Who is qualified.

Did you know that 99.999% of people are not qualified to discuss the subject of God and religion.

This is not a put down but the actual fact.

If someone stopped me and asked me about contract law I would say I have no clue about this and tell them to ask someone else.

Others would go on line and in 5 minutes become experts in contract law and then would become involved in lengthy discussion with forthcoming arguments and advice.

God and religion can only truly be discussed by qualified persons.

Who is then qualified?

Persons trained in true spirituality, and true spirituality is presented in Vedic teachings which are the authority and there is no other authority.

Persons who want to enquire of these teachings must be submissive and enquire with sincere intent and not have a challenging attitude.

Challenging attitude is destructive and can only inhibit understanding so the enquiry must be submissive.

Questions will arise and these will be dealt with and this is how spiritual knowledge is received........through submissive hearing.

Persons who say there is no God are full of advice and opinions but they are not qualified to give opinions for they have disqualified themselves through ignorance.

At school, college and university submissive enquiry is the process and no one challenges the teacher but make polite enquiry.

Persons who are involved with false religion must also adopt this process but they are most often the worst offenders when it comes to submissive enquiry because they have years of false indoctrination to be dealt with.

A story about this.....

A person went to the music teacher for lessons and asked how much are the lessons and the teacher said if you already know music to some degree then $20 per hour and if you know nothing about music then $10 per hour.....Why said the student? Because I will have to deal with all the bad habits you have already acquired and un-teach you first before I can proceed with the lessons.

Persons who claim there is no God are disqualified from discussing God and true spirituality because they have had no true spiritual training and are opinionated in every respect.......they reject true authority, they reject obvious anthropic evidence, they reject common sense, they reject rational and logical discussion, they have the wrong attitude, they do not want God to exist even if God appeared before them, they are devoid of knowledge, they constantly speculate and fabricate, they accept blindly atheistic arguments, they are dishonest, they reject rational and logical conclusions, ..........they are clearly unqualified at every level to discuss God and spirituality.

These persons must become submissive with their spiritual enquiry to be able to raise their awareness of spirituality.

Persons teaching false religion (Islam Christianity and Judaism) are the most difficult to deal with for they have indoctrinated themselves for years with falsity and they are the most opinionated and the most unqualified for they are truly convinced of their falsity and have to become untaught of their indoctrination.......which they stubbornly resist.

Originally posted by Dasa
Did you know that 99.999% of people are not qualified to discuss the subject of God and religion.

This is not a put down but the actual fact.

If someone stopped me and asked me about contract law I would say I have no clue about this and tell them to ask someone else.

Others would go on line and in 5 minutes become experts in contract law and then woul ...[text shortened]... falsity and have to become untaught of their indoctrination.......which they stubbornly resist.

Actually that number is exactly 100%.

Under dasa's description I am amazed that even 69,800 people on the earth are qualified to discuss religion....

I would like to see the evidentiary claim that there are 69,800 +/- 100 people who agree with dasa, no more
or less, to satisfy the 'fact' that 99.999% of people are not 'qualified' to talk about god...

Of course by the same reasoning dasa and those other 69,800 people are completely unqualified to talk about
science, as they don't understand anything about it, and thus should definitely keep their traps shut about it....

Fortunately for dasa science welcomes discussion and debate, pity he doesn't.


@dasa

If I wanted to discuss the details and meanings of the specifics of your (or anyone else's) faith, then I would have
to learn the details of that faith. I would need to study it to be able to talk about it in detail.

However I don't need to do this to talk about the conflict between faith based beliefs and evidence based knowledge.
I don't have to study a religion in detail to be able to discuss whether a particular stated position of that religion
is valid or not, as I can test it against reality.

For example, I have not, and don't intend to read the bible through cover to cover (although I have read the odd bit).
People may(will) ask how I can claim to dismiss the religion without reading its holy book?

To which I answer that I need proof and evidence to believe in something. And you certainly (by definition) need
proof and evidence to know something, for it to be a fact.
And I want knowledge, not faith, facts not belief.
And the bible can never provide that, it is just a book.
It doesn't matter what it says in there, there is no reason for me to trust its veracity. (and no claiming the bible is evidence
of its own truth doesn't work its a circular argument. You say but it's the word of god, and I say how do you know that, and you
say because it says so, or I just know.... At which point I say circular argument, ad hominem, no evidence, bad argument.)

Now if you could prove the existence of the god of the bible (which would take extraordinary proof as he is an extraordinary
being) then I might have a reason to read the bible (or your holy texts if its your god that shows up).
Till that time its just a book of fairy tales written by people who were self evidently wrong about a great many things.



You seem to be a great believer in authority, You seem to think that knowledge has to come from authority, and that science's
rejection of authority as a source of knowledge is bad.

I couldn't disagree more.

I believe in love, empathy, compassion, fairness, freedom, democracy, rationality, reason, logic, and the scientific method.
Combined with an open mind and evidence drawn from careful observation of the world around us.

This is the position with the least possible amount of initial bias, and that bias itself can be noted, quantified and tested.

Authority I have very little time for, it is generally rightly associated with bias, repression, control, and most of the darkest
patches of our species history.

You can keep it.

Originally posted by Dasa
Did you know that 99.999% of people are not qualified to discuss the subject of God and religion.

This is not a put down but the actual fact.

If someone stopped me and asked me about contract law I would say I have no clue about this and tell them to ask someone else.

Others would go on line and in 5 minutes become experts in contract law and then woul ...[text shortened]... falsity and have to become untaught of their indoctrination.......which they stubbornly resist.

I just spent 5 minutes reading the Vedas online - now that I'm an expert I've come to realize that this is dishonest and Christianity is honest. Great. I rest my case 😉

Originally posted by Dasa
Did you know that 99.999% of people are not qualified to discuss the subject of God and religion.

This is not a put down but the actual fact.

If someone stopped me and asked me about contract law I would say I have no clue about this and tell them to ask someone else.

Others would go on line and in 5 minutes become experts in contract law and then woul ...[text shortened]... falsity and have to become untaught of their indoctrination.......which they stubbornly resist.

Jesus the Christ has been given all authority in heaven and on earth.
(Matthew 28:18)

Originally posted by googlefudge
Under dasa's description I am amazed that even 69,800 people on the earth are qualified to discuss religion....

I would like to see the evidentiary claim that there are 69,800 +/- 100 people who agree with dasa, no more
or less, to satisfy the 'fact' that 99.999% of people are not 'qualified' to talk about god...

Of course by the same reasoning da ol, and most of the darkest
patches of our species history.

You can keep it.

You talk of fact but you have no fact when defending false science.

You say life comes from non life this is not fact.

You say there is no God but this is not fact.... only ignorant belief.

You say that the complex cosmos with conscious life came from an explosion but this is not fact.

You have no facts but claim there is no God.

This is dishonest and drives home the truth of what I have just presented .......saying persons are not qualified to discuss this.

You have just proven this.

Where is the experiment that shows complex functional useful things coming about by an explosion.

Where have you seen life coming about from a dead stone.

Life comes from life.

Chaos comes from an explosion

And when you want to complain about religion don't keep referring to the Bible because its not the authority and its just as false as the false science that you are defending.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Jesus the Christ has been given all authority in heaven and on earth.
(Matthew 28:18)

The animal slaughtering doctrine of Christianity is not bonafide.

You must be honest to understand this.

Originally posted by Dasa
Did you know that 99.999% of people are not qualified to discuss the subject of God and religion.

This is not a put down but the actual fact.

If someone stopped me and asked me about contract law I would say I have no clue about this and tell them to ask someone else.

Others would go on line and in 5 minutes become experts in contract law and then woul ...[text shortened]... falsity and have to become untaught of their indoctrination.......which they stubbornly resist.

At school, college and university submissive enquiry is the process and no one challenges the teacher but make polite enquiry.

It is important to avoid being that kind of student, but also important to avoid being that kind of teacher. On this forum, there is no penalty for poor behavior on either side, but the teacher can fail to teach what he intended, and instead teach its opposite.

Originally posted by JS357

At school, college and university submissive enquiry is the process and no one challenges the teacher but make polite enquiry.

It is important to avoid being that kind of student, but also important to avoid being that kind of teacher. On this forum, there is no penalty for poor behavior on either side, but the teacher can fail to teach what he intended, and instead teach its opposite.

You would have to have an very extraordinary situation for a teacher not to teach what he intended to teach. (with regards to the education system)

Originally posted by Dasa
The animal slaughtering doctrine of Christianity is not bonafide.

You must be honest to understand this.

I have never heard of the animal slaughtering doctrine of Christianity.

http://www.frontline.org.za/articles/animals.htm

Originally posted by Dasa
You would have to have an very extraordinary situation for a teacher not to teach what he intended to teach. (with regards to the education system)

Not at all. Students interfere actively with the teaching process.

Originally posted by Dasa
You talk of fact but you have no fact when defending false science.

You say life comes from non life this is not fact.

You say there is no God but this is not fact.... only ignorant belief.

You say that the complex cosmos with conscious life came from an explosion but this is not fact.

You have no facts but claim there is no God.

This is dishones ...[text shortened]... ecause its not the authority and its just as false as the false science that you are defending.

"You talk of fact but you have no fact when defending false science."

I have plenty of facts, actually science and the scientific method, is pretty much the only game in town when it comes
to generating and verifying facts.


"You say life comes from non life this is not fact."

There is a lot of evidence to suggest life can and did emerge from non-life.
Its complicated as to how (as you would expect).


"You say there is no God but this is not fact.... only ignorant belief."

I do not claim god non existence as a fact. I stated I didn't believe that god existed not that I knew god
didn't exist. I hold that this is the only logical position to hold in the absence of evidence to the contrary
but I don't Know there is no god.


"You say that the complex cosmos with conscious life came from an explosion but this is not fact."

The hypothesised big bang did not produce life, it produced energy and matter operating under the laws of physics.
This matter and energy interacted using these simple laws to produce complex results.
These results eventually included the formation of life.
There is an awful lot of evidence to back this view up, it is a subject I am 'qualified' to talk about, and I am more than
happy to explain it to you if you are prepared to come with an open mind and not wrongly call me dishonest every 3 lines.


"You have no facts but claim there is no God."

I have lots of facts, however I claim there is no god because there is no evidence FOR god.
This is true independent of my knowledge of anything else.


"This is dishonest and drives home the truth of what I have just presented .......saying persons are not qualified to discuss this.

You have just proven this."

Again you fail to understand the meaning of the word you love so much, dishonest.
I hold my position is self consistent, backed up with evidence, and is what I believe to be true. (although I admit the possibility
I could be wrong and would be interested in any evidence that shows my position to be wrong)
Thus under the definition of the word I am not being dishonest.
If you mean something other than what the word means in the dictionary then use other words.
If you do mean what it says in the dictionary then you are simply wrong.

And claiming you have to be 'qualified' in 'your' faith to be able to discuss it is just plain arrogant (given the vast number of faiths)
and wrong.

"Where is the experiment that shows complex functional useful things coming about by an explosion."

Explosions can cause interesting chemistry to occur depending on their environment and source.
And some of the more exciting elements above uranium on the periodic table were made and detected in nuclear blasts.
Helium can be made from hydrogen in a nuclear explosion.
But you are making a straw man, the big bang is not a conventional explosion, and most of the 'complexity' you see around you
was made after the big bang by the remnants interacting as they cooled and coalesced under the laws of physics.


"Where have you seen life coming about from a dead stone."

I have never seen life coming from a dead stone and no-one claims it did, you are again making a straw-man argument.

"Life comes from life."

Life does tend to produce more life... this does not preclude life forming from 'non-life' as you put it.

"Chaos comes from an explosion"

Chaos in science doesn't mean what you think it means. Chaos theory is intimately involved with how simple rules/laws
can create immensely complex and unpredictable results.

"And when you want to complain about religion don't keep referring to the Bible because its not the authority and its just as false
as the false science that you are defending."

Most theists here seem to be Christian, and the bible is probably the most well known religious text.
I did however say 'for example' when talking about the bible, and it is clear that the same would and does
apply to any and all other religious texts.


in your OP you say

" Persons who claim there is no God are disqualified from discussing God and true spirituality because they have had no true spiritual training and are opinionated in every respect.......they reject true authority, they reject obvious anthropic evidence, they reject common sense, they reject rational and logical discussion, they have the wrong attitude, they do not want God to exist even if God appeared before them, they are devoid of knowledge, they constantly speculate and fabricate, they accept blindly atheistic arguments, they are dishonest, they reject rational and logical conclusions, ..........they are clearly unqualified at every level to discuss God and spirituality. "

I appreciate that you evidently don't like and are greatly frustrated by atheists who have 'the wrong attitude' and all the other faults
you sweepingly ascribe to a huge and varied group of people whose one common distinguishing feature is to not believe in theism.
However to say you can only debate this idea unless you already agree with me is to misunderstand the point of debate.
If everyone already agreed with you there would be nothing to debate.

And you are misusing words again.

Knowledge, requires a lot of things but one of them is evidence, proof.
The ONLY way to knowledge is by scientific enquiry, of one sort or another.
If you are claiming something as part of your faith, if you don't have proof of it, Then you Believe something is true, you don't know it.
By definition.

Thus scientists and science has a lot of knowledge, and as atheists tend towards higher than average scientific literacy, we can't be
said to be devoid of knowledge.
Devoid of faith, probably, knowledge, we have lots of.

Your list of faults for atheists, is not only not true, its a pretty reasonable assessment of your own faults.


If you want to continue bashing science and atheism (not the same thing, many(most) atheists are not scientists, some scientists are not atheists.
And even if it were not true, they still wouldn't be the same thing) then I would recommend you learn something about them.
Just as I aught to go read the bible carefully if I wanted to use quotes from it to support my arguments, you need to actually understand
what it is science or atheists actually claim/believe before you criticise things that are not true.
For starters you should learn something about organic chemistry, cosmology, chaos theory, fractals, the scientific method, evolution, and maths.

I would be happy to help if need any with that.

Originally posted by Dasa
You would have to have an very extraordinary situation for a teacher not to teach what he intended to teach. (with regards to the education system)

Many teachers, authorized by the system or not, think that way.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have never heard of the animal slaughtering doctrine of Christianity.

http://www.frontline.org.za/articles/animals.htm

Some verses concerning what God has given for man to eat as food.
Man was to eat fruit and vegetables in the beginning:

God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male
and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be
fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of
the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on
the earth.” Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed
that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding
seed; it shall be food for you (Genesis 1:27-29)

But after the flood God also allowed man to eat animal flesh.

And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply,
and fill the earth. The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast
of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the
ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given. Every
moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the
green plant. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
(Genesis 9:1-4)

Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing
judgment on his opinions. One person has faith that he may eat all things, but
he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with
contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to
judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge the
servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for
the Lord is able to make him stand. (Romans 14:1-4)

Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are
clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. It is good not
to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother
stumbles. The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God.
Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who
doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and
whatever is not from faith is sin. (Romans 14:20-23)

Originally posted by RJHinds
Jesus the Christ has been given all authority in heaven and on earth.
(Matthew 28:18)

Then why are Muslims killing Christians?