Total posts: 5,766
Posted in:
I do not know what this reliable and non-biased method that can be used to sort between true opinions and false opinions is, I only know that it does exist. Perhaps you could tell me what it is?Why do you feel it necessary to turn truth into an opinion?
You do not know either, then? That is unfortunate.
At least we can agree that some opinions are correct (like the belief that orthodox christian theology is accurate) and other opinions are incorrect (like the belief that those other evil-nihilist-heritic-infidel-heathen theologies are accurate). It would be nice to have a reliable and non-biased method that can be used to sort between such true opinions and false opinions though, and to tell which is which.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
And what is something which you could hypothetically learn or experience that might cause you to be less sure that your proposition is correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Because I do not know how what this reliable and non-biased method that can be used to sort between true opinions and false opinions is, I only know that it does exist. Perhaps you could tell me what it is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I'm sorry Mopac, but I think there IS a reliable and non-biased method that can be used to sort between true opinions and false opinions. It is NOT arbitrary.
Created:
Posted in:
Certainly The Holy Spirit grants discernment as a gift, but a purity of heart has little to do with say, constructing an airplane.
There is a reliable and non-biased method that can be used to sort between true opinions and false opinions.
Some might say "the method that can be used to sort between true opinions and false opinions is heart purification" while others might say "Post 308 of this thread is incorrect". Which of these two people is right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm sure whether I can think of any one could argue that others exist.
The only one I am asking is you.
Created:
Posted in:
Someone can't have a pure heart for you.
Right, and if someone says they accept some theology other than orthodox christianity as true then they are wrong. Therefore obviously either that persons heart was not really pure or pure hearts are not a reliable and non-biased method that can be used to sort between true opinions and false opinions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Beliefs are a direct result of our observations colored by our personal bias. Since we neither choose what exists to be observed nor the bias we accrue during our formative years our beliefs are the direct result of factors beyond our control.
Are these the only factors you can think of that influence what a persons beliefs are?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That is incredibly vague. Are you referencing a particular set of observations or are you saying that the very fact that you can make observations at all has led to this conclusion in some way?
Created:
Posted in:
Im sorry but certainty about almost anything may be beyond human epistemology.
I am willing to speak about whether something exists rather than nothing as a quick skim of this thread will attest. I don't think that particular topic is "beyond epistemology' at all, but it has already been brought up and abruptly dropped a few times in this thread. It is repetitiveness that I find boring, not that topic itself.
Was there some particular kind of beliefs you wish to discuss?
Just anything but that, and as I said not because I find the topic itself boring but instead because I find repetitiveness boring.
What do you believe?
Sure, I would even be willing to take the position of the interviewed rather than the interviewer if you wish.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If everybody keeps picking the same thing and just changing the wording this will be a very boring thread indeed.
Besides, how do I know that you aren't me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It goes without saying that orthodox christians have very pure hears since orthodox christians are the very best in every way (and the most humble too).
Luckily for us though we do not use that as our method for distinguishing between opinions that are true and opinions that are false since that would mean that we could only have opinions on things where the purity level of hearts was involved.
It would also mean that all those heritics and infidels with pure hearts would have just as much claim on having true opinions as us.
No. There is a reliable and non-biased method that can be used to sort between true opinions and false opinions. It is not arbitrary.
Created:
Posted in:
Obviously I do see that because I am Orthodox.I don't see that YOU get it, because as I said, you are speaking in a "fill in the blank" type of manner which leads me to believe you are not understanding something.
Look, all I am saying is that if the distinction between true opinions and false opinions was arbitrary then there would not be any clear and non-biased method of distinguishing between opinions that are true and opinions that are false. Look here:
Can we at least agree on that much?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Okay... But the distinction between opinions that are true (like orthodox christianity) and opinions that are false (like other theologies) is not arbitrary. It is very non-arbitrary. There is a very clear and non-biased way of distinguishing between them, the very opposite of arbitrary. Why can't you see that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
And yes, it looks arbitrary. It is as if the theology of the faith itself is meaningless to you.
It would be quite easy to show that it is not arbitrary at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
You still haven't shown me any posts from keith indicating that keith is a genocidal loony. This lack of evidence can't possibly be because you are lying, can it? No, of course not... But I can't think of any other possible reason. Please help me by showing me the posts so that I can see them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Very well. So there are some that know through experience that Orthodox Christianity is the right way to go and we know that these people are correct, meanwhile there are those that know through experience that some other theology is the right way to go and we know that those people are incorrect.I am not entirely sure that you don't see it as an arbitrary thing.
There is a clear difference between the opinions described above that we can see in the bold portions. Some are correct and some are incorrect. This way they can be differentiated, therefore the distinction between them is not arbitrary. Would you not agree?
Created:
Posted in:
If they aren't Orthodox, they aren't doing it right by definition.
Very well. So there are some that know through experience that Orthodox Christianity is the right way to go and we know that these people are correct, meanwhile there are those that know through experience that some other theology is the right way to go and we know that those people are incorrect.
I think I am beginning to understand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
In this context when I say define I mean "to provide a brief and generalized description of"
As one possible example a doctor that uses the Hippocratic oath as their moral basis might be asked to define their moral values. In response they might recite the oath itself (which is well over 300 words long) or they may give the following brief summary: "It is wrong to intentionally cause or allow harm of any kind to anyone under my care"
Created:
Posted in:
On the other hand a pedophile priest believes in god but sins in a big way. Which of us is 'ungodly'? Perhaps we both are, but to lump me and James Fletcher together loses a lot of fine detail!
I don't know keith... I just found out that you and I are apparently genocidal maniacs. Perhaps Fletcher and Grozovsky aren't so bad after all?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Simply recognizing God isn't all there is.
Exactly. So someone that says their theology, being a different theology than yours, worships God as the ultimate reality... That persons theology is incorrect? Yes or no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So someone that says their theology, being a different theology than yours, worships God as the ultimate reality... That persons theology is incorrect?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
They [nihilists] do exist. They do change their minds! I might have been there once.
I have no doubt that they exist. I have simply never met one or been one, though I would like to meet one.
If someone claimed the same thing, well, that wouldn't be strange. However consider this..The God of my religion is The Ultimate Reality. Is there any God greater? Nothing else is even worthy of being called God.
You have said this already. You are repeating yourself. My question is... If someone said the same thing that you say here about some theology other than yours would they be incorrect in saying so? I have my own opinion on this but I wonder what yours is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Which posts from Keith indicate that Keith wishes to genocide all theists? I have never seen such a post by him, do you have a link?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Given the chance to have all theists removed from society atheists would say yes.
I think you misunderstand. When I say "What makes you say that, and why do you say it?" I do not mean "Please say that again in different words."
I am asking why you think Keith is a genocidal lunatic. It seems quite unlikely that he is, but I am sure you have solid evidence to say that it is. Please present this evidence to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I certainly believe that Orthodox Christianity is the form that True Religion has taken on this planet, and that the Orthodox Catholic Church is the authoritative Christian Church.And this way of life is not a conclusion, it is a walk.And you are correct to say this?Of course
And if someone else said the same thing about some other theology then they would be incorrect?
though I doubt I could convince an epistemological nihilist that anything is correct or true.
I doubt I could either but I would very much like to meet a nihilist so that I could try. It is written that Socrates convinced Gorgias to abandon nihilism so it is not impossible!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
keith like most atheists endorses the death of all theists.
That seems unlikely, though if you have evidence to back up this accusation I am willing to believe it. What makes you say this is the case?
Created:
Posted in:
I certainly believe that Orthodox Christianity is the form that True Religion has taken on this planet, and that the Orthodox Catholic Church is the authoritative Christian Church.And this way of life is not a conclusion, it is a walk.
And you are correct to say this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I would agree that a person can hold multiple moral values, I would disagree that such things cannot be defined in simplified terms. The dictionary cannot define Supas moral values, but I think Supa can.
Created:
Posted in:
Speaking of slavery... I wonder where the word apostate comes from.
Greek... Runaway slave... interesting... Keith, you said you are an advocate of apostasy. You would advocate slaves escaping from their masters? Shame on you, you wicked person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Right, so when your experiences lead to the conclusion that Orthodox Christian theology is accurate then this is a correct conclusion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
And do you maintain that this is sometimes a reliable method of reaching conclusions that match with reality and sometimes not reliable, or has this changed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
So lassiez fair is a moral theory now?
