User Tag List

First 8910111220 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 239

  1. #91
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    ha ha, SW, you edited that post so much...!
    I do that too, I rewrite it after I post and tweak everything.

    I liked your first draft best. The latter is more thorough and tries better to explain things, but the first was intuitive and cut right the heart of the matter without getting cluttered.

    I mean, really, isn't just the basic issue that either we all believe whatever we want to believe, or else we have to choose a set of criteria as the framework and then see what beliefs make the most sense? Most of the disagreements occur because the framework is what is being argued over.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  2. #92
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    ha ha, SW, you edited that post so much...!
    I do that too, I rewrite it after I post and tweak everything.

    I liked your first draft best. The latter is more thorough and tries better to explain things, but the first was intuitive and cut right the heart of the matter without getting cluttered.

    I mean, really, isn't just the basic issue that either we all believe whatever we want to believe, or else we have to choose a set of criteria as the framework and then see what beliefs make the most sense? Most of the disagreements occur because the framework is what is being argued over.
    Seems to me that those who think that we should believe in whatever we want greatly outnumber those who think that beliefs need to be supported by a certain epistemic criteria that does make sense.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  3. #93
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    I dont believe what people believe makes a difference to objective reality, what we believe may not make a real difference to God but being superstitious or fearful, the opposite of knowing God, sure can spoil your life.

  4. #94
    Senior Member Chunes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Seems to me that those who think that we should believe in whatever we want greatly outnumber those who think that beliefs need to be supported by a certain epistemic criteria that does make sense.
    I think it's a grave mistake to judge that another's beliefs don't follow some sort of criteria that make sense to that individual.
    "If you would convince a man that he does wrong, do right. But do not care to convince him. Men will believe what they see. Let them see."
    Thoreau

  5. #95
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chunes View Post
    I think it's a grave mistake to judge that another's beliefs don't follow some sort of criteria that make sense to that individual.
    It's not that there is a certain criteria that makes sense to some individuals and not all. There is a criteria that makes sense to all individuals and that criteria is of logical reasoning. If an argument is deductively valid (contains no logical reasoning errors) and its premises are founded on factually accurate statements, then the argument simply points to the truth. Whether those who do not understand how such arguments work agree or disagree is irrelevant. The disagreement of those who refuse to entertain notions that aren't compatible with their beliefs is also irrelevant.

    In short, there is a difference between what objectively makes sense (logical reasoning and factual accuracy) and what does not 'make sense' to some people because they have a certain bias against this or that view or they are too ignorant or too stupid to understand something.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  6. #96
    Senior Member Chunes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    367

    Default

    The way I look at it, there's scarcely a difference between supposed epistomological rigor and any alternative. Starting with perhaps 50 logical premises to come to a conclusion is hardly any different than starting with one or none. It's all a drop in the bucket compared to the premises required for an accurate conclusion, which would be.. roughly infinite.

    What I'm saying is that logic is meaningless outside of closed axiomatic systems, and anyone who considers himself logical under such circumstances is delusional.
    "If you would convince a man that he does wrong, do right. But do not care to convince him. Men will believe what they see. Let them see."
    Thoreau

  7. #97
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chunes View Post
    The way I look at it, there's scarcely a difference between supposed epistomological rigor and any alternative..
    You know what, you're absolutely right. Since logical reasoning and any other alternative are equally justified, why don't I just say that you're wrong and thats the end of the story. I could go on to think of how your views may be logically inconsistent or your starting facts are inaccurate, but this requires some logical reasoning. Since logical reasoning is just as effective as any other alternative, I don't need to bother engaging in logical reasoning. I will just use an alternative to it and my alternative is simply stating that you're wrong.

    Why do I think you're wrong? Should I cite a reason why you are? No, I don't need to because if I did so I'd be using logic. If I use any other alternative, I would have just as much of a justification in saying that you're wrong as I would have had if I did use logical reasoning.

    ------------------------------------------------
    Note: Logic alone does not entail any conclusions outside of some closed system. Logic and mathematics are the only examples of such systems. In everything else, we need not only logical consistency, but also facts.

    Facts are not provided by logic alone, does this mean that we can use any method we want to get these facts? Likely not. In addition to purely logical reasoning or deductive reasoning, there is also probability and inductive reasoning. Both of those methods tell us how likely a certain statement is to be true granted that we cannot prove that it is true by logic alone. The fact that probability shows that we can use any method that we want to arrive at a certain conclusion about the world.

    What happens after we do arrive at our starting facts for the argument? Then we have this closed system of axioms (axioms can be called our basic starting facts for the argument) where logical reasoning is indeed necessary.

    --------------------------------------------------------

    But please, do not despair! I get your point! What you said is true, logic alone cannot tell us anything about the world as it only works in closed systems. Hence, logic alone can't tell us if God exists. Since logic alone cannot answer a question, it means that its not useful to us at all.

    You know this is just like our mothers often told us: you either do a job entirely and well, or you don't do it at all. In other words, unless you get all of your tasks done, you get no credit for your work!

    But really, are these statements anything more than the 'cultural wisdom' of our ancestor generation? Is there any truth to that? Lets see what happens when we apply this statement. A racer who did not finish the race did not participate in the competition at all. Hence, if we know that the racer did not get his entire job that done, that is, he didn't get through the entire course, he did not get through any of it. Isn't there a fact that he did cover a certain distance which means that the statement that he covered nothing is just false?

    -----------------------------------------------------------

    In short, just because a certain activity is not completely effective or does not get the entire job done, it does not mean that it's not effective at all, or that any other activity is just as effective as this activity that didn't get everything done.
    Last edited by SolitaryWalker; 12-09-2009 at 04:21 PM.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  8. #98
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    183

    Default

    A lot of (fundamentalist) Christians wouldn't probably even think that I'm Christian but I'll answer the questions...

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    Did Jesus perform miracles?
    I don't know the answer. That is not a question that I actively think about. I concentrate on his teachings and I think of his miracles as beautiful stories that I can learn from, wether the miracles really happened or not.

    "Did he die for our sins?"

    I believe this doctrine to be only one interpretation and as such only one way to put it. You could say that he died for our sins but that isn't to me a doctrine that has to be repeated again and again because as humans, we can't really understand why Jesus had to die. Saying that he died for our sins is imo like telling a child that an angel has taken your grandma to heaven and now she's looking down at us from above the clouds-- it's a beautiful thing to say, but the truth is not necessarily so literal.

    "Did the resurrection happen?"

    I don't know if any Christian could say that the resurrection didn't happen. Of course, what the resurrection means is a more complicated thing. Personally, I don't believe that Jesus's body literally rose to heaven. It could have happened but it's not an essential foundation of my faith to believe that. I don't actively think about how it happened. I believe that Jesus lives in some way that I can't understand and I think that saying that his body rising to heaven is, again, like tellinga child about an angel who took grandma to a palace in heaven.

    "Or is the Jesus story a creation of the Gospel writers and based largely on earlier Messianic figures?"

    No, I believe that Jesus was (and is) real.

  9. #99
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Church is cool as long as you remember that you should be getting in touch with God, not church.
    What's the point of going to Church in the first place if you are seeking God on an individual basis?

    The Church is the body of God. Not the physical body, but the spiritual body. Neglecting it is only a disservice to yourself and God.

  10. #100
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    What's the point of going to Church in the first place if you are seeking God on an individual basis?

    The Church is the body of God. Not the physical body, but the spiritual body. Neglecting it is only a disservice to yourself and God.
    Right. The Church was set up by Christ for salvation. Protestants seem to forget this. If you deny the importance of the Body of Christ on Earth, then you deny the importance of the Apostles and their successors, as well as the traditions of the first Christians such as their liturgy.

Similar Threads

  1. Questions for those who are completely SURE of their type
    By Such Irony in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 06-15-2013, 11:49 PM
  2. Question for People Who Live In Japan
    By Savage Idealist in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-11-2011, 02:48 AM
  3. Question for those who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds:
    By Brendan in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 111
    Last Post: 05-05-2010, 09:32 PM
  4. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 04-25-2009, 03:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO