Godless I could also ask you to do the same Ok here are the general principles (with t he specifics in parentheses) a certain class of person (ie saintly persons) can be determined by certain existential qualifications (in short, being dear to god and god being dear to them) this person lays claim to a phenomena (the direct perception of god) in accordance with established authorities in the field (scripture and other saintly persons) these persons, qualified by their experience and knowledge, establish ways and means for others to also approach what they have in the way of knowledge and experience - failure to adopt what they establish as the means to approach the knowledge results in the failure to come to their level of direct perception. Now what, may I ask, are the general principles that under ride your statements when you say things like god is an imagination etc etc??
I'm not the one making false claims lg. Read above, I'm not the one making false claims. False cause you haven't produced any evidence! Like David Koresh, Rev Jim Jones? lol... Get a life out of the bible! and your stupid religion!
the best way to evidence such claims, rather than making confidence statements, is to elaborate on the general principles one applies to determine the truth of one's claims the truth or falsity of a claim is apparent by examining the general principles one applies - confidence statements ("I am right because I am right") is the business of fanatics (whether they are atheistic fanatics or theistic fanatics) once again, if you insist on judging a genre by its worst stereotype you run the risk of arriving at a conclusion quite a distance from the truth Actually I have never read the bible in its entirety - and if you have read the bible with the degree of attention that you apply to my posts (in thinking I identify myself as a practicing christian) perhaps you should try reading the bible again a bit more carefully - otherwise you run the risk of making the same error of judgement as jim jones and koresh (the only difference between yourself and them being that you don't publicly accept the existence of god)
Like the onus of proof is on the person making the claim! where in the hell do you fail to see this, is beyond me! [insult removed] I don't make claims "god does not exist" I just don't accept your assertion, that he does, since you claim it does, so the onus of providing the fucking evidence is on your part! get a godamn clue! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://www.non-religious.com/debate.html
Let's not shift the burden of proof, LG. You're the one making a positive claim. You say there's one or more gods. I say poppycock and where's the evidence and the only thing you've been able to do to date is dance around with a bunch of postmodernist mumbo-jumbo and try to turn words on their heads. Such cowardly approaches to "evidence" do not produce proof but, rather, obfuscation.
Actually we are not talking about evidence, we are talking more about concepts - we are talking about the general principles that one has applied to come to one's current conception regarding the existence or non existence of god - unless you are advocating that you have no concepts regarding the existence/non existence of god (which seems to run contrary to your highly antagonistic critiques of anything remotely theistic), you must be relying on some general principles. My question, which you still haven't approached (and which is integral to any sort of philosophical discussion) is "what are the general principles you apply to determine that the statements regarding god are an imagination etc" If you cannot answer this it seems to indicate a reluctance (for whatever reason) on your behalf to enter into any sort of philosophical discussion (ie it seems you would prefer to make short tempered confidence statements) (BTW I have already obliged you by indicating the general principles I applied in post 40 underneath)
I gave indications of the general principles in post 40 - if you want to engage in progressive philosophical discussion (which you seem to struggle with, mainly because you label anything slightly introspective as post modern, which is, ironically, quite post modern of you), you could follow suit by elaborating on your general principles - the moment you respond to a claim (regardless of whether you are affirmative or negative) is the moment you are applying general principles .... so my q is quite simple - what are the general principles you apply to determine that all the information about god is an imagination???? The part indicated in bold is your claim - now if you want to take it outside of the realm of mere confidence statements you could indicate the general principles you have applied to come to this conclusion
lg, Because no one can show otherwise and that's where you need to show evidence for your extraordinary and fantastical claims.
no doubt extraordinary, perhaps even fantastic, but there are claims that they are not imaginative- you have to elaborate on what grounds you establish that the claims are false ..... otherwise you are just left with the deadlock of opposing confidence statements (which are quite commonly encountered on this forum)
according to the teachings I'm believing in: evily character (an adjective word) is there in living creatures with intellectuality and passions/desire, hence it is there in human and supernatural beings (which is called 'devil' - this guy, a noun-). Both angel and devil are supernatural being, but angels are created only with intellectuality, without passion/desire; while devils are equipped with both.
The only thing I struggle with is keeping awake as you go on an on in your tautological bullshit from thread to thread. I read "post 40" and found it to be complete and utter bullshit, for lack of a more accurate term. In short, you said evidence for those having religious knowledge is because they suck up to their god. They suck up to their god because they have this religious "knowledge." Complete bullshit. In essence, you say that someone is and expert in theistic bullshit because they say so. Then you tell us this is a set of "general principles" and pretend to take umbrage to the criticism of being postmodernist. You're endless drivel in the various theological threads in this forum are nonsense. And my answer is even simpler. It is imagination and fantasy until such time as you make good on your claim and present evidence. Until then, the claim of supernatural agency is yours and the burden of proof remains yours. You can make up all the philosophical, postmodernist bullshit arguments you want, but it doesn't amount to either knowledge or evidence. Again, you're the one that has the burden of proof. Until such time as you can provide it, there is no reason to believe it is anything more than pure, unadulterated poppycock. Actually, I when I use "poppycock" I'm attempting to be polite and substitute for the word "bullshit."
Lg, Again because you cannot show that these claims are not just imaginative. And those making the claims similarly cannot show that what they claim is not just simple delusion. There is nothing difficult here. Until someone can show that claims for incredible fantasies such as yours have something of substance other than unsupported assertions then there is absolutely no reason to consider such claims as anything other than creative imagination. No we are not. It is entirely a matter of credibility and not simply counter-claims. There is no precedent or foundation for any of your claims and the onus is entirely upon you to show something beyond the default of speculative imagination.
Its obvious that you have a few value judgements that inhibit your ability to discuss the topic, despite my attempt to make it easy for you by discussing general principles (which do not require discussions of a god or atheism - it just requires the elaboration of general principles that can be applied to a variety of circumstances, including the theological discussion at hand) - and th e post modern irony of it all is that you are a moderator on a religion discussion thread -lol - at the very least you set yourself up for getting upset Actually I didn't say that - no doubt you would have liked it if I did I think the inevitable christmas spirit of late december is making you into a grumpy old man well -er - there is the processes they advocate .... as long as you skirt around the issue of the processes offered by saintly persons, which is actually the basis that this thread hinges on for progressive philosophical discussion, the aroma of your responses draw a nearness to moderator endorsed nastiness which is perhaps not disimilar from what one may expect to find accumulating in a holding pen for the bovine Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! you should endeavour to control yourself more - it makes you appear unattractive Cris -there are persons who claim a direct perception of something - the same persons claim a process that enables one to come to that point of direct perception - persons who accept that process progress to the point of the direct perception - persons who do not apply the process do not they are supported by persons who apply the process - and as evidenced by this thread, they are not supported by persons who do not apply the processes - just like the claims of molecular physics are supported by molecular physicists and not even proctologists, what to speak of fruit vendors credibility rests on authority - authority is determined by the correct application of processes - this explains why some doctors have credibility (those that have applied knowledge) and others don't (the quacks) - it also explains why some theistic practioners have credibility and others do not (although thanks to the general degradation of spiritual values in contemporary society, the two are often confused in the public eye, or alternatively, as in the case of yourself, all theistic claims are equally rejected due to one's inability to distinguish the chaff from the wheat)
LG, And these processes have zero independent verification and still cannot be differentiated from delusion or deeper depths of indoctrination by gullible people. No definitely not similar. Science is based on verifiable independent evidence. You have no equivalent with your claims. No, no, no. It rests entirely on evidence. Your claims to authority cannot cite any independent evidence and rests entirely on personal interpretations of fantasy indistinguishable from delusion. That is the sum of your process. The scientific process begins with independent evidence and remains the sole authority for anyone who wishes to examine it. There is a profound difference to those who take time to learn the facts of science compared to theist gurus who have simply taken the abandonment of rational thought to higher levels.
Cris given that you are yet to effectively determine what these processes are, its not clear on what authority you make your statements so the claims of molecular physicists are confirmed by proctologists and fruit vendors ..... I see Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If you don't perceive a person who makes a claim about knowledge (knowledge that is beyond your direct sense perception) as authoratative (putting aside the question whether your perception is real or imagined for the time being) do you assign any credibility to their claims? given that persons who apply the process perceive the evidence it appears that you are incorrect your automatic equating of theistic processes that enable self realization as delusional (while remaining completely ignorant of even what process I am alluding to) is a classic example of bigotry and how do you propose that a fruit vendor examines the claims of a molecular physicist? wait up - what are they taking the time to learn - I thought you just said above that anyone can examine any claim made by science - why are they required to learn anything before they verify anything in science? WHy are persons not required to learn anything (such as yourself) to verify the claims made by theistic practioners?
lg, I'll simplify the issue for you. Scientific knowledge is achieved through empirical processes. Knowledge of the supernatural is obtained, how, exactly?
LG will just say something like he can "conceptualize" it therefore it exists. Or some bullshit mumbo jumbo about how "disciplic succession" exists among those that truly believe. In other words, LG seems to think that people can simply self-profess and become experts in the supernatural by believing hard enough.
this will be hard going because it innvolves lots of terms which most people run the risk of misinterpreting (what to speak of an atheist in the middle of a heated discussion with a theist) ..... but here goes even the greatest of empiricists is subject to these 4 defects confusion (pramada), inadvertence (bhrama), cheating (vipralipsa) and imperfection of senses (karanapatava) this means that empirical sense perception is not capable of gathering anything transcendental (the very act of acquiring something by empirical knowledge makes it instantly non-transcendental = transcendental means beyond the purview of the senses) this means that it is impossible to perceive anything eternal, infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent or omniscient with one's senses, which includes the mind - actually what to speak of transcendental phenomena, its impossible to see the mind with one's mind, just as itis impossible to get relief from the hot sun by standing in one's shadow) the only solution is for something existing in the realm of transcendence to extend itself to the living entity that is conditioned - thus the knowledge acquired in theism is generally defined as becoming self realized (ie uncovering the innate transcendental aspect of oneself) or attracting the mercy of god (although a common obstacle in spiritual life is to perceive the transcendental nature of one's minute existence as synonymous with the infinite transcendental nature of god's existence)- in other words the knowledge is revealed by dint of fulfilling existential conditions. Whatever one can garner by spiritual knowledge can be perceived, but it can only be transmitted from one person to another if the 2nd party agrees to accept the process advocated for perception - this is why logic is not sufficient to bring one to the perception of god Brahmasutra 2.1.11 If it be argued that since mere reason provides no solid ground on which to base our position, then we will find some other means of inference on which to base our position, we reply 'no, you will end up in the same difficulty'. Mahabharata, Bhismaparva 5.12 One should not apply reason to those realities which are inconceivable; for it is the essence of the inconceivable to be distinct from the material objects. - logic is only sufficient to bring one to the platform of accepting and applying the processes required to perceive god in other words logic is necessary to developing an understanding of god but it is not sufficient or to cut to the simple answer - just like in the film matrix, leaving the realm of illusion is fully dependant on gaining the association of a personality that is free from illusion (the process was the taking of the pill - of course acquiring spiritual knowledge is not quite so easy as taking a pill, although I am certain you perceive it to not be so dissimilar -lol) - before taking the pill he was seeing, after taking the pill he was seeing - but the nature of his seeing under went a drastic change. you cannot even bring yourself to discuss general principles but seem to prefer mud slinging matches - try the cess pool while even philosophical discussion has its limitations, you have not come close to exhausting it just yet Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
