Bhagavad gita

Originally posted by Dasa
I have experienced that FMF enjoys manipulating my comments twisting them around to mean other that I have intended - and this always follows his baiting style of questioning which are questions only asked so he can set himself up only to begin his manipulative attacking.
His disingenuous manner is only time wasting for me.

Whilst FMF can be challenging, he is generally insightful and quite dry witted; I've never known him to be disingenuous as you claim.

You on the other hand dasa, are profoundly boring, predictable and an embarrassment to whatever ridiculous religion it is you claim to be a disciple of. Perhaps your time as the imperious demoniacal troll is drawing to an end...

Originally posted by Dasa
When you can accept basic common sense truth I will discuss with you.

But while you play games and reject basic common sense truths then I will not.

I have already posted up information about the descending method of learning which is submissive to authority.

I have given examples of how we all submit to authority to learn everything we all know and th ...[text shortened]... al authority whimsically ( because you have a personal vendetta against Dasa) is not acceptable.

Dasa, Should we think that you are only holding back because of FMF's behavior; and you would be forthcoming with good advice and guidance in these specific areas, otherwise?

Originally posted by Dasa
error in transmission

Thank goodness twhitehead isn't on this thread.

Originally posted by bbarr
Come on, Dasa. I have faith that, if you put your mind to it, you can construct an actual argument. You know, a set of propositions, none of which beg the question at issue, which, taken together, support a conclusion. The conclusion you want is that accepting some form of spiritual authority is common sensical. Now you just need to provide an argum ...[text shortened]... if you take a moment, curb your impulse to simply regurgitate Vedic passages, and think.

Do you know why we have this thing called intellectualism?

Because you cannot present falsity in plain common English because it would shoot itself in the foot every time.

When someone is overly intellectual - what are they trying to say?

They are trying to convince you of their falsity in so many words.

I become a little sad when I see gifted intelligent persons like yourself use that gift to peruse worthless meaningless temporary goals.

Like everything mathematics is a gift from God. (use wisely)

I can see you are good at chess.

Your beloved game of chess among other things is coming from the Vedas

Chess is an eternal game enjoyed by the denizens of the heavenly planets.

Originally posted by Dasa
Do you know why we have this thing called intellectualism?

Because you cannot present falsity in plain common English because it would shoot itself in the foot every time.

When someone is overly intellectual - what are they trying to say?

They are trying to convince you of their falsity in so many words.

I become a little sad when I see gifted intel ...[text shortened]... ming from the Vedas

Chess is an eternal game enjoyed by the denizens of the heavenly planets.

Stop taking whatever drugs/medications you are on as they have done a lot of damage to your brain.

Originally posted by Dasa
Do you know why we have this thing called intellectualism?

Because you cannot present falsity in plain common English because it would shoot itself in the foot every time.

When someone is overly intellectual - what are they trying to say?

They are trying to convince you of their falsity in so many words.

I become a little sad when I see gifted intel ...[text shortened]... ming from the Vedas

Chess is an eternal game enjoyed by the denizens of the heavenly planets.

Dasa, that's not a very promising start. Although your concern for me is appreciated, I'm really interested in the arguments you have (you do have them, don't you?) for the claim that accepting spiritual authority is common sensical. Please, just present them. I am asking you, very clearly, to present reasons that justify this claim. This is your opportunity to articulate the best evidence you have for this claim. I eagerly await your response.

Originally posted by bbarr
Dasa, that's not a very promising start. Although your concern for me is appreciated, I'm really interested in the arguments you have (you do have them, don't you?) for the claim that accepting spiritual authority is common sensical. Please, just present them. I am asking you, very clearly, to present reasons that justify this claim. This is your op ...[text shortened]... nity to articulate the best evidence you have for this claim. I eagerly await your response.

Its very simple and I do not know why you do not know the reason yourself.

I shall tell you anyway - believing that you do not know.

Ask 100 people what is the purpose of this thing we call life and you would probably get 100 different answers.

So finding the truth of what this thing called life is - is not about going to each person and asking their opinion but going to the authority.

So it is then concluded that it is common sense to approach authority.....is it not.

Originally posted by Dasa
Its very simple and I do not know why you do not know the reason yourself.

I shall tell you anyway - believing that you do not know.

Ask 100 people what is the purpose of this thing we call life and you would probably get 100 different answers.

So finding the truth of what this thing called life is - is not about going to each person and asking their o ...[text shortened]... thority.

So it is then concluded that it is common sense to approach authority.....is it not.

and upon what data, demonstrated with sufficient rigour to be both reliable and valid, does one conclude that authority_{Dasa} always has more merit than authority_{Someone else}?

