Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Belief is YOUR evaluation of YOUR personal set of conditioned data (INTRA-SUBJECTIVE).
YOU were largely programmed (INCULCATED) to believe most of what you think that you believe (BASE PROGRAMMING, FIRMWARE).
Once YOU have been formatively programmed (INCULCATED, BIOS FLASHED) it becomes very difficult to properly re-programme (FIRMWARE UPDATE). It's very difficult to change your mind (RE-PROGRAM, DE-PROGRAM).
Created:
-->
@Singularity
Should churches give free psychological evaluations
This reminds me of a sketch comedy show I once saw where a fortune teller listened to people's problems and then referred them to a psychologist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Belief is your evaluation of your personal set of conditioned data.You were largely programmed to believe most of what you think that you believe.Once you have been formatively programmed it becomes very difficult to properly re-programme. It's very difficult to change your mind.You don't just recall every individual bit of data and re-sequence it according to the mood of the moment.Your personally held data is already stored in specific sequences and automatically utilised as such.Wouldn't this very argument be subject to your proposed metric, diminishing its implied "objectivity" or "inter-subjectivity"?
Please explain what you mean by "your proposed metric".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Excellent point.
How do you distinguish prelest from "authentic" spirituality?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
How do you identify legit speaking in tongues from sham speaking in tongues, exactly?
Excellent point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
The Bible itself never calls for violence.
You might even say, "True Christians must be PACIFISTS" (love thine enemy).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
1m × 350m = 350 billion
350,000,000,000,000
(350 trillion)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I've been CONVINCED.I never chose to be CONVINCED.How would you define "convinced?"
Compelling evidence (Uniform Standards Of Evidence, USOE).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Wouldn't this very argument be subject to your proposed metric, diminishing its implied "objectivity" or "inter-subjectivity"?
It applies equally to both "intra-subjective" belief (AND) "inter-subjective" belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Belief is your evaluation of your personal set of conditioned data.You were largely programmed to believe most of what you think that you believe.Once you have been formatively programmed it becomes very difficult to properly re-programme. It's very difficult to change your mind.You don't just recall every individual bit of data and re-sequence it according to the mood of the moment.Your personally held data is already stored in specific sequences and automatically utilised as such.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Oh, right... "discovered"?You should know better by now than to say God was created.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Your God was created a couple of thousand years ago by primitive, ignorant, superstitious savages as a member of the Canaanite Pantheon of Gods.
Also, I 100% agree with this part.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
My CONFIDENCE is not unjustified, because I'VE BEEN CONVINCED they have been around since the beginning and have the surest claim of being the apostolic church.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Your God was created a couple of thousand years ago by primitive, ignorant, superstitious savages as a member of the Canaanite Pantheon of Gods.If you say anything different you are lying and your holy book confirms it.
I think you missed the part where Mopac said,
Yes, the Indians have in Brahman a legitimate name for God. Or at least, as it seems to me.It also seems to me that the best Chinese equivalent is The Tao.
So, Mopac wouldn't seem to be one of those "Biblical Literalists" you seem to be STRAWMANNING.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Brahman is The Ultimate Reality.
In Hinduism, Brahman connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe. In major schools of Hindu philosophy, it is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists. It is the pervasive, genderless, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes. [WIKI]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
And unjustified confidence is not faith to me.
Please explain.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Jesus didn't simply destroy The Roman Empire, He conquored it. He got The Roman Emoire to confess Jesus Christ before collapsing.That in itself is a miracle.
Constantine was CONVINCED by the PACIFIST Christian martyrs.
And then twisted Christianity into a weapon of the rich and powerful that Jesus would scarcely recognize.
Yeah, not quite the "conquering" most people would associate with "victory".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
A first good step in that direction is finding the humility to admit that faith is not an avoidable thing in our lives.
I avoid unjustified 100% confidence (faith) like the plague.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What keeps a human from being "maximally great"?Wouldn't a being that is all-knowing greater than a normal human being
Gödel's incompleteness theorem(s) prove that no system can know everything about itself.
Ipso-facto, there can be NO all-knowing "being".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Faith is a choice, and faith is more than simply intellectual assent. Faith is a living thing.
It certainly seems that way, but FIRST you had to be CONVINCED that "faith" was your "best option".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
It's the most durable and reliable and practical standard I've encountered so far.I don't pretend "it can never lead to inaccurate predictions" but it is certainly "less wrong" than all known alternatives.Then, clearly, you've made a choice. Alternatives denote options among which you've discriminated and placed your trust, even though no one option has earned 100% of your trust.
I've been CONVINCED.
I never chose to be CONVINCED.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
You don't need to hate an enemy to not allow them to destroy creation, why you keep insisting that we must "beat the shyte out of them or kill them out of hate" in order to neutralize a given situation (without disturbing the principle of love) is rather immature and strange.
You can defend against an angry child (not an enemy) without harming them.
You can love an angry child (not an enemy) and keep them from wreaking havoc without resorting to violence.
I understand what you mean in this case.
HOWEveR, a group of mafiosos with guns is another case altogether.
You have to understand that many Jews believed Jesus (the Messiah) was going to free them from the Romans.
Many believed Jesus would lead a violent revolt that would destroy their oppressors.
Obviously this never happened.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Certainly you protect yourself and your family and your territory. That's basic mammalian instinct. Not scripture.You're being childish and that's disappointing. You are one of my fav posters. You can block an enemy without attacking or any hate involved. I can turn the other cheek if you'd like to slap my face but if you put a knife to my throat or my loved ones I'm going to intervene, without hate. I'm not ignoring what the scripture says at all, you seem to be the one twisting them into something else.
I'm just asking, "where does Jesus say it's ok to kill in self-defense?"
Love thine enemy, turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, give away your cloak, and... ...then what? Where are the exceptions?
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
In line with the NT and Jesus' teaching you can love your enemy but that doesn't change the fact that the enemy still wants to kill you. So, rather than be terminated by an enemy whom you have not hated (and possibly have turned the other cheek) there must exist another resolve at some point. Basically you don't have to hate someone to protect the self and what is good.
Based on what BIBLICAL exception?
Jesus never says, "love thine enemy, unless they're really bad, then it's ok to kill them".
Created:
-->
@ethang5
If you are the house of god, this means you can't sell stuff.make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF(2) PROTECT YOUR CLOSE FRIENDS AND FAMILY(3) PROTECT YOUR LANDSo, on your relative ideas!
Universal intersubjective moral values.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
REAL-TRUE-FACT must be scientifically verifiable with a confidence of at least 2 SIGMA and or logically necessary.Do you trust this standard 100%?
It's the most durable and reliable and practical standard I've encountered so far.
I don't pretend "it can never lead to inaccurate predictions" but it is certainly "less wrong" than all known alternatives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Being CONVINCED is only about (USOE) Uniform-Standards-Of-Evidence (what qualifies as "true" and how do you know).So what is this USOE on which you premise your not being convinced?
REAL-TRUE-FACT must be scientifically verifiable with a confidence of at least 2 SIGMA and or logically necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Primary Mammalian Instinct.But the outrage would show that you and others believe these things are most definitely wrong. Based on what - your relative ideas?
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR CLOSE FRIENDS AND FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR LAND
ANY FACTORY SHOULD BE 100% RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL CONTAMINATION (and death and injury).
IN THE SAME WAY YOU WON'T LET YOUR NEIGHBOR LEAVE POISONED OR TOXIC TRASH IN YOUR HOUSE.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
The bible is for mature adults, it is not paint-by-the-numbers juvenile guide book.That is why the bible has stories that allow the Christian to have a deeper understanding of the morality of God than just a list of do's and don'tsWe learn this morality by observing the relationship between God and his people.
In other words, OPEN TO VERY BROAD PERSONAL INTERPRETATION.
You CAN'T claim to "know the author's original intent" without simultaneously claiming to "know the mind of god" which, contradicts what is very specifically mentioned in the BIBLE, a man cannot know the mind of god.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.I don't know. Where did Jesus say it's OK to pay taxes?
This is actually pretty specific.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
This seems like quite a leap in logic. Now you're a church?We become His father's house at salvation, and we are to treat it with the same zeal.
When did Jesus tell anyone to defend the churches with their lives?
No, he said "turn the other cheek" and "love thine enemy".
You can be a church, but you must be a PACIFIST church.
According to your own "moral principle" of "love".
Created:
-->
@ethang5
make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.
In other words, don't sell stuff at church.
Created:
-->
@Athias
HOWEvEer, your personal experience has proven to you, personally, that some ideas and perceptions are unreliable.Give an example.
When you dream that you've driven your motorcycle off the edge of a cliff, and you wake up suddenly, at that moment you realize that "some ideas and perceptions are unreliable".
All thoughts EXIST (as GNOSIS), sure, BUT not all thoughts are TRUE.How does subjective information make a perception "non-true" and intersubjective information make a perception "true"?
EXCELLENT POINT.
Ok, GNOSIS is yours and yours alone, no need to talk about it or anything, no need to "prove" it to anyone, no need to determine exactly how true or how false it is, I mean, you can if you want to, but nobody else gives a hoot.
LANGUAGE IS ITSELF AN INTERSUBJECTIVE EXERCISE.
Language ONLY exists to facilitate communication BETWEEN different people.
LANGUAGE ITSELF DOES NOT APPLY TO PURE GNOSIS.
From this perspective, this epistemological foundation, it should be clear that "true" must be intersubjectively verifiable (and or logically necessary).
Created:
-->
@blanks
However, if you insist "it doesn't exist", then you must be able to support your claim with logic.My claim has always been that there is no liable evidence that proves the existence of a god.
And when a believer tells you they've experienced gods love personally and it was "life changing", doesn't that count as "evidence" (at least to that one person)?
I mean, if you had a meaningful experience, perhaps in a dream or something, would that experience "not exist" or be invalidated because nobody believed you?
No.
Your personal experiences are your most precious treasures.
It is a violation of Civil Debate to demonize your opponent.Assuming that I am demonizing someone simply because I question their claims, is in itself an attempt to demonize.By attempting to make me look like the antagonist of this conversation, you are, by definition, demonizing me.
Suggesting that someone is lying (assume they are not being truthful) is an AD HOMINEM ATTACK.
This is a fact. I have made no such claim about you. You can question someone's CLAIMS without questioning their sincerity.
Identifying an AD HOMINEM ATTACK is not, itself, an AD HOMINEM ATTACK.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
(A) I do believe that some, non-specific space-aliens (gods) MIGHT be discovered at some point in the future.
I am convinced, by EVIDENCE, that there is likely some sort of (NON-SPECIFIC) "life" on other planets and or in other galaxies.
I choose to say this.
I do not choose to believe this.
(B) I don't believe in any particular space-aliens (gods).
I am UNCONVINCED that any particular, specific space-aliens (gods) exist in any way that is distinguishable from pure-imagination.
I choose to say this.
I do not choose to "disbelieve", I'm simply UNCONVINCED.
[C] Belief is simply NOT a "choice".
(IFF) you are convinced that belief is a CHOICE (THEN) simply choose to believe in Santa Claus and let me know when you feel the magic.
but you clearly show above at (A) that YOU are choosing to believe something
Nope.
and at (B) YOU are also choosing NOT to believe something.
Nope.
i.e. YOU have made a "choice" in both cases
Nope.
but at [C] you clearly state that belief is simply NOT a choice.
I repeated it for emphasis.
What you seem to not be understanding is that anyone can choose to believe anything they dam well like.
People can only believe what they are CONVINCED of.
People can SAY they believe or disbelieve in any number of things or ideas, but NOBODY can BELIEVE unless they are CONVINCED.
But, do not get upset when your beliefs to go unchallenged.
Your scathing critique is requested (and greatly appreciated).
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Love thine enemy doesn't mean pacifism.
Please explain exactly where Jesus says, "love thine enemy, I mean, unless they're trying to hurt you in some way, then beat the Schmidt out of them..."
What is your BIBLICAL exception to "love thine enemy"?
Where does Jesus say "it's ok to kill people in self-defense"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
So, is being convinced to you primarily about emotional content?
Being CONVINCED is only about (USOE) Uniform-Standards-Of-Evidence (what qualifies as "true" and how do you know).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Do you not see how you have contradicted yourself multiple times ?
Please be slightly more specific.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Dear Stephen,
Please choose to believe in Santa Claus.
Right now.
Just for kicks.
But it only counts if your belief is 100% sincere.
Have you done it yet?
Do you feel the magic?
Let me know when you believe in Santa Claus.
I can't choose to believe in Santa Claus.
I need to be CONVINCED.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
What I am saying is that cognitive dissonance will allow the 'believer' to believe in lies. Since they Choose to ignore the Truth, then they chose to Believe, instead of Know."Vaccines are dangerous, here is the evidence"
"No, I don't believe it, I BELIEVE my Doctor."
Did they choose to Believe, by choosing to Disbelieve?
Good point. People can seem to "choose" to believe a "trusted-source" BUT ONLY if they are first convinced that their "trusted-source" (genius, prophet, priest, doctor, expert) is more reliable than their own judgement.
This is the root of the problem.
You should never trust (or distrust) any person or book 100%. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I can't "choose" to believe in Santa Claus.But you have "chosen" to reject the premise on which Santa Clause is based. Every time you think about Santa Clause and reject his mere notion, you're making a choice. To deny that is to reject that you're a rational agent capable of processing and discriminating information. Your acceptance of certain notions, I wouldn't doubt, contains emotional content, but you can still choose how it manifests.
I'm still not convinced.
I can't "choose" to be convinced.
I'm either convinced or not convinced.
You still don't believe in Santa Claus.
Created:
-->
@blanks
It also attempts to unfairly shifts the burden-of-proof to your opponent.If you are attempting to say that something exists, you have the burden of proof.
You would imagine.
However, if you insist "it doesn't exist", then you must be able to support your claim with logic.
Or modify your claim.
Perhaps something like, "your gods are indistinguishable from non-existent".
If someone claims to have seen gods or heard the voices of gods, you can't "prove them wrong".You can assume that they are not being truthful, if they have not presented evidence.
No you can't.
It is a violation of Civil Debate to demonize your opponent.
This includes presuming they are being insincere, willfully ignorant, biased, intellectually blind, stupid, evil, or insane, etcetera.
Basically, NO AD HOMINEM ATTACKS.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Basically you don't have to hate someone to protect the self and what is good.
Sure, but any atheist-heathen-commie instinctively lashes out against perceived threats. You don't need an old book to tell you that.
The point is that "love thine enemy" is COUNTER-INSTINCTIVE and leads to inevitable and logical PACIFISM.
Like GANDHI. PACIFISM seemed to work out pretty well in the struggle to overthrow the Brits.
Christians love to claim there are exceptions to "love thine enemy", but THEY AREN'T SCRIPTURAL.
Jesus never says, "love thine enemy, I mean, unless they're trying to hurt you in some way, then beat the Schmidt out of them..."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
People can seem to "choose" to believe a "trusted-source" BUT ONLY if they are first convinced that their "trusted-source" (genius, prophet, priest) is more reliable than their own judgement.
This is the root of the problem.
You should never trust (or distrust) any person or book 100%.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
You're either CONVINCED or NOT.Does this not make scrutiny and criticism futile?
No.
It simply highlights the Uniform-Standards-Of-Evidence "problem".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Can you "choose" to believe in Santa Claus?Can you "choose" to believe in unicorns?Can you "choose" to believe in space-aliens?Yes. But, you're still not explaining how belief excludes choice.
I can't "choose" to believe in Santa Claus.
I'm simply not convinced.
And as much as I try to "take you at your word", I also can't "choose" to believe YOU can arbitrarily decide to believe in Santa Claus.
I'm simply not convinced.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
the bible is real and YHWH is the one true god, now what?
Where's you LIST of "objective moral principles"?
Created:
-->
@blanks
There is no liable proof for the existence of human free-will, meaning that not once has there been a piece of evidence that completely proves the existence of human free-will.
This is a classic appeal-to-ignorance. Also commonly presented as "you can't prove me wrong". It also attempts to unfairly shifts the burden-of-proof to your opponent. BOTH PRO and CON must be able to construct their OWN case.
Most people consider their own, personal, private experience (GNOSIS) as conclusive "evidence" if not "proof".
If someone claims to have seen gods or heard the voices of gods, you can't "prove them wrong".
Created: