Personal experience as a basis for god belief

Myles

11-09-07, 10:01 AM

[QUOTE=Myles;1621545]

If a woman is raped, but no one saw the intruder and it is possible only to verify on physical examination that she had intercourse at some point during that day, is her belief that she was raped 'merely' a belief or can she, to herself, feel confident in her knowledge that she was raped?

What about instances where phenomena are not yet recognized or testable by scientific method? Are people who believe, not capable of knowledge?

For example
it was long considered taboo to consider animals as subjects in science.
Animals were considered machines and anyone claiming animals had emotions was considered to be anthropomorphizing or speaking about what they could not know. In the last 30 years a shift happened in the scientific community and it became OK to talk about the intentions, emotions and subjective aspects of animals?

Did those who knew all along that animals have emotions, for example, simply believing in something but did not really know it? If so, I think knowledge in your sense of the word may not be so much better than belief.

another question
most people believe that the self continues through time - has this been proven?
can we prove that there are in fact other minds?

Your first question is badly put. You say : " if she was raped....." This implies that she was raped and that someone ( you ? ) had knowledge of her being raped or there was evidence to support the fact. You then go on to suggest that she alone knew she was raped. Can you see the contradiction ?

You seem to assume that I will only accept what is scientifcally verifiable. How have you arrived at this conclusion ? People share lots of what is commonly accepted as knowledge in which scientists may have no interest whatever. I spoke of evidence, not of scientific proof.

It is by no means clear that all animals have emotions, certainly not in the sense that humans have. Apes ,our closest relatives behave in ways which allows us to reasonably infer that they have emotions and the same may be said of some other animals. But it does not follow from this that those who believed " all along " as you put it had knowledge. They had belief. They also believed all sorts of other things which we now regard as absurd.

The salient point is that we start out with belief and may end up with knowledge. For most of our history people believed the world was flat but no we KNOW better.

As to whether we can prove there are other minds, can I say that we can prove nothing to an unmitigated sceptic.

Gustav

11-09-07, 10:03 AM

Personal experience canot be used as a basis for the existence of god. It can be a basis for belief but that is not the same thing as knowledge.

lets break this shit down. people have a tendency here to discount the subjective experience as, well, subjective. hence, summarily dismissed. what this experience is however, is one of profound importance. it is the foundation, a launch pad for further investigation. you know, throw out a few tentative hypos pertaining to this -----------------ten foot pole------------> subjective experience, revise, discard, discuss, concur, falsify, blah. now, i do understand that while sci has some enlightened, god like members that can discount and dispense of the subjective experience, the rest of us mere mortals simply have no choice in the matter. it is how we are built,. hard coded and cannot be flashed.

i will though troll a conciliatory posture towards the n00b. lets reword...Personal experience cannot be used as the sole basis for establishing the nature of any phenomena.

regardless, it is still not entirely accurate. consider this. aldrin peeked out and apprehended et. he knows this. he saw that sucker with his own two eyes. (this is where the pseudos dash in to smear a highly trained and professional astronaut....[sci's ritual cannibalistic feeding frenzy]). acceptance or rejection, qualified or otherwise, of this experience; merely exposes a society's pathology and nothing else

If a mentally ill patient believes that he is Napoleon , do we believe him ? He certainly believes it. Does believing that the earth is flat make it so ? Of course not.

the delusion could operate on any number of levels. the identity couild be one of convenience. there could be lucid moments. the extreme example given, the usage of "belief" in this context is nothing but a trollish soundbite for unwitting laymen and agenda driven, pseudos.

.....know something means that we can support our belief with objectively verifiable evidence.

ahh. the house of cards. shall i huff and puff? perhaps grant has already done so. i shall look see

Myles

11-09-07, 10:10 AM

At the same time, we're highly suspicious of anything presented as "proof" or "evidence".

But if w examine the proof or evidence with an open mind we may come to a conclusion. Does that bother you ?

Evidence couldn't convince me of that, because the path of evidence is necessarily insufficient.

Why is it necessarily insufficient ? And what would it take to convince you of anything ?

Myles

11-09-07, 10:20 AM

lets break this shit down. people have a tendency here to discount the subjective experience as, well, subjective. hence, summarily dismissed. what this experience is however, is one of profound importance. it is the foundation, a launch pad for further investigation. you know, throw out a few tentative hypos pertaining to this -----------------ten foot pole------------> subjective experience, revise, discard, discuss, concur, falsify, blah. now, i do understand that while sci has some enlightened, god like members that can discount and dispense of the subjective experience, the rest of us mere mortals simply have no choice in the matter. it is how we are built,. hard coded and cannot be flashed.

i will though troll a conciliatory posture towards the n00b. lets reword...Personal experience cannot be used as the sole basis for establishing the nature of any phenomena.

regardless, it is still not entirely accurate. consider this. aldrin peeked out and apprehended et. he knows this. he saw that sucker with his own two eyes. (this is where the pseudos dash in to smear a highly trained and professional astronaut....[sci's ritual cannibalistic feeding frenzy]). acceptance or rejection, qualified or otherwise, of this experience; merely exposes a society's pathology and nothing else

the delusion could operate on any number of levels. the identity couild be one of convenience. there could be lucid moments. the extreme example given, the usage of "belief" in this context is nothing but a trollish soundbite for unwitting laymen and agenda driven, pseudos.

ahh. the house of cards. shall i huff and puff? perhaps grant has already done so. i shall look see

Who rejects subjective experience ? I have never done so.

