintly persons

So list them.

If you continue with your blatant cowardice once more I will have no option but to disengage discussion with you. Answer the question.

Snakelord
“
all of them
”
Oh really? Point out a few examples from a few different scriptures.
10 commandments in Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_commandments)
Eightfold path of proper conduct in Buddhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism#The_Noble_Eightfold_Path)
Eightfold path of patanjali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashtanga_Yoga)
the entire bhagavad gita

BG 18.72: O son of Pṛthā, O conqueror of wealth, have you heard this with an attentive mind? And are your ignorance and illusions now dispelled?

BG 18.73: Arjuna said: My dear Kṛṣṇa, O infallible one, my illusion is now gone. I have regained my memory by Your mercy. I am now firm and free from doubt and am prepared to act according to Your instructions.
One could even argue ""pan metron ariston" with the ancient Greeks
Etc etc

Can you point out any scripture that doesn’t?

“
if a person has screwed up theory it tends to reflect in their practice
”
And it says this in ALL scripture? Where?
If knowledge is not the foundation for action, what on earth do you propose is?
Ignorance?

“
if you are apparently at a more advanced level of understanding, it would beg the question why you cannot coherently elaborate on any aspects of theory based practice in scripture
”
What are you talking about lol? You can't coherently elaborate on anything.
You are claiming that atheism is the advanced proposition of theistic knowledge – if you could elaborate on even elementary aspects of theistic knowledge/practice it would help your claim

“
the problems you are having at the theory end of theism stick out a mile
”
You're not even qualified. You're the high school dropout trying to look like he knows something he does not. These are all your own arguments.. you can't argue with them.

“
actually as far as theistic discussion goes, thats the disqualification
”
It's quite typical for a high school dropout to make scorn at the qualification.. tut tut.
Ditto above

“
erm - reading scripture is still on the theory platform (the one mile gap widens ....)
”
It's typical for a high school dropout to not understand. Theory is the idea, process is the action - all action related to the idea. Nevermind, you'll get there one day perhaps - although given your attitude it's unlikely.
So reading a book is the process eh?
Certainly doesn’t explain why people go out on field trips as part of their prac assessment
Certainly doesn’t explain why employers are looking for something else when they advertise for positions with “practical experience”
Etc etc ...

“
also, I sincerely hope that by the time we get to university chemistry text books the authors know what they are talking about
”
Certainly. Scripture is given and shared with any old idiot on the street - there is the point. It is the "book for beginners". See, even you've read it lol which proves my point.
Hello Timbuktu ....

“
quite a few
”
Such as?
You didn’t see the link I posted?



“
1 -
Scripture is the beginning of study, saintly persons are people halfway through study. None of them are qualified to speak.
”
I didn't say you couldn't use it, I said it's the beginning of study - as are saintly persons that are bereft of the qualification. Your own argument is that the unqualified can't speak. Now I see you having problem with your own argument.

“
Scripture has no place in this discussion, it's like the welcome letter to any university course. Once you're qualified you'll understand that.
”
It doesn't, other than to those stuck at that level. If you're still at that level we have nothing to talk about - you even have to agree with this given your own arguments.
Just like scientists who contribute to scientific text books are halfway through their study and not fit for hearing from eh?

“
once again, how the hell do you propose to establish qualification (like say for an accountant) without referencing normative descriptions in the field?
”
I have a degree in accounting.
Sorry, you just gave a normative description – try again
(but actually having an accountancy degree is not a qualification for an accredited accountant, since the moment an accountant transgresses the legal norms of accreditation, their degree means zilch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accountant#Accountancy_qualifications_and_regulati on))



“
I didn't say reading scripture is qualification
”
Well, we're getting somewhere. Now do you understand why I said scripture has no place here? So.. what qualifications do you have?
I assume you not only read accountancy books but understood them through practice as well – still, if you think you can elaborate on your qualification as an accountant without referencing normative descriptions from accountancy, please do so because at the moment I can’t fathom how one could do so ....

“
I did say however that one can find clues on the characteristics of qualified religious practitioners from scripture
”
So Sherlock, use those clues - match them up with what you think you have and then tell me how you're qualified.
That requires the discussion of scripture and saintly persons, just like elaborating on the qualification of an accountant requires the discussion of accountancy legalities (which can be found in accountancy text books) and accountants established in the field (who would have made a substantial contribution to the formation of such texts) – if the atmosphere is congenial on top of this, all the better .....

“
yes it would
if you are talking about the ideals of qualification, it requires a discussion of the characteristics and literature that surround the exemplary leaders of that ideal
”
You have this rather pathetic little habit of avoiding any question, no matter how simple, when it's obvious you can't give an answer. Now.. whatever it takes - tell me what qualifications you have.
You have an immense habit of asking questions yet rejecting the framework in which they could possibly be answered – this becomes all the more ridiculous when you refuse or are unable to answer parallel analogies along the same lines
Eg
You – please tell me how you are qualified as a theist without referencing scripture or the personal example/issues of theists established in the field?
Me – sure, but first you tell me how you are qualified as an accountant without referencing texts related to accountancy or issues surrounding accountancy of those established in the field, since I have got no idea how one could possibly answer such a question



“
and if, due to some sort of myopic madness, I contended that accountancy degrees are simply the result of concocted literature and associating with brain washed persons who run the courses, those words would mean absolutely nothing to me
”
In both instances you lack qualification.
Hence your contention that scripture is a concoction and saintly persons are bogus can be rejected on the same grounds



“
those qualifications can be found in scripture and through the personal example of saintly persons
”
So list them.

If you continue with your blatant cowardice once more I will have no option but to disengage discussion with you. Answer the question.
Assuming you don’t hold normative descriptions as immediate disqualifications

there are 26 qualities

(1) kind to everyone, (2) does not quarrel with anyone, (3) fixed in the Absolute Truth, (4) equal to everyone, (5) faultless, (6) charitable, (7) mild, (8) clean, (9) simple, (10) benevolent, (11) peaceful, (12) completely attached to God, (13) has no material hankering, (14) meek, (15) steady, (16) self-controlled, (17) does not eat more than required, (18) sane, (19) respectful, (20) humble, (21) grave, (22) compassionate, (23) friendly, (24) poetic, (25) expert, (26) silent.

