|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 5, 2018 11:31:22 GMT
"Nope, on every thought" is not logic or evidence. It is spunk though, congratulations. You (plural) continue to cling to your obviously wrong ideas because the television has never told you that you're wrong or that I'm right. You won't change your mind until the television tells you. When it does, and it will, you will not argue with it because you can't. It's like your "god" (stretching terms) in that way. Strangely in all my posts ( which you answered) I NEVER mentioned television. There is a notable difference between you and other, I mean the, Christian Atheists. It seems that you have suspected it of being at least a bit off track long before I happened along. The degree to which various people depend on the media (I sometimes call it the opinion mill) to form opinions for them varies considerably. You might be able to get along better than others without television.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 5, 2018 11:32:13 GMT
I never said I don't do definitions. I can't guess where you got such an impression. My work on definitions is rather extensive, obvious and disciplined. I am afraid you did and I remember the exchange distinctly. Unfortunately it was a while ago, probably on the old board, so I can't link to the actual passage. But lack of substantiation has never worried you before. You are, of course, quite free to change your mind. Whether or not your consideration of the subject is disciplined or not, I leave to others to decide.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 5, 2018 11:40:55 GMT
I am afraid you did and I remember the exchange distinctly. Well, that proves it then. Or maybe not. Another fascinating point about the syllable aum is that it is the sound children make when they see someone do something wrong.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 5, 2018 11:43:16 GMT
I am afraid you did and I remember the exchange distinctly. Well, that proves it then. Or maybe not. That's the beauty of not having substantiation. But I see you get this now. But of course it ought to be obvious that one who 'argues with dictionaries and wins' has his own idea of definitions.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 5, 2018 11:49:09 GMT
Well, that proves it then. Or maybe not. That's the beauty of not having substantiation. But I see you get this now. But of course it ought to be obvious that one who 'argues with dictionaries and wins' has his own idea of definitions. If you would please, put that memory of yours to work now on my saying this, "My work on definitions is extensive, obvious and disciplined." Disagree with it if you have nothing better to do, but at least remember I said it.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jun 5, 2018 12:00:00 GMT
One poster here recently said that you can see how people "created" the gods step by step in the Mahabharata. So what? Why shouldn't austerity or serenity be god? Is it not true that Hindus in general place a higher value on austerity and or serenity? How do you know austerity and or serenity didn't create anything special before history? I think you are referring to me, Arlon. We have gone through this debate for many years but let me make it clear once again. I didn't mean to claim that there are no gods or no God. I meant to say that by doing a systematic study of Mahabharata you can reasonably see that there are no gods that are claimed in Mahabharata. That is there is no God called Shiva and there is no God called Krishna. The book has been interpolated by various sects and there are lots of rubbish in it. Though it is very exciting stuff. Even more exciting that LOTR and Game of Thrones.
That said you are correct in that many philosophical Hindus (and the Hindu texts such as Upanishads) do say that austerity and peace are the same as god. The Upanishad says that "Shivam Shantam Advaitam."
Shivam shantam advaitam chaturtham manyante, sa atma, sa vigyeyah,
''That reality which is Shivam (Auspicious), infinite silence;
which is Shantam, infinite peace;
which is Advaitam, the undivided, is said to be the fourth.''
It is beyond the three states of consciousness, waking, dreaming and sleeping,' It is the only reality & God.
Now I personally haven't got any problems with such claims. Such a god is just a subjective opinion of the claimer and so it can't be proven false. But that god with form who is called Shiva or that god with form who is called Krishna, who is supposed to be worshipped is definitely false. They were created to control people. Austerity and peace and beauty can of course be claimed to be the same as god.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 5, 2018 12:02:59 GMT
That's the beauty of not having substantiation. But I see you get this now. But of course it ought to be obvious that one who 'argues with dictionaries and wins' has his own idea of definitions. If you would please, put that memory of yours to work now on my saying this, "My work on definitions is extensive, obvious and disciplined." Disagree with it if you have nothing better to do, but at least remember I said it. That still leaves you with the problem of substantiating it. Your recent work on "false gods" (which assumes a "true god(s)) being a case in point. Especially where one cannot show the difference.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 5, 2018 12:10:55 GMT
One poster here recently said that you can see how people "created" the gods step by step in the Mahabharata. So what? Why shouldn't austerity or serenity be god? Is it not true that Hindus in general place a higher value on austerity and or serenity? How do you know austerity and or serenity didn't create anything special before history? I think you are referring to me, Arlon. We have gone through this debate for many years but let me make it clear once again. I didn't mean to claim that there are no gods or no God. I meant to say that by doing a systematic study of Mahabharata you can reasonably see that there are no gods that are claimed in Mahabharata. That is there is no God called Shiva and there is no God called Krishna. The book has been interpolated by various sects and there are lots of rubbish in it. Though it is very exciting stuff. Even more exciting that LOTR and Game of Thrones.