The rest of your comments do not merit a reply. If you have to resort name calling, e.g., " trollish soundbite for unwitting laymen and agenda driven, pseudos " you are simply demonstrating your inability to express whatever point you wish to make, in a cogent manner.

Grantywanty

11-09-07, 10:20 AM

Your first question is badly put. You say : " if she was raped....." This implies that she was raped and that someone ( you ? ) had knowledge of her being raped or there was evidence to support the fact. You then go on to suggest that she alone knew she was raped. Can you see the contradiction ?

This seems almost willfully naive. Of course there are women who are raped and who cannot provide proof. Do you really think that never happens? Given that it does happen I was speaking about a hypothetical example. And if you are going to start picking at rape, please, I am sure you understand the idea. Sometimes we have experiences that are out of the ordinary that we cannot prove to others that they happened. It is a part of the nature of life. Sometimes the entire class of experience is considered by society to be impossible and later it turns out that it does happen. Those who experienced have every reason to trust their experience. It is knowledge.

You seem to assume that I will only accept what is scientifcally verifiable. How have you arrived at this conclusion ? People share lots of what is commonly accepted as knowledge in which scientists may have no interest whatever. I spoke of evidence, not of scientific proof.

I picked the hardest position I had to counter. It's fine with me if you don't use science as the only validation point. The problem still remains. There have been many phenomena that people experienced and were told they were not correct about. Later science or some other method proved they were correct. Sometimes the original people who believed and had knowledge based on experience were dead. Yet, they knew.

[It is by no means clear that all animals have emotions, certainly not in the sense that humans have. Apes ,our closest relatives behave in ways which allows us to reasonably infer that they have emotions and the same may be said of some other animals.

So the scientists were wrong in their position and for judging people who did, for example, think dogs had emotions were incorrect? (I never said all animals had emotions or that they were the same as ours)

But it does not follow from this that those who believed " all along " as you put it had knowledge. They had belief. They also believed all sorts of other things which we now regard as absurd.

Read that again and notice the shift you make. YOu add in at the end that they had other beliefs that were not correct. That has nothing to do with whether their 'knowledge' based on experience of working with, living near and with animals was correct about animals. Clearly it was.

The salient point is that we start out with belief and may end up with knowledge. For most of our history people believed the world was flat but no we KNOW better.

This is neither here nor there.

As to whether we can prove there are other minds, can I say that we can prove nothing to an unmitigated sceptic.

Yes, like the skeptical scientists that said animals were machines without feeling. How can one prove that they were wrong?

Myles

11-09-07, 10:30 AM

Myles,

Whether we share or not, does not make it any less knowledge.

What evidence would be required to make you believe that God exists?

If you have a headache, then you have a headache. If you are lieing, or saying so because Joe Bloggs, and his crew said so, then that is your business. Do you get my point?
Even if I believed you, it would make no difference to my day to day life.

Why?

Jan.

Unless you are a solipsist you must surely accept that belief is private and knowledge is public.

Evidence for god ? Offer me some and I shall comment.

The question of whether my hypothetical headache would make a difference to your life is totally irrelevant to this discussion

Myles

11-09-07, 11:10 AM

[QUOTE=Grantywanty;1621793]This seems almost willfully naive. Of course there are women who are raped and who cannot provide proof. Do you really think that never happens? Given that it does happen I was speaking about a hypothetical example. And if you are going to start picking at rape, please, I am sure you understand the idea. Sometimes we have experiences that are out of the ordinary that we cannot prove to others that they happened. It is a part of the nature of life. Sometimes the entire class of experience is considered by society to be impossible and later it turns out that it does happen. Those who experienced have every reason to trust their experience. It is knowledge.

I picked the hardest position I had to counter. It's fine with me if you don't use science as the only validation point. The problem still remains. There have been many phenomena that people experienced and were told they were not correct about. Later science or some other method proved they were correct. Sometimes the original people who believed and had knowledge based on experience were dead. Yet, they knew.

So the scientists were wrong in their position and for judging people who did, for example, think dogs had emotions were incorrect? (I never said all animals had emotions or that they were the same as ours)

Read that again and notice the shift you make. YOu add in at the end that they had other beliefs that were not correct. That has nothing to do with whether their 'knowledge' based on experience of working with, living near and with animals was correct about animals. Clearly it was.

This is neither here nor there.

Yes, like the skeptical scientists that said animals were machines without feeling. How can one prove that they were wrong?[/QUOTE

I was on the point of finishing a long answer when my PC crashed. I hope you will believe me even though you have no knowledge of the situation.

I need a break, so will not contact you for a day or so. In the meantime , will you accept that I am bothered about getting mired down in realativism. If we are ever to achieve some degree of tunderstanding of the human condition. I suggest the scientific method is our best hope. I do not deny the value of personal experience, I would even suggest that religion may have some survival value,
but if there are universal truths to be discovered it will only happen if there is convergence in our thinking and understanding.

