Total posts: 5,766
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You either want to hear my opinions or you only want to talk about your opinions.
If you want to hear my opinions, start a new thread on the topic. I'll answer any questions you have.
If you only want to talk about your opinions then stop using your straw man version of my opinions to avoid my simple question... why do you believe that your theology is correct and other theologies that make the same claim about their gods being absolute truth and faith being 'integral' to understanding it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
You are correct in noting that the Hebrews that originally recorded the stories had a different concept of Satan than Christians, one that was a servant of God rather than an enemy, but there is no real reason to think that even this older concept of Satan is what the Genesis account was meant to portray. Voltaire was right. It was just a snake.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
The question sounded directed at wylted so I wanted to make sure he knew it was me not him answering.
That does seem to have been the case... I suppose that is a fair answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Is there really a need to continue signing your posts if Wylted is no longer going to say anything?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Faith is integral to understanding the truth are certainly words you came up to make sense of what I am saying.
It's a direct quote from post 338. Post 338 was made by you. Your subtle implication that I insidiously put words into your mouth is amusing.
Perhaps if you spent less time dancing around my questions and more time answering them then we would not have a problem where so much time passes that you forget where the question came from.
If we have any discussions at all about what you believe, this elephant in the room can not be ignored. There is nothing reasonable about denying The Ultimate Reality or even simply not believing it exists. This above everything else you think you know should be what you are more certain of than anything. That God exists.
Okay, I see that you are very eager to change the subject to what I believe in order to avoid answering my question. Feel free to start a thread on the topic. Like I said I am happy to answer any questions you have.
Created:
Posted in:
So let me get this straight.... you are judging my grasp of how science works based on what you saw written by someone else who you allegedly say doesn't know how science works?
You're the one that cited them as a reliable source of info. I didn't cite them then claim that you agreed with them. More importantly though...
I am an Orthodox Christian. Why do I need to talk about these other traditions when you yourself don't even believe them? It is a waste of time.
I asked why you believed the claims about the nature of existence made by the Orthodox Christian religion. You answered that you believed "because faith is integral to understanding the truth". Yours is not the only religion that makes that claim though so there must be some way you know your claim to be valid and others to be invalid.
Why don't you tell me why you reject The Ultimate Reality? If you don't believe that, it matters little else what you don't believe.
If you have actually give a damn about what I believe then we can talk about what I believe, sure. I am willing to do so. Perhaps in a new thread though. This one is getting too long.
Created:
Posted in:
My answer? Depends on what you define as open-minded, how much time person 1 had on their hands at the time and the title of the videos.
I personally agree that it isn't fair to classify either of them as close-minded just based on this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
How open minded you are should depend on how much work you've already put into learning about a topic.There are things I am very open minded about because I know I have a lot to learn about them. On other issues I am not open minded at all because I've done the homework, heard both sides and made up my mind long ago. It's not I won't consider new info; it's more that usually it isn't new info - it's stuff I have already considered many times already.of course I've heard of 'confirmation bias' and the Dunning–Kruger effect and I don't think I'm immune. I try to take them into account, but even so I'm not going to spend long watching or reading material telling me the world is flat and 6000 years old or that NASA went to the moon in 1969.
That is fair. I sometimes watch conspiracy theory videos for entertainment value but I agree that I should not be accused by conspiracy theorists of being closed-minded if I didn't, at least assuming - and this I think we would agree is important - that I at least have a basic understanding of the conspiracy theorists actual position (at least as basic an understanding as for me to not claim that people who say the moon landing was faked necessarily also claim that NASA is an ancient organization that has existed in secret for thousands of years)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Btw, why is this in the Religion forum?
The OP describes an actual event. I am one of the two people described above and the other person believes I am being close-minded. Just wanted some opinions from an outsiders perspective.
Created:
Posted in:
Two people disagree on a topic. Person one sends a link to an essay of some sort to person two. Person two spends over two hours reading and responding to this essay. Person two then sends two links of two YouTube videos, each about five minutes long, to person one. Person one responds "I looked at the titles of the videos and decided not to watch them based on the titles"
Which of these people is open minded or close minded? Person one, person two, both, neither? Explain your answer.
