Dear Atheists...

[Davian]

But the Truth IS free. That's why it's called The Present.

No, I was referring to your complaints of your assertions not being given the benefit of the doubt.

I see no reason they should be given that benefit. You will need to demonstrate the validity of your ideas.

This is the philosophy forum. Do some philosophy.

Gods are in the air you breathe, the water you drink, the food you eat. How about we begin there?

As I mentioned earlier, I lean towards an ignostic position on the word "gods".

We already have words for atoms and molecules.

What are you talking about?

 

[WonderBeat]

Naked assertion.

The idea that the world isn't merely a mind-created product, is also a naked assertion. We have different axioms, let's start from there.

How do you determine that this thing you are 'realizing' is God?

Because the experience is self-authenticating but more than that. Scriptures, authorities, the association of saintly persons. All these factors weigh in on the experience and augment it with greater power and invest it with greater degrees of veracity.

How is it distinguishable from your imagination?

Because the feeling of God vibrating in one's heart is qualitatively different than mind-fabricated ideas of God. God is the source of all reality, there can be no untruth in Him. Therefore, I must be feeling God when I chant because the experience of God overrides any sense of falsehood in me.

How is it distinguishable from something you've intentionally fabricated?

Because I am not capable of fabricating something so qualitatively truth-like as Krsna. He is the ultimate archetype, the ultimate player in this world. There can be no other than He.

Naked assertion.

Again, anything can be a naked assertion. Except us having this experience, presumably.

How do you determine that these are 'authoritative sources'?

Because they explain in detail my experience of reality. How do you determine that the information supplied by your senses is authoritative?

How do you determine God is something one can be an authority on in the first place?

Because God has all Power, all Strength, all Knowledge, Beauty, Fame and Renunciation. He is Qualified.

 

[WonderBeat]

I have decided that in order to prove my seriousness on these forums I will act just like a skeptic. This will be to prove that I am no fool.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Because the feeling of God vibrating in one's heart is qualitatively different than mind-fabricated ideas of God. God is the source of all reality, there can be no untruth in Him. Therefore, I must be feeling God when I chant because the experience of God overrides any sense of falsehood in me.

You are begging the question. You are presupposing that "there can be no untruth" in God, and therefore when you think you feel God there can be no untruth in what you experience.

I don't doubt that you experience some sort of feeling that you associate with God. But you cannot conclude what you say above simply based on a feeling. What you know is that you have a feeling, not some belief that can't be mistaken.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[WonderBeat]

You are begging the question. You are presupposing that "there can be no untruth" in God, and therefore when you think you feel God there can be no untruth in what you experience.

I don't doubt that you experience some sort of feeling that you associate with God. But you cannot conclude what you say above simply based on a feeling. What you know is that you have a feeling, not some belief that can't be mistaken.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Speaking as a skeptic:

You are right in some definite sense. We do not know what feelings are that emerge from religious rights. In that sense I am going to do my best preserve a psychological space of uncertainty. This is so that I do not end up using my beliefs as a crutch, due to being alienated from experience which is NOW.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You are right in some definite sense. We do not know what feelings are that emerge from religious rights. In that sense I am going to do my best preserve a psychological space of uncertainty. This is so that I do not end up using my beliefs as a crutch, due to being alienated from experience which is NOW.

I have no objection to you being aware of your existence in the present moment. The experience of Flow can be rewarding.

My personal view is that we should be in the past, present, and future as moderated by wisdom. In other words, memory, experience, and anticipation each have their proper uses, and their misuses. It's possible that for cultural reasons moderns spend too much time in the past and future, or rather they do so for the wrong reasons (past: guilt, future: worry), and so spending more time in the present may be a useful spiritual exercise to help bring balance.

It's likely that we should be in the present for the majority of the time, but that's dependent on circumstance. Sometimes we need to plan for the future or to check up on our progress towards our goals, and thus may mentally spend some time in the future, and sometimes it's good to fondly remember good aspects of one's past or to constructively learn from the past to act more wisely in the present, and so we may spend time reflecting on what has been.

These insights are part of my personal (non-theistic) spiritual path.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

The idea that the world isn't merely a mind-created product, is also a naked assertion. We have different axioms, let's start from there.

Because the experience is self-authenticating but more than that. Scriptures, authorities, the association of saintly persons. All these factors weigh in on the experience and augment it with greater power and invest it with greater degrees of veracity.

Because the feeling of God vibrating in one's heart is qualitatively different than mind-fabricated ideas of God. God is the source of all reality, there can be no untruth in Him. Therefore, I must be feeling God when I chant because the experience of God overrides any sense of falsehood in me.

Because I am not capable of fabricating something so qualitatively truth-like as Krsna. He is the ultimate archetype, the ultimate player in this world. There can be no other than He.

Again, anything can be a naked assertion. Except us having this experience, presumably.

Because they explain in detail my experience of reality. How do you determine that the information supplied by your senses is authoritative?

Because God has all Power, all Strength, all Knowledge, Beauty, Fame and Renunciation. He is Qualified.

You don't remedy a naked assertion by piling more naked assertions on top of it. That's literally all you've done here. There is nothing here that is distinguishable from make believe, delusion or lies. You are in the exact same position you were before.

Try again, please.

 

[WonderBeat]

You don't remedy a naked assertion by piling more naked assertions on top of it.

Actually you can. By making the original naked assertion appear more proven in light of other assertions, you can make connections in such a way that extend outwards in a cohesive theory of reality. I may not be an evidentialist, but I am a foundationalist. I start out with certain pronouncements. "God is known via the Maha-Mantra" and use other assertions to back up why this is the case. As I get further and further out in my web-work of assertions I touch upon those assertions which appeal most to our common-sense everyday experience of life. And that way I make it presentable for the average person to accept in a basic sense. And, viola, I have made my case inasmuch as anyone can make their case for other minds existing!

 

[Eudaimonist]

Actually you can. By making the original naked assertion appear more proven in light of other assertions, you can make connections in such a way that extend outwards in a cohesive theory of reality. I may not be an evidentialist, but I am a foundationalist. I start out with certain pronouncements. "God is known via the Maha-Mantra" and use other assertions to back up why this is the case.

Just so that we can see that you aren't presenting a cohesive theory of fantasy, perhaps you should focus on why we should accept those assertions you mention.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Actually you can. By making the original naked assertion appear more proven in light of other assertions, you can make connections in such a way that extend outwards in a cohesive theory of reality. I may not be an evidentialist, but I am a foundationalist. I start out with certain pronouncements. "God is known via the Maha-Mantra" and use other assertions to back up why this is the case. As I get further and further out in my web-work of assertions I touch upon those assertions which appeal most to our common-sense everyday experience of life. And that way I make it presentable for the average person to accept in a basic sense. And, viola, I have made my case inasmuch as anyone can make their case for other minds existing!

No you can't.

See? I can make naked assertions too!

You should believe me because I'm right.

See? I can pile assertions on top of each other too!

 

[WonderBeat]

Just so that we can see that you aren't presenting a cohesive theory of fantasy, perhaps you should focus on why we should accept those assertions you mention.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Alright. Well let's say that I want to convince you that we are living in an age of deception: the Kali Yuga. Could I not point to all the deceit, hypocrisy, fear and bad things and say that that is evidence for us living in this age?

 

[WonderBeat]

No you can't.

See? I can make naked assertions too!

You should believe me because I'm right.

See? I can pile assertions on top of each other too!

Yeah, but those assertions are boring and do not say much. Since they are not compelling, I am not inclined to accept them.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Alright. Well let's say that I want to convince you that we are living in an age of deception: the Kali Yuga. Could I not point to all the deceit, hypocrisy, fear and bad things and say that that is evidence for us living in this age?

No, because deceit, hypocrisy, fear, and bad things do not lead unambiguously to your conclusion. They can exist perfectly well without some "age of deception".

Someone had asked J.R.R. Tolkien once which age of Middle-earth we would be living in now. He said we would be living in the Seventh Age. He was just speaking as an author, but you sound like you are presenting a similar view -- one of fantasy mythology.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[WonderBeat]

No, because deceit, hypocrisy, fear, and bad things do not lead unambiguously to your conclusion. They can exist perfectly well without some "age of deception".

It is true that my evidence adduced is not evidence as you would have it - in that it leads ineluctably to a conclusion as warranted by said evidence. But so what? I have a different criterion of what should count for evidence. Why assume your criterion?

Someone had asked J.R.R. Tolkien once which age of Middle-earth we would be living in now. He said we would be living in the Seventh Age. He was just speaking as an author, but you sound like you are presenting a similar view -- one of fantasy mythology.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You assume it is fantasy mythology but actually I don't think it is. We are living 5,000 years into the age of Kali. And there are 427,000 more years to go during which it's going to get a whole lot worse.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Yeah, but those assertions are boring and do not say much. Since they are not compelling, I am not inclined to accept them.

Your assertions are boring and do not say much either. Since they are not compelling, I am not inclined to accept them.

 

[WonderBeat]

Your assertions are boring and do not say much either. Since they are not compelling, I am not inclined to accept them.

You do not find it compelling that we are living in age of fear, hypocrisy and deceit compelling?!?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

You do not find it compelling that we are living in age of fear, hypocrisy and deceit compelling?!?

Your sentence doesn't make sense. Do you mind cleaning it up so that it does?

 

[WonderBeat]

Your sentence doesn't make sense. Do you mind cleaning it up so that it does?

Sorry, I'm a bit distracted at the moment.

Ahem,

You do not find it compelling that we are living in an age of fear, deceit and hypocrisy?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Sorry, I'm a bit distracted at the moment.

Ahem,

You do not find it compelling that we are living in an age of fear, deceit and hypocrisy?

No.

 

[WonderBeat]

No.

Then I say there is something wrong with you.