Grantywanty

11-09-07, 11:44 AM

[QUOTE]I was on the point of finishing a long answer when my PC crashed. I hope you will believe me even though you have no knowledge of the situation.
I appreciate the intended irony here. But I am afraid it is actually a great example. And according to your theory actually you have no knowledge your PC crashed. You just have a belief until you prove it to someone. Should tomorrow, when the tech guy comes to the house, it seem that there is no problem with the PC, you only believed that it crashed, but had no knowledge of it. Or?

Orleander

11-09-07, 11:49 AM

I think personal experience is the only basis for belief in God. The problem is in convincing others, and you are right that personal experience is suspect, since people can be crazy, can hallucinate, they can get caught up in mass hysteria, etc...

I don't understand. Isn't personal experience the basis for belief in everything? :shrug:

Gustav

11-09-07, 12:09 PM

Who rejects subjective experience ? I have never done so.

The rest of your comments do not merit a reply. If you have to resort name calling, e.g., " trollish soundbite for unwitting laymen and agenda driven, pseudos " you are simply demonstrating your inability to express whatever point you wish to make, in a cogent manner.

couldnt care less. you are not the intended audience. just a tool

Enmos

11-09-07, 12:12 PM

Personal experience canot be used as a basis for the existence of god. It can be a basis for belief but that is not the same thing as knowledge.

If a mentally ill patient believes that he is Napoleon , do we believe him ? He certainly believes it. Does believing that the earth is flat make it so ? Of course not.

We can believe anything but to know something means that we can support our belief with objectively verifiable evidence. I am not aware of any argument which supports a belief in god, which is not to doubt the sincerity of those who do hold such beliefs. I just think they are mistaken.

Hard to believe as it is, some members actually believe that believing in something makes it so. If they believe in it enough it will manifest in reality.
The ironic thing is that this would make them as much God as the one they believe in.

Myles

11-09-07, 01:21 PM

QUOTE=Orleander;1621897]I don't understand. Isn't personal experience the basis for belief in everything? :shrug:

When you were a child you had personal experience of water. You called it water because that was the name given to it by others around you.

At school you were told that water consisted of two gases, hydrogen and oxygen. Chances are the teacher gave you a demonstration. So then you knew something because you had experienced it as a result of an interaction with others. If you think about it you will find that every experience that led to knowledge was the result of interacting with others.

The thing to note is that your belief was not "blind". My problem with religion is that I am asked to believe without what I would regard as compelling evidence. If you think about the number of cults there are, each claiming to have a monopoly on TRUTH you will see where "personal ". that is , private experience leads.

If you don't believe me, introduce a Jehovah's Witness to a Mormon, A Muslim to a Jew and so on. Light the blue touchpaper and retire

[/QUOTE]

My PC is playing up, despite which I am sending thois in the hope that you will get it.

Orleander

11-09-07, 01:24 PM

many very very smart brilliant scientists think there is life on other planets with no proof what-so-ever. How is that any different than a god belief?

Myles

11-09-07, 02:25 PM

many very very smart brilliant scientists think there is life on other planets with no proof what-so-ever. How is that any different than a god belief?

You are absolutely right as far as it goes. Now find me a scientist who says he KNOWS there is life on other planets and I will ask him what proof he has. To say they think is the same as to say they believe. You will be hard put to find a reputable scientist who says he KNOWS and he will not fob you off by quoting from a book of dubious provenance

greenberg

11-09-07, 02:39 PM

Why is it necessarily insufficient ?

Because the path of evidentiary support is not finite. Ie., any evidence is only valid until new evidence is found. But a later evidence can be such that it can be used to refute the conclusions based on the earlier evidence.

If your decision is based on conclusions based on evidence, then you might have to review your decisions whenever new evidence comes in.
Which is reasonable with everyday life situations, of course. But taking this approach in regards to matters of God - I find that problematic. Because one thing is to decide for Brand X vitamin supplements, and then changing to Brand Y after a new discovery has been made suggesting that Brand X might contain a carcinogenic ingredient, while Y doesn't. I find it would be odd to say "I will believe in God until new evidence suggests a different decision would be more feasible". When one decides to believe in God, it is with the notion of "forever".

And what would it take to convince you of anything ?

As far as "everyday things" are concerned - not much; the common-sense approach is just fine.

But when it comes to things that are to determine the course of my whole life, things where I would have to make a commitment for the rest of my life - I don't think anything could be enough to convince me.

spidergoat

11-09-07, 03:13 PM

Yes I know to atheists personal experiences are not evidence of God, and atheists cannot give any example of what can be evidence of God besides "God coming down one day" or "reviving an amputee's leg"

All praise the atheistic faith

If we happened to find the series of the first prime numbers coded into a non-active part of our DNA, that would be proof of God, because for such a thing to happen naturally is impossible.

Myles

11-09-07, 03:15 PM

This seems almost willfully naive. Of course there are women who are raped and who cannot provide proof. Do you really think that never happens? Given that it does happen I was speaking about a hypothetical example. And if you are going to start picking at rape, please, I am sure you understand the idea. Sometimes we have experiences that are out of the ordinary that we cannot prove to others that they happened. It is a part of the nature of life. Sometimes the entire class of experience is considered by society to be impossible and later it turns out that it does happen. Those who experienced have every reason to trust their experience. It is knowledge.

I picked the hardest position I had to counter. It's fine with me if you don't use science as the only validation point. The problem still remains. There have been many phenomena that people experienced and were told they were not correct about. Later science or some other method proved they were correct. Sometimes the original people who believed and had knowledge based on experience were dead. Yet, they knew.