Created:
Posted in:
I would say that this isn't sound judgement. Discernment is something that naturally improves with a clean Nous.
Seriously, they make objectively incorrect statements about how science works. If they are your basis for understanding how science works then your understanding of how science works is definitely flawed at a fundamental level. Please watch the video I made and sent you in response to that link you sent me as soon as you are able.
If there are allegedly hundreds of religions that claim as you say, It would not be useful for me make a statement that may apply to many of them but not all of them.
Go ahead and pick any of them that you want. Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam... I could easily tell you why I disbelieve the claims these religions make despite them saying that their gods are the absolute truth. Why don't you tell us why you disbelieve? It is such a simple question.
Created:
Posted in:
Wouldn't you say that a good scientists holds to the scientific method with ardor and faith? I would.
If the desertwisdom link you sent me in PM is any indication of how well you understand how the scientific method works I am extremely hesitant to listen to anything you say about science or scientists.
More importantly though...
"Other religions" is a fill in the blank. You could literally put anything there.
There are hundreds of religions that claim their god is the absolute truth which use the saim faith-based justification that yours uses and which you think are wrong. Hundreds. All I want is for you to tell us why you think they are wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I can't know, because your question is absurd.
So you don't know that other religions that claim faith is integral to their theology are incorrect?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Fascinating. So how do you know that other religions that claim faith is integral to their theologies are incorrect? You claim that they are but have not told us how you know this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It is not vague at all. There are several very clear claims being made.
1) Orthodox Christianity is correct.
2) Faith is integral to the understanding of the truth, according to Orthodox Christianity.
3) Other religions are incorrect.
4) Faith is integral to the understanding of the truth, according to other religions
The question is exceedingly simple. How do you know that statement three is true? I think statement three is true and I could easily tell you why if you actually cared to hear my opinion on the subject, but you clearly don't. I want to know why you think statement three is true.
This is not vague at all. You are the one making these claims, not me.
Created:
Posted in:
I am talking about any religion that claims that faith is integral to their theology and to understanding of the truth. You would say that any religion that does this besides your own must be wrong. I want to know how you know they are wrong.
I could easily tell you what causes me to doubt their claims if you cared to hear my opinion on the subject. Let's hear what causes you to doubt their claims, though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Is smoking dope and laying in a hammock really loving truth with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength?
Your conceptions of how the rest of the world works is truly hilarious. I bet you picture me as a pot smoking hippie living in my parents basement wasting away my life in endless hedonistic rituals, possibly of a satanic nature.
Putting that astounding imagery aside though...
What is their religion?
I am talking about any religion that claims that faith is integral to their theology and to understanding of the truth. You would say that any religion that does this besides your own must be wrong. I want to know how you know they are wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Which child is going to learn from their good parents?The child who has faith in their parents or the child who rebels against their parents?
Exactly. Now tell me... other religions claim that faith is integral to understanding their theology and learning the truth, same claim that you make with your theology. How do you know that they are wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Back to the drawing board then... If somebody told you that faith is integral to understanding their theology and learning the truth you would say that their theology is wrong. How would you know that they are in fact wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Uh-huh. So, do you acknowledge that other religions make the same claim of faith being integral to their theology or do you deny it? I can work with whichever position you choose to take.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I never said any such thing.
Then you agree that other religions say that faith is integral to their theology?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
In post 365 you make the claim that other religions do not say that faith is integral to their theology. People in other religions disagree with this though, why should I trust you to tell me what others believe better than they do?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
My question is how you know that they are wrong though, since they are saying the same thing you are about faith being integral to understanding and learning the truth.You say they are. saying the same thing, but I think that is a lack of discernment on your part, not reality.
So faith isn't integral to other religions, only yours?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The fact that everyone is wrong is pretty foundational to Christianity.
Captain Obvious would be proud.
My question is how you know that they are wrong though, since they are saying the same thing you are about faith being integral to understanding and learning the truth.
Created:
Posted in:
If somebody told you that faith is integral to understanding their theology and learning the truth you would say that they are wrong. How would you know that they are in fact wrong?You say I would say these things.
You have said these things. You have said that catholics, muslims, pagans, etc. are wrong... have you not?
Created:
I feel like at least that line of logic would work before being catapulted into the void Python style.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
The scenario doesn't require submission beyond recognizing this fact, because if it had, then we run the risk of spinning out into all sorts of "well what if it told you to do THIS repugnant act"
But in the OP you said:
He does, however, demand that you present yourself to him within 48 hours, bend the knee and renounce your old belief.
This certainly sounds like a demand for submission to me.
Furthermore when I said that such a deity would be an immoral one I was not adding to your hypothetical but instead extrapolating from it. A "bow down or burn up" ultimatum is enough for me to form such a conclusion. Even if I am exempt from that ultimatum due to never having been a thiest the fact that this deity would give such an ultimatum to anyone is enough for me to deem them immoral.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
@ludofl3x
In answer to the OP, whether I would worship this diety somwhat despends on the details of the situation and I would still have a lot of questions. You said:
You can do it and enjoy his good graces, or you can deny it, and be sent to some equivalent of the punishment you used to fear from your old religion.
But what about the 10% or so of the population that has no religious beliefs? I understand this is meant for theists to answer but still there must be something for former athiests in this scenario.
If it was a simple "bow down or burn up" ultimatum I would probably submit out of fear, at least assuming that my submission doesn't grant any power to such an immoral being. (Given the scenario says they are already omnipotent I am assuming they just want worship to feed their own ego.)
(Mopac tagged here because I forgot to tag him in my previous post)
Created:
Antichrist.Without a doubt.
I find it quite fascinating that you are the only one to give a straight answer to this hypothetical question in this thread yet whenever I ask you a hypothetical question you claim to be against hypotheticals on principal. I guess that particular principal doesn't apply if you sense the opportunity fpr a sermon.
Created:
Posted in:
It is only a reliable method if my experiences are "real" and I can think of no mechanism for test8ng this proposition. It is the best avenue available to me but that is not necessarily the same as being reliable.
I seem to have mistyped. When I said 'reliable' what I meant to say was 'most reliable', in other words 'best' as you put it.
But if this is the best way of sorting between what is true and what is not then is it not worthwhile to consider our beliefs and check to be sure that they are reached through the same guiding principles of examining the evidence that is available? (Assuming that holding true beliefs is valued)
Keith rightly points out that the method the subconscious uses to reach its conclusions is not well understood. Conclusions reached subconsciously very well may therefore use one of the many possible inferior methods of deciding on beliefs.
Created:
Posted in:
Let me test if SM is right.I have two heads.My guess is you thought that was a lie; straight way you felt it wasn't true. But how did you decide it wasn't true? Did you examine the evidence and determine it wasn't true? If so, can you outline the algorithm you employed?I can guess that the agorithm relies on fitting new information into an existing schema. In your brain's schema people have one head - so somehow you retrieved that piece of information (ignoring millions of irrelvant pieces of information such what is the capital of paris), detected an anomaly and rejected the new information that I have two heads.
Sounds about right to me. It's certainly not impossible that you have two heads since I am aware that there are cases of this even among humans but the relative rarity of the condition combined with the lack of evidence leads me to doubt this us the case for you.
That is very reasonable sounding, but I have no idea it is really how brains work!It is almost (but not quite) a pardox that brains have no idea how they work.
I'm not too bothered by how my subconscious works. I can't directly control my subconcious, I can only double check it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lernaean
It feels like I am essentially saying, "You should believe in my moral rules because I want you to." One can make these arguments from a pragmatic or compassionate or whatever standpoint, but valuing those standpoints still seems entirely arbitrary.
Empathy. It's a thing.
Morality only exists when there are two or more independent actors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
(C/P from post 343) If somebody told you that faith is integral to understanding their theology and learning the truth you would say that they are wrong. How would you know that they are in fact wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
It can't mean "How can you get experiential knowledge if you don't have strongly held beliefs" nor "How can you get experiential knowledge if you don't have beliefs without evidence" because neither make any sense!
I am willing to grant you that those statements don't make sense - because you're right, they clearly don't - but I am not convinced that the premise "this doesn't make any sense" necessarily leads to the conclusion "this can't be what Mopac meant"
The rest of what you are saying I agree with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
There are multiple equally valid dictionary definitions of the word faith. The most commonly used definition is 'belief without evidence' and I think Mopac would agree that is a valid definition but just not the definition that he is using in this particular context.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If somebody told you that faith is integral to understanding their theology and learning the truth you would say that they are wrong. How would you know that they are in fact wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I would go so far as to say that faith is integral to even making sense of the whole thing. You know, when all the pieces come together and there begins to show a consistency.
There are billions of people that would say this same thing and aren't Christians. Obviously you would say that those people are "wrong by definition"... but how do you know they are in fact wrong?
So if it all looks strange from the outside looking in, realize that even when these things were first instituted as practices it was just as strange. It is the way it is very much with purpose, and it isn't simply a situation of "Oh people in ancient times sure were strange. Look at how they did things as preserved in these people who can't get with the times!".
No, doesn't sound particularly strange at all. Pretty much what I have heard many times before. I am less concerned with whether it is strange, however, and more concerned with whether it is true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
And having faith leads to experiential knowledge which confirms that orthodox christian theology is accurate then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes.
This process of examining the evidence avaliable to you and forming conclusions based on that is in general a reliable method for determining what is true and what is not?
Created:
Posted in:
I am not sure there is much left to say. The issue can be stated as 'Can an individual appreciate the truth of Christianity purely rationally or is faith also neccessary?'.
If I understand Mopac correctly then what he is saying is that if a person has faith in the accuracy of orthodox christianity then this will lead to experiential knowledge which confirms this to be the case.
Faith cannot be justified in rational grounds - that is what makes faith faith! Nor is the exercise of faith and the 'achievement' of certitude easily stated in words - hence the use of impressionistic metaphors like 'pure heartedness'.
I am less concerned with whether it is rational and more concerned with whether it is a reliable way of determining whether a certain theology is accurate.
It is sometimes argued that such faith is not restricted to theistic belief; rationalism also depends on faith, that is on holding somethings as true without rational justification. I think there is some truth in that! I don't deny my rationalist, atheistic world-view involves faith.
Depends on what definition a person uses for the word faith. The most common is 'belief without evidence'. This may or may not be what Mopac means by the word, we will get to that.
the difference is my worldview is right and the theistic worldview is wrong!
Do you base this conclusion on rationality then, or faith? A bit of both?
Created:
Posted in:
You want an easy answer that really can't replace experience. How can you get experiential knowledge if you don't have faith?
Is faith the real reason that you believe orthodox christian theology is accurate then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I believe all forms of suffering should be abolished
I hope Victoria isn't into BDSM.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That does answer the question, certainly. It seems that essentially you are saying that your reasoning which you use to conclude that free will does not exist is guided by examining the evidence avaliable to you and forming conclusions based on that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I only asked the question "Why do you not believe in free will?" one time, and I immediately accepted your answer in the sense that I did not dispute its soundness or state disagreement with the conclusion.
My next question was whether you could think of anything that could hypothetically happen or piece of information you could hypothetically learn that would make you less sure that said conclusion was accurate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You already answered the question of why you believe free will probably does not exist... several times... there is no need to keep answering the same question repeatedly since I only asked it once.
I am starting to get the impression that you would preffer to have a debate on the topic. That's fine, this is a debate site after all, I just wasn't looking for a debate on the topic myself (which is one reason I never said or implied that I think you are correct or incorrect)
Created:
Posted in:
My lack of belief is based on the lack of evidence.
Well it isn't just based on that though. The stuff you talked about in post 90 factors in too doesn't it?
Created:
Posted in:
What the hell is a Tul-
*Google search complete*
Oh. I guess... that's... a thing that... exists...
I really want off this planet now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I am not disputing with you whether or not free will exists. You don't even know whether or not I even disagree with you on the subject.
My question was referring to the falsifiability of the belief you chose to talk about, which is the belief that it probably does not exist. I was not asking about the falsifiability of the opposite of your belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I am not asking whether you have encountered such a piece of evidence (obviously you haven't else you would not hold this opinion)... I am asking whether you can imagine one. Falsifiability is the word they call this concept.
Created: