Created by vs. Descended from?

[Balerion]

Of course it is. He embraces the sort of epistemology that leads to wildly different theological and metaphysical conclusions, and from the platform sitting atop this shaky structure, has the nerve to launch attacks against far more cautious empirical methodologies and agnostic philosophical stances.

It's a running joke.

It's ridiculous. He doesn't even want to discuss them!

 

[lightgigantic]

I was perfectly aware of the context of your response--I even read it back to you--so I don't know what you're going on about now. Is your position really that tenuous?

:shrug:

well, ... whenever you are ready to explain how your comments clarify issues established by quinsong (since you are apparently perfectly aware of the context and all)
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Of course it is. He embraces the sort of epistemology that leads to wildly different theological and metaphysical conclusions, and from the platform sitting atop this shaky structure, has the nerve to launch attacks against far more cautious empirical methodologies and agnostic philosophical stances.

It's a running joke.

Meanwhile your molars rot

But if one wants to hear a joke, one simply has to ask you about the empirical basis for atheism
:shrug:

 

[wynn]

well, ... whenever you are ready to explain how your comments clarify issues established by quinsong (since you are apparently perfectly aware of the context and all)

Balerion is all.
Balerion is everything.
Whomever you talk to, you talk to Balerion.
Whatever you say, it has to do with the points Balerion is making.
It is all about Balerion.
You are his servant.

 

[Rav]

Meanwhile your molars rot

Right, and you think the contrast between your negative characterizations of human existence and your nice little rosy ideas about the afterlife somehow lends credibility to your position? You might as well argue that the fact that the idea of Santa Claus makes little children happy lends credibility to claims that he really exists.

In other words, your argument has no real substance at all.

But if one wants to hear a joke, one simply has to ask you about the empirical basis for atheism
:shrug:

Sorry, but I'm more agnostic than atheist. Always have been. But even if I was one of those idiots who are stupid enough to make stronger claims that they can't defend, that wouldn't lend any credibility to your own philosophical position either. The overarching point here is that you have no justifiable basis for your superiority complex. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

[lightgigantic]

Right, and you think the contrast between your negative characterizations of human existence and your nice little rosy ideas about the afterlife somehow lends credibility to your position? You might as well argue that the fact that the idea of Santa Claus makes little children happy lends credibility to claims that he really exists.

In other words, your argument has no real substance at all.



Sorry, but I'm more agnostic than atheist. Always have been. But even if I was one of those idiots who are stupid enough to make stronger claims that they can't defend, that wouldn't lend any credibility to your own philosophical position either. The overarching point here is that you have no justifiable basis for your superiority complex. Quite the opposite, in fact.

no need to look so far afield

You just shot yourself in the foot

:shrug:

 

[Rav]

no need to look so far afield

You just shot yourself in the foot

:shrug:

There's a big difference between incessantly ridiculing other philosophical positions from your own shaky platform (your own superiority complex) and confidently calling you out for the bullshit it is (mine, in this case, and I'm happy to cop to that since it's not like I didn't realize I was doing it).

 

[wynn]

(your own superiority complex)

*tsk tsk*

 

[lightgigantic]

There's a big difference between incessantly ridiculing other philosophical positions from your own shaky platform (your own superiority complex) and confidently calling you out for the bullshit it is (mine, in this case, and I'm happy to cop to that since it's not like I didn't realize I was doing it).

will the irony never end?

:shrug:

 

[Rav]

will the irony never end?

:shrug:

Sorry, but I don't claim anywhere near the sort of certainty you do about theological and metaphysical affairs. I will concede, and often do, that I can't be absolutely certain about anything aside from my own existence. You, on the other hand, claim that you are tapped in, via reliable means, to the answers to the mysteries of existence. And you want to try to say that this stance isn't any stronger than the one that simply questions its validity. You want to say that it is impossible to legitimately assail your position without a fundamentally equivalent one. But this is nonsense. That would mean that everyone who wasn't sure if you were full of shit or not, and demanded some sort of additional justification before taking your strong claims seriously, would be making the same sort of strong claim themselves just by doing so.

But aside from all that, it doesn't even matter to me if you resort to trying to highlight my hypocrisy, or even succeed at it. The goal here was to bring balance to this discussion, and now you've chosen to avoid the meat of it, I'd say we're getting somewhere.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sorry, but I don't claim anywhere near the sort of certainty you do about theological and metaphysical affairs. I will concede, and often do, that I can't be absolutely certain about anything aside from my own existence. You, on the other hand, claim that you are tapped in, via reliable means, to the answers to the mysteries of existence. And you want to try to say that this stance isn't any stronger than the one that simply questions its validity. You want to say that it is impossible to legitimately assail your position without a fundamentally equivalent one. But this is nonsense. That would mean that everyone who wasn't sure if you were full of shit or not, and demanded some sort of additional justification before taking your strong claims seriously, would be making the same sort of strong claim themselves just by doing so.

But aside from all that, it doesn't even matter to me if you resort to trying to highlight my hypocrisy, or even succeed at it. The goal here was to bring balance to this discussion, and now you've chosen to avoid the meat of it, I'd say we're getting somewhere.

exit stage left

 

[Rav]

exit stage left

OK, let's examine this from an additional angle. Are you saying that your own thus far unjustified superiority complex is acceptable because you're not the only one that has one? Is that going to constitute the extent of your ambassadorial duties to Krishna here tonight?

 

[lightgigantic]

OK, let's examine this from an additional angle. Are you saying that your own thus far unjustified superiority complex is acceptable because you're not the only one that has one? Is that going to constitute the extent of your ambassadorial duties to Krishna here tonight?

I'm guessing you are drunk or need to take a nap.

 

[Rav]

Just trying to hit 2000 posts for the street cred.

 

[Balerion]

well, ... whenever you are ready to explain how your comments clarify issues established by quinsong (since you are apparently perfectly aware of the context and all)
:shrug:

In your effort to escape the discussion, you failed to miss out on the context of my post, which was that your response didn't even address the issues established by quinsong. You only challenged her assertion that man cannot live on God alone--which was merely a way of saying that spirituality is just one of many facets of life--by saying that man cannot live in matter. I was addressing your claim, which is erroneous.

Not sure what's hard to understand about that.

:shrug:

 

[Balerion]

OK, let's examine this from an additional angle. Are you saying that your own thus far unjustified superiority complex is acceptable because you're not the only one that has one? Is that going to constitute the extent of your ambassadorial duties to Krishna here tonight?

He's got nothing for you, Rav.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

.In that ase, they cannot fall, they cannot desire to enjoy independently of God.

Unless they are actually eternally full of knowledge, bliss - and evil.

Other than because you think so, give a reason why they can't desire independence.

''They'd be idiots to choose to fall'' is not a reason, it's an accusation.
Also, by that logic we are idiots for not choosing to go back to our real position, given we now have the oppotunity to.


Bear in mind this is the epicenter of your enquiry.

So what are you arguing for?
Either accept it, or not.

Pfffffffft.
Typical Hindu power trip you have there.

What else can you do?
Right now you're not accepting it. You may think you're being neutral, and will decide as and when science and/or philosophy make break-throughs, but in fact you reject it automatically. There are no grey areas in reality, it just is. We constantly make decisions, we constantly recieve data, and we constantly act upon that, but we're not aware of such constant activity. We only aware of a small amount. We are affected by everything conscious and sub-concsious.

Has it occured to you that I am not your student and you are not my teacher, so you can't propose to me to just accept what you say?

No. It hasn't occured to me simply because such ideas never entered my mind.

I'm not proposing you accept what I say, I'm proposing you accept or deny what the scriptures say after proper contemplation of them, because that's where the answers are.

It does answer your questions, but what you mean is you're not satisfied with the answers.

Oh, and that's because there's something wrong with me, eh?

Is this one of those 'does my bum look big in this dress'' type of questions?

More of your power trip.

Yeah, power can go to one's head, very much so!

See it that way if you must.

jan.

 

[wynn]

Other than because you think so, give a reason why they can't desire independence.

I've made it abundantly clear that your explanation doesn't make sense to me.
I've requested further insight from you, but which you didn't offer.

Somehow, in the minds of some people, it makes perfect sense that an eternally knowledgeable and blissful entity would choose to fall into illusion ... But it just doesn't add up in my mind.

Also, by that logic we are idiots for not choosing to go back to our real position, given we now have the oppotunity to.

No, this doesn't follow.
Our real position is something we cannot lose, simply as it is our real position.

Bear in mind this is the epicenter of your enquiry.

You know jack squat what the epicenter of my inquiry is.

What else can you do?

Check if you can walk on water, or lift a mountain on your left little finger. I'm guessing you can do neither.

Right now you're not accepting it.

Says someone who also suggested that the scriptures are talking about the disciplic succession and the importance of having a teacher "for effect."

You may think you're being neutral,

I don't think I am neutral.

and will decide as and when science and/or philosophy make break-throughs,

Not at all. Of all the people here, I am one of those who are least depending on the "breakthroughs" of science and philosophy.

but in fact you reject it automatically.

In your mind, yeah.

Apparently, you think that rejecting your particular exegesis is tantamount to rejecting scriptures or God.
Sheesh!

There are no grey areas in reality, it just is. We constantly make decisions, we constantly recieve data, and we constantly act upon that, but we're not aware of such constant activity. We only aware of a small amount. We are affected by everything conscious and sub-concsious.

All this are truisms that don't really say anything.

No. It hasn't occured to me simply because such ideas never entered my mind.

That explains a lot then!

I'm not proposing you accept what I say, I'm proposing you accept or deny what the scriptures say after proper contemplation of them, because that's where the answers are.

Right here and now, it is YOU talking, not the scriptures. It is YOU, choosing particular scriptures to focus on, and neglecting others.

Is this one of those 'does my bum look big in this dress'' type of questions?

Are you smoking pot again?

 

[wynn]

Sorry, but I don't claim anywhere near the sort of certainty you do about theological and metaphysical affairs. I will concede, and often do, that I can't be absolutely certain about anything aside from my own existence. You, on the other hand, claim that you are tapped in, via reliable means, to the answers to the mysteries of existence. And you want to try to say that this stance isn't any stronger than the one that simply questions its validity. You want to say that it is impossible to legitimately assail your position without a fundamentally equivalent one. But this is nonsense. That would mean that everyone who wasn't sure if you were full of shit or not, and demanded some sort of additional justification before taking your strong claims seriously, would be making the same sort of strong claim themselves just by doing so.

And you know whose problem is that? Yours.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

Somehow, in the minds of some people, it makes perfect sense that an eternally knowledgeable and blissful entity would choose to fall into illusion ... But it just doesn't add up in my mind.

Because you choose to see this entity as a robot, or some programed thing, instead of an individual, with individual desires.
Understand how it is you or anyone you know could fall from seemingly perfect and ideal situation, then you'll it may just add up. If you insist on setting boundaries i.e. this or that cannot happen, therefore it is out of the question, then it will never add up.

Start simply, then build up.

No, this doesn't follow.
Our real position is something we cannot lose, simply as it is our real position.

What do you think our real position is?

You know jack squat what the epicenter of my inquiry is.

Ooh!! You're so mysterious!

Check if you can walk on water, or lift a mountain on your left little finger. I'm guessing you can do neither.

Way to avoid the question.

Right now you're not accepting it

Says someone who also suggested that the scriptures are talking about the disciplic succession and the importance of having a teacher "for effect."

I don't get how any of this connects. Can you elaborate?

I don't think I am neutral.

That's the impression you give.
So what is your position regarding God, and scripture?

Apparently, you think that rejecting your particular exegesis is tantamount to rejecting scriptures or God.
Sheesh!

I'm not proposing you accept what I say, I'm proposing you accept or deny what the scriptures say after proper contemplation of them, because that's where the answers are.

What part of that quote don't you understand?

I think you've been fishing for my own explanation.

All this are truisms that don't really say anything.

Oh how convenient!
Now you can safely go back to chasing your tail.

Right here and now, it is YOU talking, not the scriptures. It is YOU, choosing particular scriptures to focus on, and neglecting others.

Which particular scripture have ''I'' chosen to focus on?

(bearing in mind The Supreme Personality of Godhead, a term YOU used is found only in vedic literature commentaries)

Are you smoking pot again?

Are you mustering up the courage to socialise with flesh and blood people again?

jan.