Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9102 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: sensei
Upcoming Birthdays: Tusko
Post Volume: Total: 904,259 Year: 1,140/14,231 Month: 64/1,076 Week: 173/234 Day: 25/39 Hour: 6/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Choosing a faith
ringo
Member
Posts: 20812
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 1846 of 1959 (905322)
01-23-2023 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1844 by Dredge
01-23-2023 10:27 AM


Re: I Again Think GDR has Given Up On This Thread
Dredge writes:
So-called Christians who don't believe in the Real Presence aren't true Christians. Their watered-down version of Christianity is unbiblical, amateurish, erroneous and fake.
And your IQ is 9, so how could you possibly understand what the grown-ups are talking about?

Come all of you cowboys all over this land,
I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command:
To hold a six shooter, and never to run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns.
-- Woody Guthrie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1844 by Dredge, posted 01-23-2023 10:27 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1950 by Dredge, posted 02-02-2023 12:40 AM ringo has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 21346
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
Message 1847 of 1959 (905340)
01-23-2023 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1844 by Dredge
01-23-2023 10:27 AM


Re: I Again Think GDR has Given Up On This Thread
Obviously someone back then found human sacrifice and cannibalism appealing.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1844 by Dredge, posted 01-23-2023 10:27 AM Dredge has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5920
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 1848 of 1959 (905343)
01-23-2023 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1842 by Percy
01-22-2023 3:06 PM


Re: Meaning and Purpose
Percy writes:
Sure, we agree as far as individuals finding purpose in life. But I was thinking more broadly, as you sort of allude to here:
My only point is that people seem to look for meaning and purpose in there life in there life times. By extension then I think that it is reasonable to at least consider that an intelligence responsible for life would have n ultimate purpose beyond our lives here.
Percy writes:
Does mankind have a purpose? Does life?
I believe it does. Also I'd add that if I am correct, and the resurrection of Jesus was historical, then that makes the whole idea clearer.
Percy writes:
It's 1850. You make a great personal sacrifice to provide your daughter's family a slave. Moral?

Morality is hopelessly relative. There are no general criteria for defining what is moral.
Aside from the fact that a very few people bought slaves in order to free them, then even though it was the social norm it is immoral. I would add that I assume some slave owners treated them well.
The point was that they were intentionally gaining benefit to themselves at the expense of another human being.
Percy writes:
You say you don't agree with what I say you believe, but I quoted your own words saying that that's exactly what you believe.
OK, you have a point. I'll try it a little differently. I believe that when our hearts lead us to do something for the good of another at our own expense then we are serving God. Going with your definition, "reverence or adoration of a deity." , then I would say that worship should lead to lives of service to others, and by extension of that we are serving God. I am not saying that you can't serve without the worship.
The trouble is though that by narrowing it down to your definition it brings up again the original point of this thread, which is what matters is the nature of the god we worship. If we worship a war like god then that is the god we serve. If we worship a god who is happy with slavery then that is the god we serve etc.
However if we worship a god that desires and works for others then hopefully our worship will lead us to emulate that behaviour.
Percy writes:
Well, if CS Lewis says it then it must be true.
That isn't what I meant at all. I simply made that comment to make the point that my beliefs are consistent with general Christian belief.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1842 by Percy, posted 01-22-2023 3:06 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1851 by Percy, posted 01-24-2023 12:21 PM GDR has replied
 Message 1852 by Percy, posted 01-24-2023 1:06 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5920
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


(1)
Message 1849 of 1959 (905344)
01-23-2023 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1844 by Dredge
01-23-2023 10:27 AM


Re: I Again Think GDR has Given Up On This Thread
Dredge writes:
So-called Christians who don't believe in the Real Presence aren't true Christians. Their watered-down version of Christianity is unbiblical, amateurish, erroneous and fake.
The Gospels tell us of a Jesus that was very much opposed to the way the Temple authorities ran the Temple. Jesus in saying that the bread was His body was a rejection of the animal sacrifices. We eat the bread to honour His life of sacrifice right up to the cross, and in eating the bread it should feed our hearts so that we might serve as Jesus did. I'd suggest that what you are doing is dishonouring Jesus by drawing attention away from that which Jesus wanted the bread to symbolize.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1844 by Dredge, posted 01-23-2023 10:27 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4211
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 1850 of 1959 (905349)
01-24-2023 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1834 by GDR
01-19-2023 5:50 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
GDR writes:
I would agree that in the places you have looked there is no evidence.
We haven't only looked in a few places.
We have looked in all the places we can.
For me I see a mother or father absolutely adoring their new baby and would without hesitation sacrifice anything, including their lives for that child. I see people risking their lives for someone they have never met. I see people donating vast sums of money for others in need that might even be on the other side of the world I see people dedicated to the welfare of animal life or even for the planet even though they won't be alive to see the results. That is where I find God.
Sounds to me like you found Love. And we know Love exists and that people are capable of these and more great acts of Love - all naturally.
What makes you think you found God?
With that in mind then the resurrection becomes a possibility...
That's fair enough. The resurrection is a possibility for me, too.
...and I have concluded that Jesus' resurrection makes the most sense of the rise of the Christian faith in the 1st century.
Your conclusion is not based on evidence.
This means your highest priority is not "to find the truth."
Again, your highest priority may be "to find any truth that is consistent with Jesus' resurrection."
...but this is not the same as having your highest priority be "to find the truth."
I don't just stop at the point that there is no physical evidence that can be affirmed scientifically as you have.
I don't stop there.
I stop where information cannot be verified and is known to have a high likelihood of being wrong.
You seem to include such information while also claiming to have "finding the truth" as your highest priority.
I don't see how that's reasonable. It seems counter productive to me. Or, at least, indicative that "something else" is actually your highest priority.
I frankly have trouble understanding how people can see mindless processes resulting in the complexity of life let alone sentient life with consciousness.
That's understandable as a starting position. Most people would even agree, I'm sure.
Of course... this doesn't change the knowledge we've learned.
The knowledge is there. Regardless of you not looking at it in the past, or continuing to not look at it now.
Your claim that you don't accept the knowledge doesn't make it go away for those interested in identifying the truth.
In these two cases (evolution of society and morality) what you have is speculative evidence based on your pre-existing theories.
The evidence is not speculative, and it's also at your fingertips, if you care to look into it: Google Scholar
Evolution of Society and Culture - over 6 million, evidenced papers for you to read. This evidence is not "speculative" it's peer-reviewed (duplicated and objective) and vastly, vastly studied and tested.
Evolution of Morality - over 2 million, evidenced papers for you to read. This evidence is not "speculative" it's peer-reviewed (duplicated and objective) and vastly, vastly studied and tested.
These are all papers based on evidence that can be observed by anyone.
None of these papers ignore God or religion or philosophical thought in any way. In many, philosophical thought is incorporated - if it can be evidenced/tested/verified against reality.
The only reason you won't find mentions of God or religion, is because no helpful areas of those subjects can be applied to these topics that can be evidenced/tested/verified against reality.
This is not ignoring them, this is incorporating everything and anything while holding "looking for the truth" as the highest priority.
The second anyone shows how God or religion should be incorporated and can link them through evidence connected to reality... those papers will be included in these same archives.
The information is there.
It is not "speculative."
You cannot act like it doesn't exist just because you don't know about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1834 by GDR, posted 01-19-2023 5:50 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1866 by GDR, posted 01-26-2023 1:41 PM Stile has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 21346
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 1851 of 1959 (905350)
01-24-2023 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1848 by GDR
01-23-2023 2:46 PM


Re: Meaning and Purpose
GDR writes:
Percy writes:
Sure, we agree as far as individuals finding purpose in life. But I was thinking more broadly, as you sort of allude to here:
My only point is that people seem to look for meaning and purpose in there life in there life times.
Were you trying to say "in their life and times"? Anyway, I think I get your meaning. But that is not your "only point", because you go on to address "ultimate purpose," which is exactly what I was talking about:
By extension then I think that it is reasonable to at least consider that an intelligence responsible for life would have an ultimate purpose beyond our lives here.
You can't even be consistent for two consecutive sentences. I don't know if you're doing this on purpose or if it comes naturally, but you are being incredibly aggravating by repeatedly arguing that an intelligence must have created life but never addressing the infinite regression that I keep asking you about. This will be the fourth time I'm asking. What about the infinite regression? And not to distract you, but here's another question: Do you even care if your answers make sense, because you don't seem to?
Percy writes:
Does mankind have a purpose? Does life?
I believe it does.
Based on what evidence?
Also I'd add that if I am correct, and the resurrection of Jesus was historical, then that makes the whole idea clearer.
You really think one follows from the other? This actually seems like a rational chain of logic to you? Wow!
The truth is that if life has a purpose then the flying spaghetti monster exists.
Percy writes:
It's 1850. You make a great personal sacrifice to provide your daughter's family a slave. Moral?

Morality is hopelessly relative. There are no general criteria for defining what is moral.
Aside from the fact that a very few people bought slaves in order to free them, then even though it was the social norm it is immoral.
You are making the same mistake being made by groups all across the continent, judging people of the past by the standards of today. You can't judge what is moral by whether it is a social norm because social norms change, and even people living in the same place in the same time period don't agree on what is a social norm anyway. What you think moral today could be judged immoral by people in the future, or even by people today in a different social and/or cultural and/or geographical group.
Morality is hopelessly relative.
I would add that I assume some slave owners treated them well.
If you're familiar with the bell-shaped curve, the quality of treatment of slaves would have followed a bell-shaped curve. Of course some slave owners treated them well. By mathematical necessity that must be true. But treating slaves well doesn't transform slavery into a net good, so why did you say that? Do even you know?
The point was that they were intentionally gaining benefit to themselves at the expense of another human being.
What constitutes "the expense of another human being?" By your standard haven't women been treated immorally throughout time right up to the present? Some people in this country even think it's moral to require a women to give birth to the child of the man who raped her because they believe a zygote is a living human being. The expense (to use your term) to the woman is immense but it is still judged moral by a significant portion of the country.
A lot of your answers begin with "I believe this" or "I believe that." You can stop with those kinds of answers because we already have a pretty good idea of what you believe. What you don't do is provide any substantive arguments in support of what you believe.
Percy writes:
You say you don't agree with what I say you believe, but I quoted your own words saying that that's exactly what you believe.
OK, you have a point.
Yeah, I have a point, and here's another point, which I'll phrase as a question. Why does it take several exchanges to get extremely basic and obvious points across to you? Are you stupid? Or do you get some kind of insipid pleasure from wasting other people's time? This discussion is progressing at a snail's pace and is extremely repetitive, and that's all your doing.
I'll try it a little differently. I believe that when our hearts lead us to do something for the good of another at our own expense then we are serving God.
There you go again with "I believe." Enough with the "I believe." You have "I believed" us to death.
Going with your definition, "reverence or adoration of a deity",...
It isn't my definition. It is *the* definition. There are others, but that's the one relevant to this discussion.
...then I would say that worship should lead to lives of service to others, and by extension of that we are serving God. I am not saying that you can't serve without the worship.
Maybe that's not what you're saying now, but that's exactly what you were saying before for message after message.
The trouble is though that by narrowing it down to your definition...
Again, not my definition. It's the standard definition. I'm fine with wide latitude on word usage, but not on redefining words. The definition of worship is not "loving our neighbor and caring for other lifeforms and the planet," which is what you've been pushing the past so many messages.
...it brings up again the original point of this thread, which is what matters is the nature of the god we worship. If we worship a war like god then that is the god we serve. If we worship a god who is happy with slavery then that is the god we serve etc. However if we worship a god that desires and works for others then hopefully our worship will lead us to emulate that behaviour.
Believe whatever you like, just understand that not everyone worships any god, and that just because they're "behaving decently" doesn't transform them into god-worshipping acolytes.
Percy writes:
Well, if CS Lewis says it then it must be true.
That isn't what I meant at all. I simply made that comment to make the point that my beliefs are consistent with general Christian belief.
Oh, sure, "general Christian belief." Like you all believe that salvation is achieved through works and not through faith, right? And you all believe that symbolically drinking the blood and eating the flesh of Christ is an essential part of worship, right?
You said that the original point of this thread is that the nature of the god we worship matters. This has already been disproven pretty thoroughly once it was pointed out that a higher percentage of god fearing Christians commit crimes than atheists, and that atheists are at least as capable of good works as Christians. You say Christianity makes you a better person, but where Christianity goes wrong is to extrapolate this into a belief that Christianity would make everyone a better person, and as I've repeatedly pointed out, that attitude has been a source of constant and relentless evil over millennia.
I provided the example of the Canadian treatment of the First Nation peoples, and you argued that that was then, as if you're more enlightened now. No, you're not. You're just as blissfully unaware of the evils you're committing in the name of God as your predecessors were.
Let's go to a Christian message that hasn't received much attention in this thread so far, that we're all sinners. If you think you always know when you're sinning then you're wrong. Many of your sins won't come to light until later, probably much later. You should stop patting yourself on the back for how much good Christianity has enabled you to perform. You might think you're doing good, but sometimes you are and sometimes you're not. And if you think you're doing good but you're not, are you really worshipping God?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1848 by GDR, posted 01-23-2023 2:46 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1876 by GDR, posted 01-27-2023 5:40 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 21346
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 1852 of 1959 (905351)
01-24-2023 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1848 by GDR
01-23-2023 2:46 PM