So the scientists were wrong in their position and for judging people who did, for example, think dogs had emotions were incorrect? (I never said all animals had emotions or that they were the same as ours)

Read that again and notice the shift you make. YOu add in at the end that they had other beliefs that were not correct. That has nothing to do with whether their 'knowledge' based on experience of working with, living near and with animals was correct about animals. Clearly it was.

This is neither here nor there.

Yes, like the skeptical scientists that said animals were machines without feeling. How can one prove that they were wrong?

You are jumping about but I will do my best to answer you.

If a woman claims to have been raped in private and it is true, then either she knows she has been raped or she is deluded or lying. We have no way of knowing , despite which we may make a judgement based on her previous character, her demeanour, what others say about her and so on.

But this example has no relevance when we are talking about contributing to the sum total of human knowledge. Someone who claims there is a god may be right, wrong., deluded and so on and we will make a judgement based on the evidence he adduces to support his claim. My experience to date is that one cannot reason with such people. They simply resort to quoting from some text which they believe to be infallible. That is not good enough.If we abandon reason for blind faith, then we are lost because anything goes. I accept that people who believe in god are sincere and that such a belief may easy their passage through what some have called a " Vale of Tears ". I simply remain unconvinced.

As to animals' emotions and these scientists you harp on about, can you please find me some specific examples. How would you define emotion ?
I cannot say to what extent animals have emotions, so I cannot comment sensibly on the topic. I assume you can, so I would appreciate an explanation or a reference which I can consult.

You behave as if scientists were superhuman, whereas we all know they are a mixed bunch just like the rest of us. As far as the wisdom of the past is concerned, why not consider what science has done for us and then tell me we are no better off than we were in whatever past period you have in mind.
If we have proof that animals have emotions how did we get it; certainly not from folklore. It would take volumes to list all the rubbish that was believed in the past and which has now fallen by the wayside. Given such a wide range of beliefs something had to be right purely by chance. We tend to remember the good bits and forget the rest.
Equally, scientists have been wrong in the past but their views were corrected by other, later scientists, not by folklore. I do not think you will find a reputable scientist who does not regard knowledge as provisional. Sir James Jeans said as much in 1920 and your own Richard Feynmann remarked on how hard it is to know anything. See what Newton had to say about his achievements.So what point do you think you are making when you criticize them ? Science, unlike religion, is a self-critical process

Myles

11-09-07, 04:18 PM

[QUOTE=Myles;1621848]

I appreciate the intended irony here. But I am afraid it is actually a great example. And according to your theory actually you have no knowledge your PC crashed. You just have a belief until you prove it to someone. Should tomorrow, when the tech guy comes to the house, it seem that there is no problem with the PC, you only believed that it crashed, but had no knowledge of it. Or?

You are quite wrong. In your haste to score a point off me you have overlooked the folowing: I know my PC crashed because I have experience of previous crashes which an engineer, my son, put right. So, it's not a question of blind belief because I have knowledge based on previous experience. The crash could have been caused by the power source, problems with the operating system, hardware faults and so on. I did not know the nature of the problem until my son sorted it out but I did know my PC had crashed.

We do not have to learn the same thing over and over because our beliefs can develop into knowledge. Some people, perhaps you are one. behave as if knowledge were innate so that they make no distinction between what they belief and knowledge. How many times has the end of the world been predicted by someone confusing what he believes with what he knows.I'm sure you can think of many other examples for yourself.

You also made the basic mistake of assuming that I had no source external to share my experience with when I told you my PC had crashed.

Myles

11-09-07, 04:35 PM

Because the path of evidentiary support is not finite. Ie., any evidence is only valid until new evidence is found. But a later evidence can be such that it can be used to refute the conclusions based on the earlier evidence.

If your decision is based on conclusions based on evidence, then you might have to review your decisions whenever new evidence comes in.
Which is reasonable with everyday life situations, of course. But taking this approach in regards to matters of God - I find that problematic. Because one thing is to decide for Brand X vitamin supplements, and then changing to Brand Y after a new discovery has been made suggesting that Brand X might contain a carcinogenic ingredient, while Y doesn't. I find it would be odd to say "I will believe in God until new evidence suggests a different decision would be more feasible". When one decides to believe in God, it is with the notion of "forever".

As far as "everyday things" are concerned - not much; the common-sense approach is just fine.

But when it comes to things that are to determine the course of my whole life, things where I would have to make a commitment for the rest of my life - I don't think anything could be enough to convince me.

You are of course quite right. All knowledge is regarded as provisional by anyone who has given any thougfht to the matter. But, because we must base our decisions on what is known at the time,i.e., we do the best we can,. we have no warrant to believe anything we please unless we have no respect for the truth , that is. WE can believe anything we choose but not expext others to necessarily agree with us.

On common sense I will content myself with quoting Mark Twain. He said : Common sense is not very common. "

Who is asking you to make a commitment for the rest of your life ? Join the club and live for the day because, in the end, that is all you can do anyway. Have a good trip !

lightgigantic

11-09-07, 08:36 PM

Personal experience canot be used as a basis for the existence of god. It can be a basis for belief but that is not the same thing as knowledge.

If a mentally ill patient believes that he is Napoleon , do we believe him ? He certainly believes it. Does believing that the earth is flat make it so ? Of course not.