Indeed what if someone else tells me *their* authority should be trusted above all others?
To put it another way, by what authority do we ascertain that the "authority" you mention really is what you say it is?

Originally posted by Dasa
Its very simple and I do not know why you do not know the reason yourself.

I shall tell you anyway - believing that you do not know.

Ask 100 people what is the purpose of this thing we call life and you would probably get 100 different answers.

So finding the truth of what this thing called life is - is not about going to each person and asking their o ...[text shortened]... thority.

So it is then concluded that it is common sense to approach authority.....is it not.

And that authority for man is the Son of God, Jesus the Christ.

Originally posted by RJHinds
And that authority for man is the Son of God, Jesus the Christ.

And to put to you what was so elegantly put by Agerg....

and upon what data, demonstrated with sufficient rigour to be both reliable and valid, does one conclude that authority_{Jesus/RJHinds} always has more merit than authority_{Someone else}?

Indeed what if someone else tells me *their* authority should be trusted above all others?
To put it another way, by what authority do we ascertain that the "authority" you mention really is what you say it is?

EDIT: Argument from authority always comes down to what makes your authority better than anyone else's.
Unless you argue from might is right, the argument is always circular, your authority is best because your authority
says so.
The only way out of the circular argument is to use logic, reason, and evidence to justify the positions of your authority.
In which case, why not ditch the authority altogether, and simply justify all your positions with logic, reason,
and evidence.

THIS is why most people who are atheists are atheists. which is why there were atheists well before evolution was
discovered. The proof of the effectiveness of the pinnacle of logic and reason, the scientific method, and its increased
presence in education, just means more people are taught how to reason properly and learn the value of
scientific scepticism, And thus apply its values and principles to their lives.

Originally posted by Agerg
and upon what data, demonstrated with sufficient rigour to be both reliable and valid, does one conclude that [b]authority_{Dasa} always has more merit than authority_{Someone else}?

Indeed what if someone else tells me *their* authority should be trusted above all others?
To put it another way, by what authority do we ascertain that the "authority" you mention really is what you say it is?[/b]

If a person is faced with the decision of choosing between which authority is the true authority then honesty must be embraced.

Because when one proclaimed authority is saying kill, kill, kill and the other authority is calling to us to respect all of life and not kill - then the honest hearts shall choose wisely.

Originally posted by Dasa
If you say that the Vedic teachings are not the authority - then you must tell me what teachings are the authority as regards to true religion.

You feel you must tell people what teachings are the "authority" as regards to "true religion" because you are a religionist. But I am not a religionist, Dasa. I have never claimed to be an "authority", I have never claimed to speak on behalf, or with the backing, of an "authority", and I do not submit to the "authority" you happen to subscribe to. There is no spiritual onus on me to act like a religionist that your "you must tell me" demand suggests there is.

Originally posted by Dasa
Its very simple and I do not know why you do not know the reason yourself.

I shall tell you anyway - believing that you do not know.

Ask 100 people what is the purpose of this thing we call life and you would probably get 100 different answers.

So finding the truth of what this thing called life is - is not about going to each person and asking their o ...[text shortened]... thority.

So it is then concluded that it is common sense to approach authority.....is it not.

That's a fabulous argument.

In yo' face, bbarr!

Originally posted by LemonJello
That's a fabulous argument.

In yo' face, bbarr!

Actually its a terrible argument (not sure if you were being sarcastic, but if not)

The sensible approach is NOT to ask authority, it is to perform experiments and
to use reason to determine which, if any of the views expressed by the 100 people
is valid. Or, if on a sliding scale, which are more valid than others.

The experiments and reason test the views by there relationship to reality, and or
there effectiveness ect.
Thus you reach, or approach, objective truth. That which can be Proved to be right.

No authority involved.

Originally posted by Dasa
Its very simple and I do not know why you do not know the reason yourself.

I shall tell you anyway - believing that you do not know.

Ask 100 people what is the purpose of this thing we call life and you would probably get 100 different answers.

So finding the truth of what this thing called life is - is not about going to each person and asking their o ...[text shortened]... thority.

So it is then concluded that it is common sense to approach authority.....is it not.

Could you provide an issue or question about which those 100 people would approach an authority for the kind of guidance you are talking about? Then we can explore how the various people who have problems with your approach, would themselves deal with the issue or question.

I ask this because I believe we as humans do establish authoritative (trustworthy) sources for guidance. I am sure that this is not a controversial idea. But, what sort of questions are we talking about here, which make it controversial to suggest this?

For example, I consult a NOAA site to see what the weather will be at the place we go for a jazz concert. It is common sense to consult authorities.