Re: Meaning and Purpose
In a mild coincidence, I just came across a perfect example of doing evil in the name of good in the Washington Post article World’s largest body of human geneticists apologizes for eugenics role. The article was subtitled, "The American Society for Human Genetics (ASHG) examined its past and the racism of some geneticists."
What did they do in the name of good? Their highest annual award was until now named for an early 20th century geneticist who "promoted sterilizations of individuals with undesirable traits." The organization focused study on those of European descent to the exclusion of other races. Another area of study was driven by concern that "those who could pass as White would pollute the White gene pool..." Some of the early leaders of the ASHG were also leaders in the American Eugenics Society. Some ASHG presidents promoted forced sterilization of the genetically unfit. The organization as a whole was too often "silent about unethical genetic research," for example that "Black people were intellectually inferior due to their genetics."
Why did they do all this? To prevent future unborn generations from suffering unnecessarily from adverse characteristics and conditions transmitted genetically. Such a noble goal, yet look at the evils perpetrated by pursuit of that goal.
But your own religious conceit prevents you from incorporating such possibilities into your thinking. "No, no, no," you think, "we're the good guys, we're enlightened, we've learned from the mistakes of those who came before us."
Yeah, yeah, yeah, they all thought that.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1848 by GDR, posted 01-23-2023 2:46 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1882 by GDR, posted 01-28-2023 2:08 PM Percy has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4211
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1853 of 1959 (905353)
01-24-2023 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1834 by GDR
01-19-2023 5:50 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
Stile writes:
Your conclusion is not based on evidence.
This means your highest priority is not "to find the truth."

Again, your highest priority may be "to find any truth that is consistent with Jesus' resurrection."
...but this is not the same as having your highest priority be "to find the truth."
I'd just like to ramble on a bit about this point, as I think it is the crux of the issue we've been discussing.
In comparison... there is no such thing existing like this for me. At all.
Gravity exists.. there's lots of evidence for it. I think we both agree.
However, even though that is true... I do not hold a position that can be summarized by "Stile wants to find any truth that is consistent with the current theory of Gravity."
That is... no matter how much we currently know about gravity:
-I'm open to learning more
-I'm open to having the entire current knowledge over-turned and thrown out, if something "better fitting of all the evidence" comes along and replaces it.
This isn't just for Gravity, this is for all things:
-evolution
-natural explanation for morality
-my currently held position that "it's good to go to a doctor if you get sick"
-my currently held position that "God does not exist"
-my currently held position that "I live at the address printed on my Driver's License"
-my currently held position that "my wife loves me"
-my currently held position that "I love my wife"
...all of it..
I don't hold a single position that can't be overturned with evidence.
Some would take more evidence than others... like if you want to show me evidence that my relationship with my wife isn't as I currently understand it... I would have a discussion with her and begin comparing that evidence with other evidence... but there is a level of evidence that would get me starting to doubt myself.
Just as an example... if there were 2 million hits on Google Scholar that "Stile's wife doesn't actually love him"... I would begin an investigation myself, for sure.
If it's only one guy that no one knows saying some stuff in a drunken stupor on the internet... I wouldn't really care.
The point is, that all my stances on "the truth" of reality rely on evidence, and can be swayed by evidence.
I do not hold a position that "I hold to be true" that is "unchangeable."
I personally find that to be extremely arrogant. I mean, really, to actually know such a thing... you'd have to know everything, which I'm constantly reminded (every day) that I definitely do not.
Perhaps that is the difference.
If you really think that you "know something" that evidence could not possibly change your mind on... I don't understand how you think you "know everything."
There is something to be said for not considering changing a position unless an actual connected-to-reality reason comes along that shows that, perhaps, you should change it.
But, to think that you should "never" change your stance on something "regardless of any evidence, ever" is... well... nothing short of declaring that you "know everything."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1834 by GDR, posted 01-19-2023 5:50 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1854 by Phat, posted 01-24-2023 2:53 PM Stile has replied
 Message 1883 by GDR, posted 01-28-2023 2:43 PM Stile has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 17036
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1854 of 1959 (905356)
01-24-2023 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1853 by Stile
01-24-2023 2:41 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
Gravity is an impersonal force. It makes no impression upon human behavior. Jesus, by contrast, is (according to scripture) The living truth. The only way to "The Father"..ie GOD.
The once and forever sacrifice designed to save us from human mediocrity and failure.
You will disagree (likely) due to the fact that you have never been personally impacted by Jesus or the Holy Spirit. You will simply say you have found no evidence favorable to my conclusion. Fair enough.
Stile writes:
-I'm open to learning more
-I'm open to having the entire current knowledge over-turned and thrown out, if something "better fitting of all the evidence" comes along and replaces it.
My belief, dogmatic though it may well be presupposes that "better" or "more favorable" evidence is in fact a deception.
Matt 12:39-41 writes:
39 He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
At this point, in the interest of further inquiry, you may well counsel me to "throw the book away" for a moment and examine rational "evidence" or at least a path towards a different conclusion. All I can say to you is that this is hard for me to do. When one thinks they have the final answer, they do not simply throw it away or set it aside in the hopes of a more favorable answer. We see it as a trap.
Stile writes:
If you really think that you "know something" that evidence could not possibly change your mind on... I don't understand how you think you "know everything."
I only claim to know one thing. He knows everything. If you asked 1000 believers they would overwhelmingly agree with that assessment. If you asked 1000 non believers they would claim that I was arrogant, ignorant, or both. Overwhelmingly. The gulf exists between us, unfortunately.

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (1894).
When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--Percy
Democrats should not be the only party. Respect the two-party system. -Phat, in December 2022
We see Monsters where Science shows us Windmills.~Phat, remixed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1853 by Stile, posted 01-24-2023 2:41 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1855 by Stile, posted 01-24-2023 3:46 PM Phat has replied
 Message 1874 by ringo, posted 01-27-2023 11:57 AM Phat has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4211
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1855 of 1959 (905364)
01-24-2023 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1854 by Phat
01-24-2023 2:53 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
Phat writes:
When one thinks they have the final answer, they do not simply throw it away or set it aside in the hopes of a more favorable answer. We see it as a trap.
...
I only claim to know one thing. He knows everything.
My point isn't concerned with God knowing everything.
My point is only concerned with Phat knowing everything (...or GDR... or any other human.)
If you do not "know everything" - how do you know you're not wrong?
"Not wrong" doesn't mean "deceived" but just what it says - not wrong. You may be incorrect through some fault of your own, or some fault of "being human" or some fault of "some external entity causing you to be wrong."
How do you prevent that?
For me - I use our best-known-method for knowing the truth - validated, shown-to-match-reality evidence.
-it can be wrong, too... but the only way we know of to identify that is with more validated, shown-to-match-reality evidence.
For you - you seem to claim to use "personal impact."
But, the thing with personal impact is that we know, by ways of validated, shown-to-match-reality evidence, that "personal impact" is highly susceptible to being wrong. And, in the cases of anything-to-do-with-God... the personal impact is extremely high, and the "likelihood of being wrong" is also extremely high.
If your priority is to "have a good life" - then I understand why personal impact is so powerful, and I agree it can be a very good tool.
If your priority is to "know the truth about reality" - then I don't understand why you would use a tool that is known to be so useless in identification of the truth. It's clearly counter-productive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1854 by Phat, posted 01-24-2023 2:53 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1856 by Phat, posted 01-24-2023 6:07 PM Stile has replied
 Message 1859 by Phat, posted 01-25-2023 9:14 AM Stile has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 17036
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1856 of 1959 (905370)
01-24-2023 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1855 by Stile
01-24-2023 3:46 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
Noted. I can't argue with your logic except to say I won't set aside my belief unless the counter-evidence is quite persuasive. So far, I've not seen evidence of that.

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (1894).
When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--Percy
Democrats should not be the only party. Respect the two-party system. -Phat, in December 2022
We see Monsters where Science shows us Windmills.~Phat, remixed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1855 by Stile, posted 01-24-2023 3:46 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1857 by Stile, posted 01-25-2023 8:20 AM Phat has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4211
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1857 of 1959 (905375)
01-25-2023 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1856 by Phat
01-24-2023 6:07 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
Phat writes:
...I won't set aside my belief unless the counter-evidence is quite persuasive.
And this is fine... if you're looking to have a good life.
But, if you're "looking for the truth" - this is clearly a bad position to take.
We know that "holding a belief" while looking for truth is significantly detrimental to finding truth.
If you're actually looking for truth, then there's no reason to avoid our "best method for identifying truth" which entails setting beliefs aside, and following the evidence wherever it leads.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1856 by Phat, posted 01-24-2023 6:07 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1858 by Phat, posted 01-25-2023 8:48 AM Stile has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 17036
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1858 of 1959 (905377)
01-25-2023 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1857 by Stile
01-25-2023 8:20 AM


Re: What's Important enough?
Stile writes:
If you're actually looking for truth, then there's no reason to avoid our "best method for identifying truth" which entails setting beliefs aside, and following the evidence wherever it leads.
You don't understand believers. One does not simply "set beliefs aside." If we follow anything, it is going to be our belief, rather than a vague concept of evidence. Granted we are all called to pray for non-believers and attempt to understand them We are also called (strongly) to love them and not to fight against flesh (except our own!) From your perspective, beliefs can be set aside as easily as scientific theory.
For many believers, belief is a commitment. Its as solid as a marriage. It is not merely cast aside so as to absorb new evidence UNLESS (and I stress this strongly) the new evidence is conclusive and proven beyond reasonable doubt. Which has not happened.
I am unmoved by the New Atheists and emotionally passionate secularism masquerading as an alternative to my belief(s).

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (1894).
When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--Percy
Democrats should not be the only party. Respect the two-party system. -Phat, in December 2022
We see Monsters where Science shows us Windmills.~Phat, remixed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1857 by Stile, posted 01-25-2023 8:20 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1860 by Stile, posted 01-25-2023 10:05 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1875 by ringo, posted 01-27-2023 12:15 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 17036
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1859 of 1959 (905378)
01-25-2023 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1855 by Stile
01-24-2023 3:46 PM


The Future IS Important Enough
Stile writes:
If your priority is to "have a good life" - then I understand why personal impact is so powerful, and I agree it can be a very good tool.
If your priority is to "know the truth about reality" - then I don't understand why you would use a tool that is known to be so useless in identification of the truth. It's clearly counter-productive.
Im not simply an emotional "fool" who ignores rationality completely. (at least I don't want to be)
I see a glimpse of the distant future of our species and our way of life. And its not a Bible prophecy. It is an educated guess into likely human behavior. Theodoric refers to me and those like me as RWNJ's. Right Wing Nut Jobs.
There is some truth to that, though I consider myself more intelligent than the average RWNJ. I also consider myself more moderate than I do extremist. So what do I see in the future?
The quality of life will remain steadfast due to the inner resolve and spirit of the American people. The younger generations will ditch materialism and focus on human values...sort of a secular communion. By and large, the youth are far less judgemental and set in their ways (and beliefs) than my generation is. They (global youth) are also far more likely to set their beliefs aside and seek new evidence. While old codgers such as myself yearn for the comfortable past that is slipping away from us daily, the youth are restless. They look at the world we all have left them as one major mess. Many of the important decisions as to the future course of human effort falls on them to determine and implement.
one more thing I just thought of.
The reason that I dont go along with the green new deal and the move to eliminate fossil fuels pronto is that unlike many of you, I dont have kids. Im thinking of myself and my own comfort while many of you are willing to suffer if it helps the future generation succeed.
Thus I concede that you all have good reasons for being adamant about change...even at the cost of you paying the bill. I guess I was(am) thinking only of my own personal comfort!

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (1894).
When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--Percy
Democrats should not be the only party. Respect the two-party system. -Phat, in December 2022
We see Monsters where Science shows us Windmills.~Phat, remixed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1855 by Stile, posted 01-24-2023 3:46 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1861 by Stile, posted 01-25-2023 10:11 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1862 by Tangle, posted 01-25-2023 10:24 AM Phat has replied
 Message 1863 by nwr, posted 01-25-2023 1:08 PM Phat has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4211
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 1860 of 1959 (905380)
01-25-2023 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1858 by Phat
01-25-2023 8:48 AM


Re: What's Important enough?
Phat writes:
You don't understand believers. One does not simply "set beliefs aside." If we follow anything, it is going to be our belief, rather than a vague concept of evidence. Granted we are all called to pray for non-believers and attempt to understand them We are also called (strongly) to love them and not to fight against flesh (except our own!) From your perspective, beliefs can be set aside as easily as scientific theory.
I think I do understand. Or, at least, you've said nothing here that doesn't align 100% with the point you think you're replying about.
I think it's you who do not understand what I'm describing.
I'll try with an analogy:
Let's say we're going to play Monopoly (yes, the board game.)
According to the actual, original rules of the game... if you land on Free Parking... nothing happens. You just wait until your next turn (and don't have to pay anyone rent or anything else.)
But, according to most house rules (and any time I've ever played Monopoly) - if you land on Free Parking you get some money that's been set aside in the centre of the board. Sometimes it's $50... sometimes it's "whatever money has been paid to the bank by other players for various other reasons." Sometimes it's something else.
There are two different ways of playing Monopoly.
When Stile plays the original-rules-way... Stile says he plays the original-rules-way.
When Phat plays the original-rules-way... Phat says he plays the original-rules-way.
When Stile plays the house-rules-way... Stile says he plays the house-rules-way.
When Plat plays the house-rules-way... Phat insists that he's still playing the original-rules-way.
If you take a step back... there's no "right or wrong" way to play Monopoly. Just two different ways.
And lets put this into what we've been discussing:
There are two different ways to set your priorities.
When Stile says his priority is to "live my best life"... Stile doesn't always use our best-known-method for finding truth.
When Phat says his priority is to "live my best life"... Phat doesn't always use our best-known-method for finding truth.
When Stile says that "looking for truth" is his highest priority... Stile then uses our best-known-method to find truth.
When Phat says that "looking for truth" is his highest priority... Phat insists he's "looking for truth" but refuses to use our best-known-method for finding truth.
I fully understand that believers do not simply "set beliefs aside."
I don't have a problem with that at all.
What I have a problem with is believers who do not set their beliefs aside... yet still claim to "look for truth" when they are clearly and obviously not doing that and only "looking for truth that also happens to align with their beliefs."
I am unmoved by the New Atheists and emotionally passionate secularism masquerading as an alternative to my belief(s).
I am not attempting to convince you that you should be an atheist.
I'm attempting to convince you that when you're not using our best-known-method to find the truth... you should be honest and say that your highest priority is to find "a truth that aligns with your beliefs" and not "the truth - whatever that may be."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1858 by Phat, posted 01-25-2023 8:48 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023