Perhaps it would be easiest if you just gave me a brief and generalized description of what your moral values are, assuming that moral values are the topic you wish to speak of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Believing it comes from understanding it
I asked you before why you believed and you said it was due to personal experience. Are you changing that now to say that you believe it because you understand it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
But still we have not begun to look further into this, and I think it would be best if we first clarify one more thing, that is: a brief and generalized description of what your moral values are. Remember that I did not ask you to give me examples of things that you conclude from your moral values, which is what you have done, but instead to briefly explain the general idea underlying your values. Is it possible for you to do this in a few sentences or less?Which beliefs? Political? Religious? Be more specific
It is exceedingly obvious that I did not change the topic you silly person. All of my posts to you were aimed at the same topic, that being the one you chose in post 36. As it is said in the OP I do not wish to choose the topic but I wish instead for others to choose the topic.
You chose the topic of 'moral values', did you not? There is not a single post of mine to you that strayed from that topic. Not one. This is because I said I would let others choose the topic and that is the topic you chose. However, I need you to tell me how you define your moral values because it is impossible for me to speak about something for which I do not have a definition. You have not done this.
"But I defined my moral values in post 38" I hear you protest. But this is not the case, and if it was then I would already have the definition of your moral values. I do not.
Listen closely to this simple concept:
If I asked you to define the word 'shape' would you say to me "Disipulus, a shape is a triangle, rectangle, hexagon, octagon, etc."? Surely you would not be so unkind as to provide me with such a useless definition! Surely you would instead say "A shape is a figure formed by line segments." or some similar definition that would allow me to recognise in the future whether a thing is a shape.
This is, I think, a simple enough idea.
So now I have asked you to define your moral values because that is the topic that you wish to speak of and it is the one you chose. I need a definition if we are to speak on this topic, yet instead of giving me a definition you have given me a list. This does not help me at all. What choice do I have but to ask again for a definition if I ask for one and do not receive one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
In the spirit of this thread, you might ask why I believe you?The only reasons I can come up with are because it is the charitable thing to do and because I have no reason not to. Obviously the reasons for my previous assumption were merely coincidences.
I asked you before if, hypothetically, the evidence you presented were not present you would still believe the conclusion to be the case. I did this, however, not because I am in the habit of asking 'why' of each and every little thing, but instead to determine whether those reasons you provided were actually the true reasons.
Take as an example a person that believes that believes in psychic powers. If they say that they have scientific studies that back it up I could say:
"Suppose hypothetically that these scientific results could be explained without psychic powers. I am not saying this is the case, just suppose that it is. Would this, in your eyes, reduce the likelihood that psychic powers are real?"
You may be suprised how often (espescially in the case of the supernatural, but not just in those cases) the answer to this is "No. This would not affect my certainty at all".
This may seem like a silly response, and it is, but it is nevertheless quite a common one. The proper response to it is to say:
"Then that is not the really the reason you believe. There must be some other reason."
How many are based on coincidental assumptions that have yet to be falsified?
Potentially quite a few. This leads to another important point though. If something is unfalsified then ask whether it is falsifiable. Ask whether it is something that could be disprove if it was false. I believe it is true that the person I call father is my father, for example, but I can imagine a number of ways this might be disproved if it was false. If I held a belief that could not possibly be disproved even if it was false, that would be a problem.
Created:
Posted in:
I have said this in so many ways, I believe because I understand it. As we are talking about apodictic truth, that is all that is necessary.
This is in reference your general belief that God, under your previously described definition, exists?
Created:
Are you trying to solicit votes from people that are not members of that community?
Created:
Posted in:
No, of course not. I would then have no reasons to hold that particular belief.
If some other two people had the same similarities would you say the same is possible of those two?
Are you saying that you and secularmerlin are not the same person?
If I were to say such a thing then I would be speaking the truth. I am not well acquainted with this secularmerlin person of whom you speak, though I have heard the name before.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
What could be more bleedin' obvious than what I am saying?We don't see The Ultimate Reality directly, but through The Most Perfect Image of The Truth.Or here is another way of looking at it.The Ultimate Reality is God.Believe that God means that. Until you do that, The Spirit of Truth is not in you to make it so. You are not believing that He is who He says He is.
Yet again you are not answering the question I asked, but instead a different one.
Behold, the questions you answered in the above quote are these: "How can we see god, and what is god?"
But are these the questions I asked? No, they are not. You know this.
Given that you are in the habit of doing this - and you do it quite often - there is no reason to wonder why someone that dislikes talking in circles might say that your manner of speaking wears them down.
Such is not the case with myself however, and instead of being led along on your tangent I shall repeat my question until it is either answered or openly refused. This is what I have done with my previous questions and each time you eventually gave in and gave a straight answer.
Therefore, here is my question again.
We have established the following facts in our discourse:
1) You believe that the Orthodox Christian theology is accurate in its details of the nature of God.
2) The reason you believe this is due to experiences which you do not wish to go into detail about except to say "They are personal" in other words, personal experiences.
3) You do care whether you are correct about whether or not Orthodox Christian theology is accurate.
4) Personal experiences - such as those you do not wish to discuss except to say that they are the reason for your theological conclusion - sometimes lead to accurate conclusions and sometimes lead to innaccurate conclusions.
All of these things have come from your mouth, not mine. My role has only been as the asker of questions and your role has been to give me your opinion as to the answers.
This brings us to the next question which I have asked now several times and you may or may not eventually answer, which is this:
How do you, Mopac, tell the difference between personal experiences which lead to accurate conclusions and those that lead to innaccurate conclusions? You say that some lead to innaccurate conclusions but clearly think that yours are not one of these, so what is the method which you use to know this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
If none of these things were true, would you still believe it to be likely that SM and myself are the same?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Indeed I have not. I assume based on context clues, however, that it is a game with no winner and loser dynamic. I am aware that such games exist which is why I agreed that this thread could be called a game if one so wished. I was only saying that that is not the first thing that comes to mind when one uses the word 'game'.
More importantly, however, you will recall that my original objection in post 57 did not come up as a result of the word "game" but instead as a result of the word "won". I maintain that it was never my intention to 'win' anything, nor to cause anyone else to 'lose'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I think I was clear enough in describing the goal of the thread. I avoided only the actual words 'street epistemology', and even then only because I don't think it likely that most have ever heard the term before.
An analogy might be saying "Let's put these ingredients together and throw them into an oven following this cake recipe" rather than saying "Let's bake a cake"
I suppose you could say it is a game, but usually when I think of a game there is a winner or winners and a loser or losers, which in this case there clearly is not.
Created:
Posted in:
Wait, can we start over. I've got a better belief that you'll enjoy because I've pretty much already won.
Uhhh... wait... this was some sort of contest or game? I think someone should have told me if that were the case, and explained the rules and the win conditions... It is not fair for only one side to know the rules, and even less fair for only one side to even know that there is a contest occurring.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
It seems be the case that there are those which speak words with the intention of communicating and others which speak words with the intention of appearing wise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece
Partly to do with my belief in solipsism.
Well, if this is the case then if we are to go any further I see no choice but to ask why you hold this belief in solipsism, for you have cornered my by responding to my inquiry into the reason for one belief by stating a different belief.
Therefore I must next ask... What is the reason that you hold this belief in solipsism, and how confident are you that this belief is accurate?
I knew we were going to go down this road.Do you now see why I asked that question at the start?
I maintain that it was you, not I, that chose for your existence to be the topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
In the context of what I am talking about, the question is actually answered by accepting that I am speaking of apodictic truths and not merely assertions that may or may not be true.
Yet you already know that what I mean is to ask you how you tell the difference between personal experiences that lead to incorrect conclusions and what you call "apodictic truth", that being the same as what everyone else calls "being correct"
So as you already know this is my question, please do answer it.
But generally speaking, there are many different ways to check one's experience to reality,
Indeed there are. The question here is asking which of these methods you employ in the case of the experiences that led you to your conclusion, and asking you to tell them to me.
You already knew that though, as I spoke simply and plainly and not in riddles.
and that is a pretty deep subject, eh?
Eh, not particularly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You answered my first question the first time I asked, which is surprising, but you still have not answered the second.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece
What do you mean by the universe being singular, and only after you answer that tell me this: why do you think this is so?
Created: