Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 9:08 PM
38 online now:
DrJones* (1 member, 37 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,599 Year: 3,636/19,786 Month: 631/1,087 Week: 221/212 Day: 36/27 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
84858687
88
89Next
Author Topic:   My Beliefs- GDR
GDR
Member
Posts: 4782
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1306 of 1324 (708917)
10-16-2013 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1298 by Straggler
10-15-2013 12:49 PM


Re: Acceptance or Denial
Straggler writes:

"Belief" isn't an epistemological technique. You can't say that we know something because we believe it. That is ridiculous.
I am asking what method of knowledge acquisition has led to this beli ef of yours. I am asking why you think this method of knowledge acquisition results in conclusions that are likely to be correct?

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.

Straggler writes:

Of course there is. That is what scientific knowledge is.

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.

Straggler writes:

It suggests that there is a large degree of commonality between human societies. Given what we objectively know about the evolution of human empathy, morality, altruism etc. etc. that common factor would seem to be common aspects of human psychology.

Which then could be either the result of purely mindless natural evolution, or be the result of an intelligent agency.

Straggler writes:

Why is it reasonable to conclude "divine origins"....? What method of knowledge acquisition led you to that conclusion? Why do you think this method of knowledge acquisition results in conclusions that are correct?

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?

Straggler writes:

But we know the origins of human empathy, morality et al (i.e. those things that lead to the 'golden rule') evolved naturally.

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.

Straggler writes:

Even if we know that thunder and lightning occur naturally by virtue of static electricity that doesn't disprove that Thor is willing things to behave in ways that seem entirely natural but which ultimately depend on his divine intervention to cause thunder.....
Even if we know that human farts occur naturally that doesn't disprove the notion that fart fairies are willing things to behave in ways that seem entirely natural but which ultimately depend on their divine intervention as the cause of farts.....
If we design the object of our un-evidenced beleif to be unassailable then, unsurprisingly, it will be un-disprovable. But that is no reason to give such notions any credence at all is it?

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.


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 1298 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2013 12:49 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1318 by Straggler, posted 10-17-2013 6:40 AM GDR has responded

    
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 813
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 1307 of 1324 (708918)
10-16-2013 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1305 by Phat
10-16-2013 10:37 AM


Re: Reasonable Ramblings
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.”

"Our future lies not in our dogmatic past, but in our enlightened present"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1305 by Phat, posted 10-16-2013 10:37 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4782
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1308 of 1324 (708919)
10-16-2013 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1299 by Straggler
10-15-2013 12:53 PM


Re: Does Tom Whisper to Bonobos Too?
Straggler writes:

OK. But is this animal behaviour dependent at all on Tom's divine inaudible whispering intervention in the same way that you have suggested human moral decisions sometimes are? Or do genetic and social factors alone (i.e. without divine intervention) suffice here?

By in large I have no idea, but if you want an opinion it is likely without.

Straggler writes:

How do you decide when Tom is intervening and when he isn't?

Other than for a couple of occasions in my life the difference is entirely imperceptible to me.


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 1299 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2013 12:53 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1317 by Straggler, posted 10-17-2013 6:19 AM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4782
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1309 of 1324 (708927)
10-16-2013 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1301 by Phat
10-15-2013 3:13 PM


Re: Reasonable Ramblings
Stile writes:

This, in itself, has nothing wrong with it.

The point being brought to you is the difference between "a reasonable idea" and "the most reasonable idea that humans have been able to come up with."

If you are content using "a reasonable idea" instead of "the most reasonable idea" when thinking of your beliefs... then this is your choice. I don't think anyone has a problem with such a thing.

But obviously I believe that my beliefs do represent “the most reasonable idea” otherwise I wouldn’t believe them.

Stile writes:

You seem to accept the scientific progress and superiority for the gains that science has made and we now understand.
However, for something that is not yet fully understood (God's hand in the creation of our universe... if He even exists to use his hand...) you decide to pursue the answer using your beliefs.

No one minds that you're doing this. You're free to do whatever you want for whatever reasons you think are best.

The question is just... why?

You seem to say "It's just what I believe."
Which is a strange answer, given that you accept science's superiority on known progress and concepts... just not for any possible future progress. But beliefs are sometimes strange.

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?

Stile writes:

But then you don't stop there... you continue to justify your belief by comparing the similarities of science vs. belief and hinting that they're simply on par anyway... this is what causes continued discussion. You're never going to get away with it (here, anyway). As long as you continue to even hint at a personal justification ("we all just go with what we believe anyway...") that can objectively be shown to be incorrect, other posters here will continue to point out the correction that 85 is always greater than 25.

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.


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 1301 by Phat, posted 10-15-2013 3:13 PM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1310 by Stile, posted 10-16-2013 1:07 PM GDR has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3393
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 1310 of 1324 (708929)
10-16-2013 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1309 by GDR
10-16-2013 11:58 AM


Re: Reasonable Ramblings
GDR writes:

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.

But obviously I believe that my beliefs do represent “the most reasonable idea” otherwise I wouldn’t believe them.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1309 by GDR, posted 10-16-2013 11:58 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1320 by GDR, posted 10-18-2013 11:51 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 1311 of 1324 (708940)
10-16-2013 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1305 by Phat
10-16-2013 10:37 AM


Re: Reasonable Ramblings
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.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1305 by Phat, posted 10-16-2013 10:37 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1313 by onifre, posted 10-16-2013 5:11 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1029 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 1312 of 1324 (708942)
10-16-2013 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1292 by GDR
10-13-2013 5:26 PM


Re: Acceptance or Denial
The discussion though is about what I believe and why I believe it.

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.

In my view our evolutionary history with its natural selection, the DNA trail is all so elegant that it gives the subjective appearance of being designed.

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.

it does become relevant in my life.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1292 by GDR, posted 10-13-2013 5:26 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1321 by GDR, posted 10-18-2013 12:04 PM onifre has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1029 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 1313 of 1324 (708943)
10-16-2013 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1311 by Theodoric
10-16-2013 3:53 PM


Re: Reasonable Ramblings
I mean this is Faith crazy stuff you are spouting.

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 do

That 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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1311 by Theodoric, posted 10-16-2013 3:53 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6677
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 1314 of 1324 (708946)
10-16-2013 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1305 by Phat
10-16-2013 10:37 AM


Re: Reasonable Ramblings
phat writes:

They now know that addictions cannot be easily stopped. The reason is because the brain actually changes. Certain neural pathways are laid down and reinforced...so that to attempt to stop in the middle of the loop is next to impossible.

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.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1305 by Phat, posted 10-16-2013 10:37 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1315 by Phat, posted 10-16-2013 7:51 PM Tangle has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 12175
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1315 of 1324 (708947)
10-16-2013 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1314 by Tangle
10-16-2013 5:33 PM


Re: Reasonable Ramblings
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1314 by Tangle, posted 10-16-2013 5:33 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1316 by Tangle, posted 10-17-2013 2:43 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1319 by Diomedes, posted 10-17-2013 4:17 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6677
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 1316 of 1324 (708952)
10-17-2013 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1315 by Phat
10-16-2013 7:51 PM


Re: Reasonable Ramblings
Phat writes:

you didnt understand what I was saying...

I rarely do.

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.

Phat, that is just crazy - that's a description of what someone feels, which is then blamed completely wrongly on sin and evil.

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'm merely pointing out to you the obvious fact that the bible is not a source of any scientific wisdom which was your claim.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1315 by Phat, posted 10-16-2013 7:51 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1317 of 1324 (708957)
10-17-2013 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1308 by GDR
10-16-2013 11:28 AM


Re: Does Tom Whisper to Bonobos Too?
Straggler writes:

But is this animal behaviour dependent at all on Tom's divine inaudible whispering intervention in the same way that you have suggested human moral decisions sometimes are? Or do genetic and social factors alone (i.e. without divine intervention) suffice here?

GDR writes:

By in large I have no idea, but if you want an opinion it is likely without.

So your conclusions as to whether "Tom" is interfering in any given observed moral decision is nothing more than a baseless opinion.

GDR writes:

Other than for a couple of occasions in my life the difference is entirely imperceptible to me.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1308 by GDR, posted 10-16-2013 11:28 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1322 by GDR, posted 10-18-2013 3:16 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1318 of 1324 (708959)
10-17-2013 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1306 by GDR
10-16-2013 11:23 AM


Re: Acceptance or Denial
GDR writes:

Why do you believe that any of us as collections of mindless particles from a mindless origin can come to reliable conclusions?

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.

GDR writes:

Which then could be either the result of purely mindless natural evolution, or be the result of an intelligent agency.

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1306 by GDR, posted 10-16-2013 11:23 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1323 by GDR, posted 10-18-2013 9:47 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 813
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1319 of 1324 (708979)
10-17-2013 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1315 by Phat
10-16-2013 7:51 PM


Re: Reasonable Ramblings
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

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.


"Our future lies not in our dogmatic past, but in our enlightened present"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1315 by Phat, posted 10-16-2013 7:51 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4782
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1320 of 1324 (708989)
10-18-2013 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1310 by Stile
10-16-2013 1:07 PM


Re: Reasonable Ramblings
Stile writes:

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.

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.


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 1310 by Stile, posted 10-16-2013 1:07 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
RewPrev1
...
84858687
88
89Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019