We can believe anything but to know something means that we can support our belief with objectively verifiable evidence. I am not aware of any argument which supports a belief in god, which is not to doubt the sincerity of those who do hold such beliefs. I just think they are mistaken.
there are serious epistemological issues that have to be cleared up - mainly your exact usage of the words subjective and objective (since even object claims are made by individuals)
for instance, how would you propose that one objectively indicate that the world is not flat?

Saquist

11-10-07, 01:13 AM

If a mentally ill patient believes that he is Napoleon , do we believe him ? He certainly believes it. Does believing that the earth is flat make it so ? Of course not.

Curious. Here you present to expose a belief by disbelief, which is of course a belief. That is a most intresting conudrum.

greenberg

11-10-07, 03:56 AM

Who is asking you to make a commitment for the rest of your life ?

There are people who are asking that of me, too.

But myself, I am getting tired of short-term relationships with philosophies.

Join the club and live for the day because, in the end, that is all you can do anyway. Have a good trip !

There was a time when I would agree with that. Now, I'm not so sure anymore. I'm not so sure that living for the day is all I can do, or all I should take into consideration.

Grantywanty

11-10-07, 05:21 AM

I don't understand. Isn't personal experience the basis for belief in everything? :shrug:
Yes. Of course for some people that experience is of someone telling them what to believe.

Grantywanty

11-10-07, 05:56 AM

[QUOTE=Grantywanty;1621889]

You are quite wrong. In your haste to score a point off me you have overlooked the folowing: I know my PC crashed because I have experience of previous crashes which an engineer, my son, put right. So, it's not a question of blind belief because I have knowledge based on previous experience. The crash could have been caused by the power source, problems with the operating system, hardware faults and so on. I did not know the nature of the problem until my son sorted it out but I did know my PC had crashed.

We do not have to learn the same thing over and over because our beliefs can develop into knowledge. Some people, perhaps you are one. behave as if knowledge were innate so that they make no distinction between what they belief and knowledge. How many times has the end of the world been predicted by someone confusing what he believes with what he knows.I'm sure you can think of many other examples for yourself.

You also made the basic mistake of assuming that I had no source external to share my experience with when I told you my PC had crashed.

1) this is all hearsay on your part.
2) but really Myles. Use a little imagination. What if you had simply said it was not working and had not had a witness.

You can see the point I was making. Do you really think situations like that do not come up.

Or do you think that kind of situation is impossible?

If you do we have nothing further to say to each other. I have to say I think you are being stubborn here for some reason.

Myles

11-10-07, 06:00 AM

there are serious epistemological issues that have to be cleared up - mainly your exact usage of the words subjective and objective (since even object claims are made by individuals)
for instance, how would you propose that one objectively indicate that the world is not flat?

I could ask someone to watch a ship disappearing over the horizon, an event that woul suggest the world at that point was curved. If that were insufficient then I would suggest that he/ she take passage on a ship on observe what was happning. I would not be asking them to accept my word for it; rather I would ask that they check it put for themselves/

Nowadays, one would tend to show pictures from space.

So, I am using "objective" in the sense of inviting others to check for themselves whether what I say is correct or not.

You may argue that the opinions of others are also subjective, so that we have a chain of subjective opinion , as it were. But this would be straining at a gnat.

Finally, one could make predictions concerning the motion of the earth around the sun, on its axis and so on and these predictions would be shown to be true. If that were not enough to convince someone, I would give up because an unmitigated sceptic can be convinced of nothing, despite which he expects the sun to "rise" each morning.

Myles

11-10-07, 06:19 AM

There are people who are asking that of me, too.

But myself, I am getting tired of short-term relationships with philosophies.

There was a time when I would agree with that. Now, I'm not so sure anymore. I'm not so sure that living for the day is all I can do, or all I should take into consideration.

Well, the choice is yours. I have lived for 75 years, most of which was without spiritual props, but I understand this may not suit everyone. Perhaps you should consider an injunction of the Buddha who suggested that we seek out our salvation with diligence by to examining things for ourselves and not to simply rely on what others tell us. I can understand that you are getting tired with short-term relationships from which I infer that you have investigated some belief systems without finding satisfactory answers. This is a problem we all face because the world is full of people claiming to have the key to existence. Only you can decide how top live your life.

Folow your heart/ head and find your own answers. The fact that I and others may think you are wrong is of no consequence. You are entitled to believe what you choose but ,unlike all the spiritual gurus out there, you are not entitled to foist your beliefs on others by claiming that you have found a " one-size-fits-all" answer.

Good luck

Myles

11-10-07, 06:29 AM

Curious. Here you present to expose a belief by disbelief, which is of course a belief. That is a most intresting conudrum.

It may be a conundrum to you but it is not so to others. You are simply playing with words. Try Scrabble. To believe that Napoleon died a long time ago is to believe a historical fact. To believe that someone claiming to be Napoleon is in error is rational.

So if you want to play with words by suggesting that a belief that something isn't is different from disbelieving that that same thing is, that is your privilege , but a moment's reflection should show you that there is no conundrum.

Myles

11-10-07, 07:05 AM

[QUOTE=Myles;1622474]

1) this is all hearsay on your part.
2) but really Myles. Use a little imagination. What if you had simply said it was not working and had not had a witness.

You can see the point I was making. Do you really think situations like that do not come up.

Or do you think that kind of situation is impossible?

If you do we have nothing further to say to each other. I have to say I think you are being stubborn here for some reason.

There is no way you are going to be satisfied. To say my PC has crashed is based on previous experience, as I have already said. That experience was corroborated by others so I can confidently say my computer crashed. If you want to claim that my experience was gained from a long line of deluded individuals thus making it invalid, then there is nothing further I can say to convince you otherwise. If knowledge is not gained in the way I have described then I am wrong. I wonder how many people would disagree with me, however.

You obviously have a bee in your bonnet about science. Where have you been ?

Consider the advances made in medicine such as the eradication of disease and compare that with the thousands of folk remedies that were proposed in the past. If you become seriously ill, will you not consult a doctor, have a stay in hospital if necessarry or will you rely on the "wisdom" of the past and seek remedies in folklore ?

I will not repeat myself by mentioning all the other achievements of science and before you say so, I know we have produced ghastly weapons. But nuclear bombs also illustrate advances in knowledge, however terrible the consequences.

You suggest I may be stubborn. Well, the other side of that coin is that I am not prepared to enter into a dialogue with someone who shows signs of having a closed mind. You generalize about scientists not believing this that and the other. Anyone can make wild accusations which cannot be refuted ,because the person making them will not come clean by being specific. You seem to have some sort of grudge against science and reason.

Your criticism of my interpretation of the PC problem is a good example of what I am talking about. Do you honestly believe that one cannot make a judgement based on past experience, allowing that our judgement may sometimes be mistaken.

Grantywanty

11-10-07, 07:36 AM

[QUOTE=Grantywanty;1623000]

There is no way you are going to be satisfied. To say my PC has crashed is based on previous experience, as I have already said. That experience was corroborated by others so I can confidently say my computer crashed. If you want to claim that my experience was gained from a long line of deluded individuals thus making it invalid, then there is nothing further I can say to convince you otherwise. If knowledge is not gained in the way I have described then I am wrong. I wonder how many people would disagree with me, however.

You obviously have a bee in your bonnet about science. Where have you been ?

Consider the advances made in medicine such as the eradication of disease and compare that with the thousands of folk remedies that were proposed in the past. If you become seriously ill, will you not consult a doctor, have a stay in hospital if necessarry or will you rely on the "wisdom" of the past and seek remedies in folklore ?

I will not repeat myself by mentioning all the other achievements of science and before you say so, I know we have produced ghastly weapons. But nuclear bombs also illustrate advances in knowledge, however terrible the consequences.

You suggest I may be stubborn. Well, the other side of that coin is that I am not prepared to enter into a dialogue with someone who shows signs of having a closed mind. You generalize about scientists not believing this that and the other. Anyone can make wild accusations which cannot be refuted ,because the person making them will not come clean by being specific. You seem to have some sort of grudge against science and reason.

Your criticism of my interpretation of the PC problem is a good example of what I am talking about. Do you honestly believe that one cannot make a judgement based on past experience, allowing that our judgement may sometimes be mistaken.

Hello. You are confusing me with other people. I am not against science.

So you past experience was in fact a helpful basis, eh? But if no one had witnessed it, THEN you wouldn't have known. I am glad for you you had a witness otherwise you could only have had a belief that your computer was not working.

But, I give up. I'll just agree with you. If I experience something and cannot prove it to other people I have no knowledge. There are no exceptions to this. Throughout history all phenomena that were real could be proven to be real. And all individuals encountering new things who could not prove these new things existed didn't really know about them. They actually had no knowledge of these new and real things, they just had belief. Nothing is hidden in our world. All is on the surface. And everyone is both willing and able to come and check them out and recognize them for what they are.

greenberg

11-10-07, 08:20 AM

The fact that I and others may think you are wrong is of no consequence.

It is of much consequence. People lose their jobs, get institutionalized and so on because of the fact that other people think they are wrong.

Good luck

Thank you.

Myles

11-10-07, 08:31 AM

[QUOTE=Myles;1623045]

Hello. You are confusing me with other people. I am not against science.

So you past experience was in fact a helpful basis, eh? But if no one had witnessed it, THEN you wouldn't have known. I am glad for you you had a witness otherwise you could only have had a belief that your computer was not working.

But, I give up. I'll just agree with you. If I experience something and cannot prove it to other people I have no knowledge. There are no exceptions to this. Throughout history all phenomena that were real could be proven to be real. And all individuals encountering new things who could not prove these new things existed didn't really know about them. They actually had no knowledge of these new and real things, they just had belief. Nothing is hidden in our world. All is on the surface. And everyone is both willing and able to come and check them out and recognize them for what they are.

You got there before me. I was about to give up on you, but I would say that anyway, wouldn't I. You continue to miss the point or you refuse to see it.

So, in saying farewell, I'll leave you with one last comment.

If you have an experience and cannot prove it to anyone , then you have had an experience. I cannot imagine anyone denying that, unless they believe you are lying. But you have no guarantee that you have knowledge as far as the content of that experience is concerned. You could have been hallucinating that you were talking to angels, for example. It follows that knowledge is acquired by experience verified by others. No verification, no knowledge, just belief. If, you receive veification, that is if a degree of consensus with others is reached, you are entitled to say that you "know" something. You may have to change your mind if evidence comes to light which makes it reasonable to do so. That is the stuff of progress.

So, I know what a computer crash is, for reasons I gave previously I may have been wrong on this occasion; I might have been hallucinating. But if that were so, it would support rather than undermine my argument.

I wish you well

greenberg

11-10-07, 08:36 AM

If you have an experience and cannot prove it to anyone , then you have had an experience. I cannot imagine anyone denying that, unless they believe you are lying. But you have no guarantee that you have knowledge as far as the content of that experience is concerned. You could have been hallucinating that you were talking to angels, for example. It follows that knowledge is acquired by experience verified by others. No verification, no knowledge, just belief. If, you receive veification, that is if a degree of consensus with others is reached, you are entitled to say that you "know" something. You may have to change your mind if evidence comes to light which makes it reasonable to do so. That is the stuff of progress.

I think the trouble the two of you are facing is that you have incompatible definitions of what "knowledge" is.

Orleander

11-10-07, 08:36 AM

Yes. Of course for some people that experience is of someone telling them what to believe.

yes, and I believe some scientific stuff I'm told here. If I didn't believe it, I would go read one of the numerous books written about it.

With God, some people believe what they are told. If they have questions they read the Bible, or one the numerous books that have been written about it.

Myles

11-10-07, 08:47 AM

It is of much consequence. People lose their jobs, get institutionalized and so on because of the fact that other people think they are wrong.

Thank you.

What you say is correct. Do you remember what happened to Gallileo ? When I said of no cosequence, I meant as far as what you choose to believe and do with your life, given that you allow others the same privelige. Your truth is your truth whatever others may say or do. Notice I did not write TRUTH.

As far as people being institutionalized is concerned, we can generally rely on a system of checks and balances. It is a sad fact that mistakes will sometimes be made but that's the way we humans are. Infallibility is for the Pastor Phelps of this world; those who talk of god's love whilst demonizing those who disagree with them.

I have been a free thinker for the past sixty years and have yet to be institutionalized. Don't worry too much about it. Just be true to yourself and take your chances.

I wish you a long, happy life unfettered by dogma and superstition.

Myles

11-10-07, 08:49 AM

I think the trouble the two of you are facing is that you have incompatible definitions of what "knowledge" is.

You have hit the nail on the head.

Grantywanty

11-10-07, 08:51 AM

I think the trouble the two of you are facing is that you have incompatible definitions of what "knowledge" is.

I think that is part of it. In his last response to me he uses the example of angels. But in a rape situation, I do feel I would have knowledge that I was raped.

Also notice that knowledge for him can be incorrect. When it is verified by others it becomes knowledge and is no longer merely belief. Certainly even scientists have verified beliefs that later turned out to be incorrect- say around race or when native americans first settled south america as two examples off the top of my head.

For me knowledge is, ironically, stronger that it is for him. I am assuming it is correct. (note, I am not assuming that when one thinks one knows one does).

Myles

11-10-07, 09:48 AM

I think that is part of it. In his last response to me he uses the example of angels. But in a rape situation, I do feel I would have knowledge that I was raped.

Also notice that knowledge for him can be incorrect. .

I have no wish to re-open a discussion with you but I feel entitled to point out that you are deliberately or unwittingly confusing the situation.

Of course knowledge can be wrong. If you deny this you remain stuck in the past. I have said that it can only be regarded as provisional; otherwise we would have stopped asking questions long ago and made no further progress. We can only base our actions on what is known at a given time. We cannot see what the future holds.

However you look at it, knowledge is on a firmer foundation than mere belief.

Consider what people have suffered and are continuing to suffer because there are others who insist that their belief in some holy book guarantees the TRUTH. And yes, their belief will be verified by their guillible followers. So we come back to the question of the value of personal belief in providing evidence for the existence of god. If I ask for proof I will be treated to a quotation from the Bible, the Koran, the book of Mormon or whatever. If I am not satisfied, one quotation will be propped up by another from the same source. The people I am talking to are simply begging the question, so no progress can be made. If one cuts a swathe through the verbiage the arguments put forward by theists amount to; God exists because it says so in some book and because that book is the holy word of god or words he has dictated to someone it cannot be wrong, ergo god exists

I have no such problem with deists

Myles

11-10-07, 09:55 AM

yes, and I believe some scientific stuff I'm told here. If I didn't believe it, I would go read one of the numerous books written about it.

With God, some people believe what they are told. If they have questions they read the Bible, or one the numerous books that have been written about it.

You don't need to believe in science and the scientific method. Just drive your car, catch a plane , watch television or ,as you have been doing , use your PC and you will have proof if you ned it.

If you want a ride in a fiery chariot, you must seek help elsewhere

Grantywanty

11-10-07, 10:14 AM

Of course knowledge can be wrong.
And in some instances the private experiencers have been right even though their ideas contradicted the science of the time.
I am not one of nor am I fond of in general the types of theists you are most concerned about. They used to kill people like me. And generally after torture. I see no reason to assume they won't start it up again.
I do agree in general that knowledge (that includes experience) is stronger than experience alone.
I am yet to be convinced that I can only consider knowledge that which I can prove to someone else.
I am also very glad that people before me in time, did not assume that they needed to wait for science (or consensus) to confirm everything they considered knowledge.

