My Beliefs- GDR

I use the term believe to differentiate from what we know.I don’t know how to put a name to any method of knowledge acquisition that I have used, but I did lay out my rationale for why I believe what I believe in the OP and have expanded on that in subsequent posts. I don’t know why you would say this as when I said
There is no objective knowledge it was obviously in reply to a specific question about the Golden Rule and not meant in a general sense. Which then could be either the result of purely mindless natural evolution, or be the result of an intelligent agency. Again, I don’t know but my IMHO my views make sense of the world that I observe in general and they make sense of my own life as I experience it and, as I said, I have already thoroughly gone through the rationale for why I believe what I believe.Why do you believe that any of us as collections of mindless particles from a mindless origin can come to reliable conclusions? Fine, but that does not answer the question of origins for that natural evolution, nor does it eliminate the possibility of additional influence by the intelligent agency that is responsible for the natural process in the first place. I am not looking for what is unassailable. There are things that I objectively know such as the fact that I know that human life exists with intelligence and a sense of morality. That is evidenced. What is un-evidenced is the question of whether or not we are the result of an intelligent agency. We can only come to subjective conclusions in answer to that.My beliefs are fluid. I have changed my beliefs on new information or with new understandings. It isn’t to make it unassailable.I have no doubt that much of what I believe is wrong and that in many cases over the remainder of my life span my beliefs will change again with new insights or information.

Are you honestly suggesting that the bible is explaining the concept of addiction and how its component aspects manifest in our brain by citing that passage in Romans?Romans 7:15 is making reference to original sin, which is the primary component of Christian doctrine. It is not calling out specific behavior and suggesting a biological component. It is making reference to the inherent sinful nature of man. It is essentially a pre-amble to describe the situation before the actions of Christ. You can see this as an obvious preamble by reading further into Romans:

quote:

---

Romans 8:1-4
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus HAS MADE ME FREE FROM THE LAW OF SIN AND DEATH. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

---

By in large I have no idea, but if you want an opinion it is likely without. Other than for a couple of occasions in my life the difference is entirely imperceptible to me.

But obviously I believe that my beliefs do represent the most reasonable idea otherwise I wouldn’t believe them. You seem to keep inferring that my theistic beliefs impact what we can objectively know scientifically. I agree that I take what I know scientifically and then use that to help inform my theistic beliefs. Who knows what future progress there will be scientifically, but when we find out what it is I may have to adjust my theistic beliefs again. What on earth is wrong with that? I am not comparing what we know scientifically with what I believe theistically. What is it aboput my beliefs that can be shown objectively to be incorrect. I am fully aware that just because I can’t be proven wrong is not a justification for believing what I do.

That's not what I was trying to talk about. This is closer to what I was talking about.You can think that your beliefs represent "the most reasonable" all you'd like.
However, there is objective proof that beliefs are not "the most reasonable."It is objectively incorrect to think that a method based on belief will result in a more reasonable (accurate) truth about the way things are than a method based on testing and verification.History has proven this. Short form: Dark Ages vs. Enlightenment.You can think otherwise, but the objective evidence that one method is "more reasonable" than the other when attempting to be accurate is not debatable. The comparison speaks for itself. 1000 years of hardly any accurate results vs. 100 years of vast quantities of accurate results.

Wow!!!!That is a hell of a stretch.All you have done is shown that religious people can make bible passages mean absolutely anything they want.I mean this is Faith crazy stuff you are spouting.

Yes, and I am debating that. I am questioning the method used, the logical fallacies and the poor reasoning that is being used to get to those beliefs. And as we continue to point out, your logic is fallacios, your reasoning is poor, and you have no method by which you get to this conclusion. You missed the point, again. I'll try to explain it, again.In regards to what we were discussing, as far as god taking part in evolution, there is no evidence for god so there is no question as to what he did or didn't do. First you must establish evidence. And no, saying "I believe he does" is not evidence.Now, you can keep saying "It's either natural processes or god did it" all you want. It remains a fact however that your logical is fallacious, and that you continue to put the cart before the horse. This makes your reasoning for concluding anything about god, before you have established evidence for god, to be very, very poor.- Oni

Not really. Many addicts relate this passage to the struggles one goes through battling with addiction. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I doThat particular passage is what it literally feels like to be an addict, according to addicts I had a chance to talk to for an interview thing I was doing.In one AA meeting, I remember this passage on a posted up on a wall.So I don't think Phat is spounting Faith level crazy stuff. For what it's worth, I too see that passage as refering to some form of addiction.- Oni

What?!There's nothing in that about addiction - it's just the usual religious obsession with sin.But even if it was about addiction why, ffs, wouldn't they know about it? There's nothing particularly difficult in spotting drunks, obsessives and addicts - the extent of their science was finding the devil to be the cause - clever huh?Sometimes I think the world is just friggin' bonkers.

you didnt understand what I was saying...Dr.Patrick Carnes is one of the most well respected addictions specialists and his research confirms what was "obvious"...only because of the word of God. I swear, Tangle...you try so hard to discredit some basic wisdom only because its labeled as sin....do some reading, for crying out loud.

I rarely do. Phat, that is just crazy - that's a description of what someone feels, which is then blamed completely wrongly on sin and evil. I'm merely pointing out to you the obvious fact that the bible is not a source of any scientific wisdom which was your claim.

So your conclusions as to whether "Tom" is interfering in any given observed moral decision is nothing more than a baseless opinion. Even "Tom's" supposed influence on your own moral decision making is based on nothing more than a subjective feeling. Subjective feelings of the exact sort that we know to be pointlessly unreliable as a means of discerning anything about reality.The methods of knowledge acquisition on which you are basing your conclusions really don't justify any confidence at all in the conclusions you are reaching.

Because we, as a species throughout our history, have have tried various approaches to knowledge acquisition. Some demonstrably work. Others demonstrably don't.Unless your beliefs are derived from some method of knowledge acquisition that actually works, your beliefs are almost certainly wrong.That is the brutally harsh fact of the matter. You keep reciting this as if it is some sort of killer point. But phrasing something as an either/or option doesn't make it some sort of 50:50 choice with either option being equally valid.Either Satan is imperceptibly influencing me, Tangle and Oni to keep arguing with you in this thread, or he isn't and our respective ongoing contributions are entirely of our own volition.But the fact that I can phrase the unfalsifiable but evidentially baseless proposition that Satan is influencing participants in this thread in such an either/or manner doesn't mean that the belief he is and the belief he is not are equally reasonable or justified.Why do you think repeatedly phrasing your 'intelligent designer' belief in this either/or manner is any different to any other such baseless proposition put forward in the same format?

What is obvious is precisely that: it is obvious and does not require any divine intervention to point out what is patently obvious. The assertion that the Bible actually provides something profound from a biological standpoint as it pertains to addiction is, in my opinion, incorrect.The bible provides a statement describing a feeling common to many; that of helplessness regarding one's actions. That is not in any way prophetic: it is merely stating the obvious. But then it moves forward in the next passages and attributes that feeling to 'original sin', thereby giving credence to its doctrine. Which is in actuality incorrect. Unless you are implying that 'original sin' is somehow making reference to genetic predispositions. I would call that quite a stretch of the imagination.

Of course you can up with a more reasonable accurate truth if you are dealing with something that can be tested and verified.As to whether we believe in an intelligent origin for life or not is belief based on what we do know, what we experience, what we have heard and learned from others etc, but it isn't verifiable.