There are numerous scriptural commentaries that elaborate on the exact definition and application of these terms, what to speak of citable examples by saintly persons

25 of the qualities are peripheral, and number 12, attached (or surrendered) to god, is the primary qualification, which is further defined as


CC Madhya 22.100: "'The six divisions of surrender are the acceptance of those things favorable to devotional service, the rejection of unfavorable things, the conviction that God will give protection, the acceptance of the Lord as one's guardian or master, full self-surrender, and humility.

BTW you are jumping the gun by asking me if I am a qualified theist - much like I would be jumping the gun in asking you if you were a qualified accountant when I had no idea how to properly define a qualified accountant (as opposed to a disqualified one)

BG 9.4: By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them.

BG 9.5: And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the very source of creation.

In other words nothing exists separate from god, yet god exists separate from everything


If man had not been created, would music still exist?

isn't speech a kind of music, isn't any kind of sound made by a creature music such as bird song, whale song, music doesn't just have to be sounds made for plucking, hitting, blowing, etc.. The voice is a musical instrument, so regardless of whether humans existed, a kind of music would still be around, and the ones appreciating it would be the creatures it's being sung too.

So reading a book is the process eh?

A part of it, yes. You'll find reading is a large part of the process in attaining qualification. I'm amazed you even asked.

Just like scientists who contribute to scientific text books are halfway through their study and not fit for hearing from eh?

As I explained, it depends entirely on their level.

Sorry, you just gave a normative description – try again

What are you going on about?

You go out one day to the pub and get into a conversation with a person there. You eventually ask; "what qualifications do you have?". He says: "I have a degree in accounting, a masters in archaeology and a city and guilds in landscape design".

See, the question is answered without any problems. So, pretend you and I are in the pub.. So lg, what qualifications do you have?

Now, I notice you've made a list later on of 26 supposed 'qualifications'. So list the ones you think you have and we're done. How hard was that? Why all the pointless fucking around?

I assume you not only read accountancy books but understood them through practice as well

No. I was using your example, (accountancy). I've never read an accountancy book in my life.

if you think you can elaborate on your qualification as an accountant without referencing normative descriptions from accountancy, please do so because at the moment I can’t fathom how one could do so ....

A) I didn't ask that you elaborate on anything, I just asked for your qualification - ergo: "I have a degree in accountancy" would be fine.

B) You can use any description you want, I've already told you that. My point, and the problem.. is that you've read 1 bit of scripture and consider yourself qualified when that's not how it works. You might very well think it works that way, but like I said - most low level students think they know it all before even getting halfway through a course.

Of course you've long claimed that theism is the advanced proposition of atheistic knowledge – if you could elaborate on even elementary aspects of atheistic knowledge/practice it would help your claim.

You have an immense habit of asking questions yet rejecting the framework in which they could possibly be answered – this becomes all the more ridiculous when you refuse or are unable to answer parallel analogies along the same lines

You have a disgusting habit of wasting 20 posts of refusal to answer, blame everyone else for it, and then actually almost answer the question, (your list of 26). Now all you need to do is list which of those 26 you 'have' and we're done. It's not hard at all, you just like acting stupid and wasting peoples time. I resent it.

Hence your contention that scripture is a concoction and saintly persons are bogus can be rejected on the same grounds

Inaccurate because, as stated, the qualification is atheism. You're not an atheist - are therefore not qualified and thus - according to your own arguments, can't say anything and anything you do say can be instantly rejected.

You saying scripture isn't bogus and saintly persons aren't bogus can be rejected on the same grounds.

(1) kind to everyone, (2) does not quarrel with anyone, (3) fixed in the Absolute Truth, (4) equal to everyone, (5) faultless, (6) charitable, (7) mild, (8) clean, (9) simple, (10) benevolent, (11) peaceful, (12) completely attached to God, (13) has no material hankering, (14) meek, (15) steady, (16) self-controlled, (17) does not eat more than required, (18) sane, (19) respectful, (20) humble, (21) grave, (22) compassionate, (23) friendly, (24) poetic, (25) expert, (26) silent.

See, that was easy. So.. which of those do you have? Certainly not numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 19, 23, 25 and certainly not 26 lol. So from what I can gather you're not even halfway there. As this is the case and you're not qualified anything you say can be rejected according to your own argument.

Anyway, let's leave it here - I can't be bothered with you.

Snakelord
“
So reading a book is the process eh?
”
A part of it, yes. You'll find reading is a large part of the process in attaining qualification. I'm amazed you even asked.
yes - reading a book is part of the process called theory - that part of the process called practical is something else

“
Just like scientists who contribute to scientific text books are halfway through their study and not fit for hearing from eh?
”
As I explained, it depends entirely on their level.
and for some reason you can't draw a similar parallel to scripture?

“
Sorry, you just gave a normative description – try again
”
What are you going on about?

You go out one day to the pub and get into a conversation with a person there. You eventually ask; "what qualifications do you have?". He says: "I have a degree in accounting, a masters in archaeology and a city and guilds in landscape design".

See, the question is answered without any problems. So, pretend you and I are in the pub.. So lg, what qualifications do you have?
yes, ordinarily people would talk of normative descriptions - for some absurd reason however you deemed that inappropriate, hence the response given above ....

Now, I notice you've made a list later on of 26 supposed 'qualifications'. So list the ones you think you have and we're done. How hard was that? Why all the pointless fucking around?
because you had a tremendous hissy fit that references from scripture are not appropriate - which began us the tour de france of how the hell can one determine qualification without normative descriptions to reference ...

“
I assume you not only read accountancy books but understood them through practice as well
”
No. I was using your example, (accountancy). I've never read an accountancy book in my life.
then its highly dubious that you have an accountancy degree (unless you scored it off the internet) ... much less that you are an accredited accountant

“
if you think you can elaborate on your qualification as an accountant without referencing normative descriptions from accountancy, please do so because at the moment I can’t fathom how one could do so ....
”
A) I didn't ask that you elaborate on anything, I just asked for your qualification - ergo: "I have a degree in accountancy" would be fine.
so you have recalled your previous calls about normative descriptions?

B) You can use any description you want, I've already told you that. My point, and the problem.. is that you've read 1 bit of scripture and consider yourself qualified when that's not how it works.
I agree, that is not how it works
From your description of theistic processes however (even from your recall as a practicing theist from some era pre-atheism of yourself) that seems to be what you think is sufficient

You might very well think it works that way, but like I said - most low level students think they know it all before even getting halfway through a course.
so the next question is why do you deem all saintly persons as students.
Whats your qualification/experience that you know the last word of religion?
(it certainly doesn't appear to draw from normative descriptions given in scripture)

Of course you've long claimed that theism is the advanced proposition of atheistic knowledge – if you could elaborate on even elementary aspects of atheistic knowledge/practice it would help your claim.
I wasn't aware that atheism had anything to offer outside of theory (perhaps it could extend to practice - like say lurking on religious discussion boards in the attempt to give theists a hard time) - at the very least the theory and so-called practice of atheism does not lead to the direct perception of god's non-existence, so the knowledge of atheism is imperfect (on the contrary, regardless of what you think of theism, there is the claim of direct perception of god and also the claim of how to achieve that perfection)
“
You have an immense habit of asking questions yet rejecting the framework in which they could possibly be answered – this becomes all the more ridiculous when you refuse or are unable to answer parallel analogies along the same lines
”
You have a disgusting habit of wasting 20 posts of refusal to answer, blame everyone else for it, and then actually almost answer the question, (your list of 26). Now all you need to do is list which of those 26 you 'have' and we're done. It's not hard at all, you just like acting stupid and wasting peoples time. I resent it.
it could have been cleared up in 2 posts if you could give a straight answer to parrallel analogies - for some reason it appears you have a morbid fear of clarifications on your proposals

“
Hence your contention that scripture is a concoction and saintly persons are bogus can be rejected on the same grounds
”
Inaccurate because, as stated, the qualification is atheism. You're not an atheist - are therefore not qualified and thus - according to your own arguments, can't say anything and anything you do say can be instantly rejected.
if you could establish how atheism takes the platform of theory to the platform of practice which brings one finally to the platform of the direct perception that god doesn't exist, perhaps you would have a case ....

You saying scripture isn't bogus and saintly persons aren't bogus can be rejected on the same grounds.
the only way it would be bogus is if you have direct perception that god does not exist
:m:

“
(1) kind to everyone, (2) does not quarrel with anyone, (3) fixed in the Absolute Truth, (4) equal to everyone, (5) faultless, (6) charitable, (7) mild, (8) clean, (9) simple, (10) benevolent, (11) peaceful, (12) completely attached to God, (13) has no material hankering, (14) meek, (15) steady, (16) self-controlled, (17) does not eat more than required, (18) sane, (19) respectful, (20) humble, (21) grave, (22) compassionate, (23) friendly, (24) poetic, (25) expert, (26) silent.
”
See, that was easy. So.. which of those do you have? Certainly not numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 19, 23, 25 and certainly not 26 lol. So from what I can gather you're not even halfway there. As this is the case and you're not qualified anything you say can be rejected according to your own argument.
I never said I was perfect - to have these qualities in full would put one on the callibre of jesus - to coherently quote scripture to back up theistic claims of one's experience is something else (much like even though Einstein was a physicist, any run of the mill physicist can explain Einstein's work - that doesn't make the run of the mill physicist another Einstein however ...)

as for discerning the definition of these terms, they have been elaborated on by saintly persons in numerous scriptural commentaries, so that people can discern the correct significance. Considering the difficulty you have in even reading a single verse of scripture, I guess you will just have to learn to somehow be satisfied with your unauthorized, speculative concoctions on the subject

Anyway, let's leave it here - I can't be bothered with you.
did you throw in the towel or throw down the gauntlet?

If man had not been created, would music still exist?
if the material world had not been created, music would still exist - anything that exists in the material world (like say music) has its source of being in the spiritual world (similar to the notion of platonic idealism)
the difference is that things that exist in the spiritual realm bear a direct connection to god.

if the material world had not been created, music would still exist - anything that exists in the material world (like say music) has its source of being in the spiritual world (similar to the notion of platonic idealism)
the difference is that things that exist in the spiritual realm bear a direct connection to god.

Would you say then, that all the music which man makes is already in the mind of god.

I dont think the analogy works, music is created by humans... hmmm well maybe the analogy is just perfect :D

isn't speech a kind of music, isn't any kind of sound made by a creature music such as bird song, whale song, music doesn't just have to be sounds made for plucking, hitting, blowing, etc.. The voice is a musical instrument, so regardless of whether humans existed, a kind of music would still be around, and the ones appreciating it would be the creatures it's being sung too.
Yes, Birdsong was thought once just to be a way of marking territory, but any crawk crawk would do that. They only have little brains, and for them to devote a proportion of that to making music, it must be very important.
Perhaps it's a sign of health and intelligence.

yes - reading a book is part of the process

Glad we agree.

and for some reason you can't draw a similar parallel to scripture?

Certainly can and do. That's indeed why I asked how much scripture you had read. You can't honestly think that you can read one form of scripture and be qualified to speak on the same level as someone that has read many different forms of scripture.

You seem to consider yourself qualified having read what, 1 book? Care to mention any other field of knowledge that works in that manner?

yes, ordinarily people would talk of normative descriptions - for some absurd reason however you deemed that inappropriate, hence the response given above ....

ZzZzZz So lg, what qualifications do you have?

because you had a tremendous hissy fit

Kindly point out that "tremendous hissy fit". Are you talking out of your anus again?

Btw, once you're done doing that how about you get to what was actually said, namely:

"you've made a list later on of 26 supposed 'qualifications'. So list the ones you think you have and we're done. How hard was that?"

To answer my own question: Obviously too hard for you.

then its highly dubious that you have an accountancy degree

Uhh.. as stated: I was using your analogy to make a point. I don't have an accountancy degree. Pay attention.

From your description of theistic processes however (even from your recall as a practicing theist from some era pre-atheism of yourself) that seems to be what you think is sufficient

I have never been a theist. What this does is show how little you pay attention, and as a result of that throws anything you say into question. What "seems to be", isn't "what is", it's just what lack of attention leads you to.

so the next question is why do you deem all saintly persons as students.

I sometimes wonder how much time the pope, (example), has spent studying the enuma elish, the bg, the koran etc etc.

Once again you wont find any field of knowledge you care to mention where the reading of one book is sufficient to give qualification. Furthermore, I urge you to find me one "saintly person" that wouldn't actually turn round and say he's always studying.

Whats your qualification/experience that you know the last word of religion?

That my non-friend, would require a large discussion, preferably in a congenial atmosphere.

at the very least the theory and so-called practice of atheism does not lead to the direct perception of god's non-existence, so the knowledge of atheism is imperfect. (on the contrary, regardless of what you think of theism, there is the claim of direct perception of god and also the claim of how to achieve that perfection)

Yes it does.

See, there's a claim. Oooooh... a "claim". Lol.

it could have been cleared up in 2 posts if you could give a straight answer to parrallel analogies - for some reason it appears you have a morbid fear of clarifications on your proposals

Wait.. I don't believe it! You still didn't list which of those 26 you have lol. Cleared up in two posts heh? Listen chump, it's about time you stopped blaming others and accepted resonsibility for your own shortcomings.

if you could establish how atheism takes the platform of theory to the platform of practice which brings one finally to the platform of the direct perception that god doesn't exist, perhaps you would have a case ....

Establishing something to a person bereft of the necessary qualifications to either confirm or validate something is indeed difficult - you don't even find such examples existing in science so its not clear why you expect this to somehow work out of such a framework.

the only way it would be bogus is if you have direct perception that god does not exist

I do. See, at least I have a claim.. (lol)

I never said I was perfect

Nobody ever implied that you did.

You said the things that make a person qualified could be found in scripture. I asked you to list them. You did. You don't have the things you listed. You're not qualified. End.

So lg, how are you qualified?

Snakelord

“
yes - reading a book is part of the process
”
Glad we agree.
.... but its part of the beginning process, namely theory, which stands quite distinct from practice -- hence your suggestion that reading scripture is the "process" is hardly suffcient

“
and for some reason you can't draw a similar parallel to scripture?
”
Certainly can and do. That's indeed why I asked how much scripture you had read. You can't honestly think that you can read one form of scripture and be qualified to speak on the same level as someone that has read many different forms of scripture.
if all religion is ultimately aimed at the same goal, yes, to a degree - just like a person familiar with the nature of gold from china could quite easily be familiar with gold from america

You seem to consider yourself qualified having read what, 1 book?
I consider myself qualified (to a degree) by having applied myself to practical aspects of scripture - as opposed to merely reading scripture

Care to mention any other field of knowledge that works in that manner?
sure
a person who has applied themselves to electrical installation (as opposed to theory) can quite easily adapt themselves to electrical installation in other countries (even though the standard household rating may vary between 110-240 volts) - in otherwords all branches have essential aspects and peripheral aspects - one who is familiar (and practiced) with essential aspects can catch the import of other varieties - at the moment it appears that you think the essential aspect of religion is to take birth in a particular country or culture (which is an absurd, yet popular definition of theism by atheists who deem religion as essentially a culturally defined phenomena)


“
because you had a tremendous hissy fit
”
Kindly point out that "tremendous hissy fit". Are you talking out of your anus again?
All it usually takes is a quote or two from scripture to validate what I am saying

Btw, once you're done doing that how about you get to what was actually said, namely:

"you've made a list later on of 26 supposed 'qualifications'. So list the ones you think you have and we're done. How hard was that?"
I did go into a bit of elaborate detail about one of them (and it just happened to be the essential one, namely surrender to god) - you cut the whole thing from your response
BTW - on a side point I am not sure how the issue of my qualification came up specifically ??
from what I recall you objected to the notion of saintly people being specially qualified and that scripture is indicative of who is and isn't a saintly person

your quotes
1 -
Scripture is the beginning of study, saintly persons are people halfway through study. None of them are qualified to speak.

2-
Scripture has no place in this discussion, it's like the welcome letter to any university course. Once you're qualified you'll understand that.

In otherwords I never said that I am an authority in theism - I did however establish who is an authority in theism and how you establish who is an authority in theism


To answer my own question: Obviously too hard for you.
You ask a question, I answer it, you ignore it - and then to top it off you chime in 3 posts later as if I didn't answer
:shrug:

“
then its highly dubious that you have an accountancy degree
”
Uhh.. as stated: I was using your analogy to make a point. I don't have an accountancy degree. Pay attention.
uhh ...it is clear where you stated you had an accountancy degree
except for the above its not clear where you stated you don't have a degree
:confused:

-that aside it seems that you are finally coming around to the finality of accepting normative descriptions as unavoidable in discerning qualification

“
From your description of theistic processes however (even from your recall as a practicing theist from some era pre-atheism of yourself) that seems to be what you think is sufficient
”
I have never been a theist.
sorry - must have confused you with someone else - some times its difficult to distinguish the personalities behind identical arguments

What this does is show how little you pay attention, and as a result of that throws anything you say into question. What "seems to be", isn't "what is", it's just what lack of attention leads you to.
This doesn't really change anything - after reading your responses a few posts down it still seems you want to hedge your bets on reading being the "practical" of theism - I thought we had established earlier - It's not practice, it's theory ....

“
so the next question is why do you deem all saintly persons as students.
”
I sometimes wonder how much time the pope, (example), has spent studying the enuma elish, the bg, the koran etc etc.
doesn't really answer the question why do you consider all saintly persons (and not just the pope) as students
also don't you think at a certain point, "practice" would enable a higher level of progress than "more theory"

BTW - out of curiosity, how many saintly persons can you name outside of the pope?


Once again you wont find any field of knowledge you care to mention where the reading of one book is sufficient to give qualification.
yes - there are usually elaborate commentaries and a historical continuum - even in christianity
but that aside, once again, even reading in and of itself is not sufficient

Furthermore, I urge you to find me one "saintly person" that wouldn't actually turn round and say he's always studying.
true I cannot
But then nobody except you is demanding that reading a book is the be all and end all of theistic knowledge


“
at the very least the theory and so-called practice of atheism does not lead to the direct perception of god's non-existence, so the knowledge of atheism is imperfect. (on the contrary, regardless of what you think of theism, there is the claim of direct perception of god and also the claim of how to achieve that perfection)
”
Yes it does.

See, there's a claim. Oooooh... a "claim". Lol.
so you want to step outside the safe parameters of agnostic atheistic philosophy and claim that you (or anyone else) have direct perception of god's non-existence?
:bravo:

“
it could have been cleared up in 2 posts if you could give a straight answer to parrallel analogies - for some reason it appears you have a morbid fear of clarifications on your proposals
”
Wait.. I don't believe it! You still didn't list which of those 26 you have lol.
yes I did
th every moment I referenced the 26, i also indicated which one is essential and which of the other 25 are peripheral

guess it shows how much you pay attention ...

Cleared up in two posts heh? Listen chump, it's about time you stopped blaming others and accepted resonsibility for your own shortcomings.
scroll down a few posts - it's right there

25 of the qualities are peripheral, and number 12, attached (or surrendered) to god, is the primary qualification, which is further defined as



“
if you could establish how atheism takes the platform of theory to the platform of practice which brings one finally to the platform of the direct perception that god doesn't exist, perhaps you would have a case ....
”
Establishing something to a person bereft of the necessary qualifications to either confirm or validate something is indeed difficult - you don't even find such examples existing in science so its not clear why you expect this to somehow work out of such a framework.
its quite obvious you are shirking since there is no atheistic scientist/philosopher who makes the claim of direct perception - perhaps you could find some sorry hairball who advocates a process however -lol)

There are very good reasons for shirking on the claim of direct perception of god's non-existence, which are probably even fathomable by yourself

“
the only way it would be bogus is if you have direct perception that god does not exist
”
I do. See, at least I have a claim.. (lol)
oops -looks like I spoke too soon

looks like you are a madman

“
I never said I was perfect
”
Nobody ever implied that you did.

You said the things that make a person qualified could be found in scripture. I asked you to list them. You did. You don't have the things you listed. You're not qualified. End.
That's right - i am not qualified to establish religious principles (which is the business of saintly persons and scripture)
That doesn't invalidate my references to scripture, descriptions of spiritual experience etc etc

So lg, how are y ou
qualified?
hint - there are 26 qualities of a saintly persons, yet one of them is integral to all grades of theistic practitioners ....

Would you say then, that all the music which man makes is already in the mind of god.

yes

BG 7.8: O son of Kuntī, I am the taste of water, the light of the sun and the moon, the syllable oḿ in the Vedic mantras; I am the sound in ether and ability in man.

hence your suggestion that reading scripture is the "process" is hardly suffcient

I fail to see how. I merely argued that reading is , and I quote myself: "a part of the process". You agree with me: "but its part of the beginning process", so I don't even see why we're going through this. It is a part of the process. Done.

just like a person familiar with the nature of gold from china could quite easily be familiar with gold from america

Is that what it boils down to? No need to actually get into details or study with regards to each specific god but just assume they're probably the same as yours and done with it? That's ultimately what you're saying. I would disagree.

I consider myself qualified (to a degree) by having applied myself to practical aspects of scripture - as opposed to merely reading scripture

Such as? Talking to the clouds and helping out poor folk once in a while is a qualification?

sure
a person who has applied themselves to electrical installation (as opposed to theory)

For now, as you clearly should have noticed, we were conversing on the process of reading, not electric installation. Now, the reason I bring it up and the reason it's important should be evident. Regardless to unconvincing arguments against, your entire 'knowledge base' of gods came from other people that told you and the text you read. If you had have been born and raised on the other side of the planet you would be here trying to convince me that a different god was real and that a different set of practices were needed. If you were jewish for example, you would be telling me the importance of being circumcised and not eating certain meat products.

This is why I asked how many different 'scriptures' you had read, because by saying 1 or 2 you clearly lack the ability to come to an objective answer concerning gods and processes.

What was it you said earlier that would help show this.. Ah yes:

"the successful student accepts the words of their teacher to at least bring them to the platform of practice"

Which is why I brought up the debate aspect. You clearly think that one gets told and because one has been told, what they have been told is true. Accept it and shuttup kind of attitude. You then come to the platform of practice - which basically equates to being told a certain god exists and then worshipping said being. The 'scripture' merely serves to reinforce the beliefs you already have as opposed to reading all scripture, hearing all angles and then making an informed decision.

at the moment it appears that you think the essential aspect of religion is to take birth in a particular country or culture (which is an absurd, yet popular definition of theism by atheists who deem religion as essentially a culturally defined phenomena

Kindly explain how it is absurd. On what basis exactly do you dispute it?

However, the point I have just raised is more about how, without studying each and every religion/belief you lack a proper ability to speak of gods and processes. You can of course speak of your particular one but have no justification to assert it as real or true given your lack of knowledge concerning the others.

You have often said that atheists can't say anything concerning gods because they are "bereft of the foundation blah blah". What you don't understand is that this would apply to you equally - with every single god minus 1.

All it usually takes is a quote or two from scripture to validate what I am saying

1) It's not quite clear how you think quoting scripture will show that I had a "tremendous hissy fit".

2) It doesn't 'validate', it merely reinforces your own beliefs and opinions - that have come directly from that same source/someone that told you who got it from that same source. Therefore the book is true because the book is true and anything you say from that book is true because the book is true.

Of course from there you would then have to show how this book is even valid itself. So far your most pertinent answer is that "it's old". If that is the best that can be done, I must say it does not bode well. Further from that you would say "saintly persons", which suffers the exact same problem as the book does - and again we can't really justify it by saying "they're old".

For starters these 'saintly persons' only have claims that cannot be supported unless you too become a "saintly person" - you have to do what you already espouse which is to "just accept it". You then have to take into consideration the conflicting 'saintly persons'. The pope doesn't really tell people to read the bg and worship the gods therein. The pope does not espouse that one gets reborn a gazillion times etc etc. When you have saintly persons that conflict how does one choose? From what I can gather you make the choice simply on the basis of who taught you first. If you had have been born to a family of jews you wouldn't mention kunti, or his son.. You'd be talking moses and abraham.

You don't seem to realise, (which is quite shocking), that you can't mention 'saintly persons' and think it's justified on the basis that "well, they have a claim and a claimed process". It even goes against your very own statements that you have probably made over 1,000 times on this forum concerning being bereft of qualification. In short, if you are not a saintly person, you can't speak for a saintly person. You must recognise as part of that that you can't justify anything they claim until you are a saintly person yourself. If you are this can go further, if not there's really nothing left to say.

I did go into a bit of elaborate detail about one of them (and it just happened to be the essential one, namely surrender to god) - you cut the whole thing from your response

Elaborate detail heh? Nowhere in your statement did you say that you had this essential qualification. I can't answer that for you can I? As such the only person that can express whether they are qualified is you. You can post scripture all you like, if it doesn't say you are personally qualified, of what use is it to me?

BTW - on a side point I am not sure how the issue of my qualification came up specifically ??

It most likely stems from all the [pp] "those bereft of qualification can't speak on the matter" statements you have made in nearly every single thread on this forum - including this one.

In short: if you're not qualified, you've got nothing to say here - apparently.

In otherwords I never said that I am an authority in theism - I did however establish who is an authority in theism

How exactly did you establish that? By claiming it? Because a book claims it? Because they claim it? All you have are a bunch of claims that you cannot validate because you're not qualified to do so - and then apparently neither am I so why even tell me in the first place? What exactly do you hope to accomplish by talking to myself and other atheists that you frequently liken to high school dropouts and continually state are bereft of qualification blah blah?

Oh wait yes, is this where we're supposed to "just accept it"?

I suppose that is a possibility... However, now you must surely understand the importance of showing your qualification. Without you showing your qualification, how can I be sure you're not just another high school dropout playing games? So lg, what qualification do you have exactly?

This in itself gets back to my statements regarding scripture. I did indeed state that any idiot can read scripture - and that reading scripture is simply the beginning. So, if all you have is that you've read scripture and accept it as true, of what use are you to anyone else? Can you read better than everyone else? It's made even worse when you list 26 things while being devoid of at least half of them. It's like taking English lessons from a Chinese man that can only half speak English.

You ask a question, I answer it, you ignore it - and then to top it off you chime in 3 posts later as if I didn't answer

All due respect, but you listed 26 things - mentioned that one of them was the most important but never actually said whether you had it or not, (or any of the others). It didn't take me long to realise that you're lacking at least half of them so what you need to do is list the ones you do have. Once again: I can't do it for you. You tell me one of them is the most important and quote some scripture. O....k, do you have that important one? Did the scripture you quoted say "lg has that one"? If so I certainly didn't see it.

Sorry, what have I ignored exactly? You've told me what they are and whether they're important. Alas you missed the only thing I actually asked for which was whether you had them or not.

uhh ...it is clear where you stated you had an accountancy degree
except for the above its not clear where you stated you don't have a degree

I can't believe we're even going through this given your original question and my response. It should have been plainly obvious right there that I was simply using your analogy.

You asked me how an accountant would establish qualification. I said: "I have an accountancy degree".

Duh. I even put it in speech marks to show that it wasn't me making a statement concerning myself, but as an answer to your question. What I was asking from you was for your qualification. I was not asking for proof that you have it, I was not going to check university records or anything else like that, I merely asked you to state what you had that you consider as making you qualified. You eventually listed 26 things, (one essential), but didn't actually tell me if you had any of those 26. And the thing is it does not have to be this complicated - you purposely do so to avoid giving an answer. We've been through this before several times and it is without doubt one of your more annoying habits.

"To be qualified one must be "meek", "kind", "truthful" blah blah. I am meek, kind and truthful. That is how I am qualified".

That's all I'm asking for, why must you make a mountain out of a molehill?

sorry - must have confused you with someone else - some times its difficult to distinguish the personalities behind identical arguments

That's an attention issue. I originally stated that many atheists used to be theists and that surely they would be the more "qualified" because they had done what you are in the process of doing and actually got somewhere. You're still at the bit they have done and progressed from.

Let's say that again and be frank: They have been where you are. They have been at your current level of theory and process. They have moved past that stage. You have not.

From what position exactly would you try and assert that you are more qualified/beyond their level?

doesn't really answer the question why do you consider all saintly persons (and not just the pope) as students

Because they are at the position that others have progressed from.

But then nobody except you is demanding that reading a book is the be all and end all of theistic knowledge

Another ample display of you not paying attention or not understanding. What exactly with "it's a part of", do you have issue with?

so you want to step outside the safe parameters of agnostic atheistic philosophy and claim that you (or anyone else) have direct perception of god's non-existence?