That said you are correct in that many philosophical Hindus (and the Hindu texts such as Upanishads) do say that austerity and peace are the same as god. The Upanishad says that "Shivam Shantam Advaitam."
Shivam shantam advaitam chaturtham manyante, sa atma, sa vigyeyah,
''That reality which is Shivam (Auspicious), infinite silence;
which is Shantam, infinite peace;
which is Advaitam, the undivided, is said to be the fourth.''
It is beyond the three states of consciousness, waking, dreaming and sleeping,' It is the only reality & God.
Now I personally haven't got any problems with such claims. Such a god is just a subjective opinion of the claimer and so it can't be proven false. But that god with form who is called Shiva or that god with form who is called Krishna, who is supposed to be worshipped is definitely false. They were created to control people. Austerity and peace and beauty can of course be claimed to the same as god.
I have taken note of these details and will make every effort to avoid misrepresenting you in the future. And yes, it is all very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 5, 2018 12:17:09 GMT
If you would please, put that memory of yours to work now on my saying this, "My work on definitions is extensive, obvious and disciplined." Disagree with it if you have nothing better to do, but at least remember I said it. That still leaves you with the problem of substantiating it. Your recent work on "false gods" (which assumes a "true god(s)) being a case in point. Especially where one cannot show the difference. I meant to if I didn't, but I'm sure I did put "false" in quotation marks meaning that's what some people call them. How false they actually might be is open to discussion. No I don't have a problem substantiating anything. You might have a problem taking instruction to the point it was intended.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Jun 5, 2018 12:24:07 GMT
Kill your god Kill your god
Kill your TV
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jun 5, 2018 12:26:19 GMT
Kill your god Kill your god Kill your TV This is Black Phillip speaking guys!
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 5, 2018 13:15:24 GMT
I'm sure I did put "false" in quotation marks meaning that's what some people call them. How false they actually might be is open to discussion. It is just as well, otherwise some might see your approach unnecessarily prescriptive - especially when, as I have said, you cannot evidence, or show, the difference between what is true and what is false here. And when anything can be a 'god' ("false" or not) if, as you do, one weakens or works the concept sufficiently to accommodate the claim. But this is where I came in. Excellent. And so your long awaited positive evidence for the deliberate supernatural, apart from personal credulity and the claims of scripture is.... On the contrary, as always, I am all ears...
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jun 5, 2018 14:32:41 GMT
He was decapitated by Muslims. Died in battle against the Ottoman's and was decapitated and cut into little pieces. His head being a trophy. Or so they claim......
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 5, 2018 21:47:37 GMT
The Bible was not written in English originally. Surprised? Some people are. When it was originally written in whatever languages the various parts of it were, those were also human languages though, not the "angelic" ones of glossolalia. Therefore there is an attempt to convey meanings which might have no words at all. This should remind you of the exercise whereby you are asked to describe the color green to a blind person. It should also remind you that interpretation of scriptures is not possible without guidance from the Holy Spirit. Words like "love" and "murder" still appear to have no universal meaning even after years of wrangling. There are a few words that are exceptions. They do have meanings outside themselves. Onomatopoeias, the words that are just imitations of sounds in the world of course mean the sound they make which is inherent in those words. I probably will regret letting this out but some letters like l, n and r have a sound like animals make when they are angry. Of the five letters in my first name are all three of those but not the 'g' of grrrr. The vowels are from the sacred syllable aum (or om). The 's' or hiss sound (some animals make) in my last name has a "stop" in that it is followed by a 't' sound. Right, neither here nor there, so back to what I was saying before. You are talking cryptic, self-absorbed palaver, in an attempt to sound impressive, due to knowledge only, that you have amassed. You are not being cohesive or lucid. There is nothing that resonant in what you are saying, or ever really have, except perhaps the vowel sounds you have just commented on in your name and that is just mundane. Words are an expression, to convey meaning for communication, which are primitive really, but is necessary for banal human interaction. Everything already holds all the meaning it has, as it is. In other words, the meaning is an abstract or subjective and is pointless. So what is it you are really wanting to say, when you can't possibly convey it with a meaning that you claim to be Arlon right? You haven't weighed in on the topic yet. What has supreme importance in your life? If it is your spouse then what is the next most important thing? We already know a spouse is usually near the top if not the top. How important is television to you? How many hours do you spend watching it? How important are the other four "gods" in the OP? Is austerity or serenity a foremost concern? I'm sorry if you find my manner displeasing. My primary concern in life is the truth and digging up hidden necessary truths.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 5, 2018 21:57:42 GMT
What are your superpowers if any?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 5, 2018 22:00:00 GMT
You are talking cryptic, self-absorbed palaver, in an attempt to sound impressive, due to knowledge only, that you have amassed. You are not being cohesive or lucid. There is nothing that resonant in what you are saying, or ever really have, except perhaps the vowel sounds you have just commented on in your name and that is just mundane. Words are an expression, to convey meaning for communication, which are primitive really, but is necessary for banal human interaction. Everything already holds all the meaning it has, as it is. In other words, the meaning is an abstract or subjective and is pointless. So what is it you are really wanting to say, when you can't possibly convey it with a meaning that you claim to be Arlon right? You haven't weighed in on the topic yet. What has supreme importance in your life? If it is your spouse then what is the next most important thing? We already know a spouse is usually near the top if not the top. How important is television to you? How many hours do you spend watching it? How important are the other four "gods" in the OP? Is austerity or serenity a foremost concern? I'm sorry if you find my manner displeasing. My primary concern in life is the truth and digging up hidden necessary truths. How sad that your professed 'truths' are so 'unprovable' 'unprovable [蕦n藞pru藧v蓹b(蓹)l] ADJECTIVE unable to be demonstrated by evidence or argument as true or existing. "the hypothesis is not merely unprovable, but false" synonyms: controversial 路 contentious 路 open to question 路 open to doubt 路 in doubt 路 doubtful 路 dubious 路 uncertain 路 unsure 路 debatable 路 in dispute 路 in question '
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 5, 2018 22:03:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 5, 2018 22:10:03 GMT
Their second album is pretty good too. Haven't listened to Verlaine's solo stuff though.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 5, 2018 22:25:13 GMT
You haven't weighed in on the topic yet. What has supreme importance in your life? If it is your spouse then what is the next most important thing? We already know a spouse is usually near the top if not the top. How important is television to you? How many hours do you spend watching it? How important are the other four "gods" in the OP? Is austerity or serenity a foremost concern? I'm sorry if you find my manner displeasing. My primary concern in life is the truth and digging up hidden necessary truths. How sad that your professed 'truths' are so 'unprovable' 'unprovable [蕦n藞pru藧v蓹b(蓹)l] ADJECTIVE unable to be demonstrated by evidence or argument as true or existing. "the hypothesis is not merely unprovable, but false" synonyms: controversial 路 contentious 路 open to question 路 open to doubt 路 in doubt 路 doubtful 路 dubious 路 uncertain 路 unsure 路 debatable 路 in dispute 路 in question ' The necessity of an agency not found in nature to assemble the first life on Earth has been proved with as much or more certainty as any proof, positive or negative, including gravity. Your childish refusal to accept the truth by making up silly rules of debate that I was never taught in excellent schools of debate and that make no sense as rules at all is pathetic. Your attempts to use the majority of this board as any authority on anything is sad and resulting in its continuing decline. While there are quite many things I can prove, there are quite many things that must remain open. Tragically you are not able to tell the difference.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 5, 2018 23:27:30 GMT
How sad that your professed 'truths' are so 'unprovable' 'unprovable [蕦n藞pru藧v蓹b(蓹)l] ADJECTIVE unable to be demonstrated by evidence or argument as true or existing. "the hypothesis is not merely unprovable, but false" synonyms: controversial 路 contentious 路 open to question 路 open to doubt 路 in doubt 路 doubtful 路 dubious 路 uncertain 路 unsure 路 debatable 路 in dispute 路 in question ' The necessity of an agency not found in nature to assemble the first life on Earth has been proved with as much or more certainty as any proof, positive or negative, including gravity. Your childish refusal to accept the truth by making up silly rules of debate that I was never taught in excellent schools of debate and that make no sense as rules at all is pathetic. Your attempts to use the majority of this board as any authority on anything is sad and resulting in its continuing decline. While there are quite many things I can prove, there are quite many things that must remain open. Tragically you are not able to tell the difference. If you are referring to god or a supernatural power, no it hasn't.
|
|