I am attempting to show you the inherent pointlessness in saying "they have a claim". Any idiot can make claims. I'm quite certain you were aware of this.

So now we must look at establishing claims but then from the arguments you have used hundreds of times, you can't unless you too are a saintly person.

th every moment I referenced the 26, i also indicated which one is essential and which of the other 25 are peripheral

Where did you say you had any of the 26? Are you now asserting that you have all 26?

its quite obvious you are shirking since there is no atheistic scientist/philosopher who makes the claim of direct perception

Argument from popularity and authority in one go? Needless to say, if I am making the claim then there clearly is an atheistic scientist making the claim. Quite straightforward really.

Now, if I were to use your arguments, it would stand that you cannot say anything regarding my claim until you are 'qualified' to do so, (in short: atheist).

I hope through all of this that you eventually realise the inherent worthlessness of most of your regular statements on this forum.

looks like you are a madman

It is of course common for the unqualified high school drop out to call a physicist a madman when he talks about things beyond the understanding of the high school dropout.

hint - there are 26 qualities of a saintly persons, yet one of them is integral to all grades of theistic practitioners ....

So you're qualified because you believe in god and worship it?

Snakelord
“
hence your suggestion that reading scripture is the "process" is hardly suffcient
”
I fail to see how. I merely argued that reading is , and I quote myself: "a part of the process". You agree with me: "but its part of the beginning process", so I don't even see why we're going through this. It is a part of the process. Done.
we were in the middle of discussing "practical" as distinct from "theory" when you suggested that "reading scripture" is "practical"

“
just like a person familiar with the nature of gold from china could quite easily be familiar with gold from america
”
Is that what it boils down to? No need to actually get into details or study with regards to each specific god but just assume they're probably the same as yours and done with it? That's ultimately what you're saying. I would disagree.
if you study the details of the essence, certainly

“
I consider myself qualified (to a degree) by having applied myself to practical aspects of scripture - as opposed to merely reading scripture
”
Such as? Talking to the clouds and helping out poor folk once in a while is a qualification?
hello Timbuktu .....

“
sure
a person who has applied themselves to electrical installation (as opposed to theory)
”
For now, as you clearly should have noticed, we were conversing on the process of reading, not electric installation.
you asked for an example of another field of knowledge
“
Care to mention any other field of knowledge that works in that manner?


and I give one

what's your problem?


This is why I asked how many different 'scriptures' you had read, because by saying 1 or 2 you clearly lack the ability to come to an objective answer concerning gods and processes.
you asked me how many scriptures I have read and i provided a link, yet you now say I've read 1 or 2?

what's your problem?

What was it you said earlier that would help show this.. Ah yes:

"the successful student accepts the words of their teacher to at least bring them to the platform of practice"

Which is why I brought up the debate aspect. You clearly think that one gets told and because one has been told, what they have been told is true.

please read the bold to save me having to drag you back from Timbuktu (again)

“
at the moment it appears that you think the essential aspect of religion is to take birth in a particular country or culture (which is an absurd, yet popular definition of theism by atheists who deem religion as essentially a culturally defined phenomena
”
Kindly explain how it is absurd. On what basis exactly do you dispute it?
separate thread issue - for now its sufficient to say that theism doesn't accept that - in short ,, the focus of religion is not culture, but god, and god transcends human culture - in other words the very definition of being omnimax necessitates one entity, despite a variety of subjective accounts (just like you could ask any one of a billion people where the sun is and they could say anything from rising to the east to setting in the west to above my head - of course this doesn't indicate more than one sun)


“
All it usually takes is a quote or two from scripture to validate what I am saying
”
1) It's not quite clear how you think quoting scripture will show that I had a "tremendous hissy fit".
we could try an experiment - lol

2) It doesn't 'validate', it merely reinforces your own beliefs and opinions - that have come directly from that same source/someone that told you who got it from that same source. Therefore the book is true because the book is true and anything you say from that book is true because the book is true.
so you want to return to your argument that qualification can be validated by sources other than the normative?
:crazy:


Of course from there you would then have to show how this book is even valid itself. So far your most pertinent answer is that "it's old".
no
my most pertinent response is that if followed, it grants a result in line with the conclusion

aka

theory -> practice -> realization/values

if you follow it as you suggest

theory->realization/values

or perhaps more precisely

theory -> ad homs/attacks on god and god's representatives ->realization/values

the result is not quite the same



For starters these 'saintly persons' only have claims that cannot be supported unless you too become a "saintly person" -

much like the claims of physicists can not be supported unless you become a physicist
:rolleyes:

once again, it seems like you have issues with the nature of knowledge, separate and distinct from specific issues of god/saintliness/theism

you have to do what you already espouse which is to "just accept it".

no

you have to "do" it

just like to come to the point of accepting physics outside of faith you have to "do" it

this is the important contribution of "practice" (distinct from "theory") to teh acquisition of knowledge

You then have to take into consideration the conflicting 'saintly persons'. The pope doesn't really tell people to read the bg and worship the gods therein.
he does however recommend obedience to god ("obedience" is a "doing" word)

The pope does not espouse that one gets reborn a gazillion times etc etc.
When you have saintly persons that conflict how does one choose?
you have to accept that the platform of theory is not sufficient to grasp all knowledge - at the platform of theory there appears to be many contradictions - problems arise when there are contradictions on the platform of practice (what does a saintly person recommend in regard to the cultivation of lust/anger/avarice/etc?)

From what I can gather you make the choice simply on the basis of who taught you first.
hardly
the choice is initiated by one's desire under one of these four circumstances

BG 7.16: O best among the Bhāratas, four kinds of pious men begin to render devotional service unto Me — the distressed, the desirer of wealth, the inquisitive, and he who is searching for knowledge of the Absolute.

If you had have been born to a family of jews you wouldn't mention kunti, or his son.. You'd be talking moses and abraham.

do you think the pope would disagree with the above BG quote?

You don't seem to realise, (which is quite shocking), that you can't mention 'saintly persons' and think it's justified on the basis that "well, they have a claim and a claimed process". It even goes against your very own statements that you have probably made over 1,000 times on this forum concerning being bereft of qualification. In short, if you are not a saintly person, you can't speak for a saintly person.
I did mention about the qualification of a physicist and the distinction between a run of the mill physicist and einstein, even though a run of the mill physicist (maybe even a high school student) can discern the validity of einstein's findings

You must recognise as part of that that you can't justify anything they claim until you are a saintly person yourself. If you are this can go further, if not there's really nothing left to say.
one doesn't have to be perfect of the leader in the field - just like physics demands a certain threshold of theory and practice, so to does saintliness - still there can be universes of difference between such practitioners

“
I did go into a bit of elaborate detail about one of them (and it just happened to be the essential one, namely surrender to god) - you cut the whole thing from your response
”
Elaborate detail heh? Nowhere in your statement did you say that you had this essential qualification. I can't answer that for you can I? As such the only person that can express whether they are qualified is you. You can post scripture all you like, if it doesn't say you are personally qualified, of what use is it to me?
hopefully by now you understand that pining for descriptions of qualification outside of normative descriptions is absurd

“
BTW - on a side point I am not sure how the issue of my qualification came up specifically ??
”
It most likely stems from all the [pp] "those bereft of qualification can't speak on the matter" statements you have made in nearly every single thread on this forum - including this one.
so considering that I offer information and references from scripture and saintly persons, why is there a demand that I establish my qualification in saintliness as equivalent to jesus?

Does a person who mention the theory of relativity on this site have to prove they are another einstein?

In short: if you're not qualified, you've got nothing to say here - apparently.
if you have no foundation of theory, you have nothing to say
if you have no foundation of practice, anything you say runs the risk of being scattered and irrelevant

“
In otherwords I never said that I am an authority in theism - I did however establish who is an authority in theism
”
How exactly did you establish that? By claiming it? Because a book claims it?
how do you establish the authority of a physicist without reference to physics?

Because they claim it?
there are books that tell you how to achieve something
there are persons who tell you how to achieve the same thing in the books
there are persons who have applied the above two sources to achieve the said result

where does the problem lie?

All you have are a bunch of claims that you cannot validate because you're not qualified to do so -
the claims remain invalidated as long as the practice is avoided - which seems to be an accurate description of where an atheist is at ...

and then apparently neither am I so why even tell me in the first place? What exactly do you hope to accomplish by talking to myself and other atheists that you frequently liken to high school dropouts and continually state are bereft of qualification blah blah?
that "practice" is what they lack, for a start, no matter how erudite they may be on the platform of "theory"

Oh wait yes, is this where we're supposed to "just accept it"?
no

http://www.jdsports.co.uk/uploads/info/2535_Ecard-sml-JDI.gif"

I suppose that is a possibility... However, now you must surely understand the importance of showing your qualification. Without you showing your qualification, how can I be sure you're not just another high school dropout playing games? So lg, what qualification do you have exactly?
accepting normative descriptions would be a start

This in itself gets back to my statements regarding scripture. I did indeed state that any idiot can read scripture - and that reading scripture is simply the beginning. So, if all you have is that you've read scripture and accept it as true, of what use are you to anyone else?
there is hearing
then there is also hearing and doing

a difference lies between these two

Can you read better than everyone else?
if it brings one to the platform of action, yes

It's made even worse when you list 26 things while being devoid of at least half of them.
I did mention which one is essential
and I also did mention how these normative descriptions can be unpacked and verified by numerous scriptural commentaries ... something, which given your mysterious assertions about normative descriptions in scripture vs qualification, i am reluctant to go ahead with explaining ....



It's like taking English lessons from a Chinese man that can only half speak English.
better than taking english lessons from a person who can't speak english at all ...

“
You ask a question, I answer it, you ignore it - and then to top it off you chime in 3 posts later as if I didn't answer
”
All due respect, but you listed 26 things - mentioned that one of them was the most important but never actually said whether you had it or not, (or any of the others). It didn't take me long to realise that you're lacking at least half of them
the platform of maligned theory is certainly time saving ...

so what you need to do is list the ones you do have. Once again: I can't do it for you. You tell me one of them is the most important and quote some scripture. O....k, do you have that important one?
I guess we should start with the essential one - certainly makes more sense than dealing with the side issue of peripheral ones don't you think?

Did the scripture you quoted say "lg has that one"? If so I certainly didn't see it.
Sorry, what have I ignored exactly? You've told me what they are and whether they're important. Alas you missed the only thing I actually asked for which was whether you had them or not.
without this essential quality, theism doesn't even begin

“
uhh ...it is clear where you stated you had an accountancy degree
except for the above its not clear where you stated you don't have a degree
”
I can't believe we're even going through this given your original question and my response. It should have been plainly obvious right there that I was simply using your analogy.

You asked me how an accountant would establish qualification. I said: "I have an accountancy degree".

Duh. I even put it in speech marks to show that it wasn't me making a statement concerning myself, but as an answer to your question.

you expected me to understand all that from this

“
once again, how the hell do you propose to establish qualification (like say for an accountant) without referencing normative descriptions in the field?
”
I have a degree in accounting.

So.. what qualifications do you have?

???


What I was asking from you was for your qualification. I was not asking for proof that you have it, I was not going to check university records or anything else like that, I merely asked you to state what you had that you consider as making you qualified. You eventually listed 26 things, (one essential), but didn't actually tell me if you had any of those 26. And the thing is it does not have to be this complicated - you purposely do so to avoid giving an answer. We've been through this before several times and it is without doubt one of your more annoying habits.
the twisted form of this discussion is because you constantly slip in and out of the argument that normative descriptions are not the necessary contributers to discerning qualification - just when I thought we had nailed that sucker in the grave you pull it out again with this post!!!- until you reach a conclusion in regards to this, the wh