Gustav

11-10-07, 10:42 AM

You don't need to believe in science and the scientific method. Just drive your car, catch a plane , watch television or ,as you have been doing , use your PC and you will have proof if you ned it.

nice. the process is inherent and implicit in the most mundane of activities
an insight easily overlooked
thanks

i realized this when i decided to bring god back as proof of the validity of my subjective experience. i could not simply stop at the experience. further verification seems to be practically autonomic

Gustav

11-10-07, 10:56 AM

the fantastic claims obviously needs a scientific setting with the requisite tools in order to be validated. y'know, whips, nipple clamps, handcuffs...basement and whatnot

dear god
this wont hurt one bit

Myles

11-10-07, 11:13 AM

And in some instances the private experiencers have been right even though their ideas contradicted the science of the time.
I am not one of nor am I fond of in general the types of theists you are most concerned about. They used to kill people like me. And generally after torture. I see no reason to assume they won't start it up again.
I do agree in general that knowledge (that includes experience) is stronger than experience alone.
I am yet to be convinced that I can only consider knowledge that which I can prove to someone else.
I am also very glad that people before me in time, did not assume that they needed to wait for science (or consensus) to confirm everything they considered knowledge.

Let's call it quits. I have been concerned with knowledge of the external world, not subjective experiences.Perhaps I should have made my position clearer.

As to your being pleased that people before you did not wait for science etc. don't overlook the downside. How would you fancy a doctor bleeding you to cure the vapours or whatever. Less than 200 years ago , if you were considered insane one possible part of the "cure" would be to beat hell out of you. This still happens today in cultures which regard some individuals as being possessed by evil spirits. You make a good point for me when you say you might have been killed for your beliefs. Some theists, or people claiming to be theists, still slaughter innocent people today, as you well know. They blindly believe what they are told by men they regard as wiser than themselves.

After all our exchanges, it seems we are closer in outlook than we first imagined. I wish you well.

Myles

11-10-07, 11:20 AM

Saquist

11-10-07, 12:03 PM

It may be a conundrum to you but it is not so to others. You are simply playing with words. Try Scrabble. To believe that Napoleon died a long time ago is to believe a historical fact. To believe that someone claiming to be Napoleon is in error is rational.

So if you want to play with words by suggesting that a belief that something isn't is different from disbelieving that that same thing is, that is your privilege , but a moment's reflection should show you that there is no conundrum.

The conundrum is the belief requirement indicative to either side. Napolean's demise is a forgone conclusion if he actually existed. We believe he existed due to existential information we sometimes take for granted. I only point out that true confirmation of Napoleans existence is marked by history in the form God's existance is marked in history. Napolean had a certain impact on the world as well as God. Both of their contributions to history are not unmitagated by any facts and secured by written history. It seems your illistration was better than even you knew.

Myles

11-10-07, 12:34 PM

The conundrum is the belief requirement indicative to either side. Napolean's demise is a forgone conclusion if he actually existed. We believe he existed due to existential information we sometimes take for granted. I only point out that true confirmation of Napoleans existence is marked by history in the form God's existance is marked in history. Napolean had a certain impact on the world as well as God. Both of their contributions to history are not unmitagated by any facts and secured by written history. It seems your illistration was better than even you knew.

Which god are you talking about and as for his influence, just look at the state of the world. And please don't tell me we are all sinners or that god gave us free will. I have yet to meet a human who was responsible for a flood which caused devastation and loss of life, for example. But those who believe in a Christian god seem to believe that god did such a thing. I seem to remember that he was having a second go, as things had not gone as planned the first time round. So much for omniscience. The deluge he created was a case of " back to the drawing board "

If you believe in some other god , that's fine. But as I say to the people who come to my door selling Jesus, double glazing , etc., I'm not interested.

Please do not expect a response to any further correspondence.

Myles

11-10-07, 12:52 PM

I have just looked at a few of your other posts and found that I had summed you up correctly. You use lots of words without saying anything of significance.

As you promote the Bible, I take it you believe what it says in Judges 19:23-24. , a disgusting description of a gang rape for those who care to read it.All part of god's creation.

You are deluded and beyond help. So please tout your wares elsewhere. I was brought up to respect the religious views of others but I have never met a Christian who respects my atheism, so I have run out of patience with you and your ilk. So go and argue in a circle with someone else.

Saquist

11-10-07, 01:55 PM

Which god are you talking about and as for his influence, just look at the state of the world. And please don't tell me we are all sinners or that god gave us free will. I have yet to meet a human who was responsible for a flood which caused devastation and loss of life, for example. But those who believe in a Christian god seem to believe that god did such a thing. I seem to remember that he was having a second go, as things had not gone as planned the first time round. So much for omniscience. The deluge he created was a case of " back to the drawing board "

If you believe in some other god , that's fine. But as I say to the people who come to my door selling Jesus, double glazing , etc., I'm not interested.

Please do not expect a response to any further correspondence.

Your post seems to take the perspective against defending the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures from not being malicious and tyranical. You've stated these accusations premptively to curtail widening your own understanding. Or perhaps from listening to any other contrary perspectives, leaning upon your own understanding. That is exmplified in your most immediate response posing a question as a statement then routing the need for rejoinder. This must be a direct contradiction to opening such a topic to discussion.

Aside from this diversion, it is established through the apparent lack of disagreement on your part that there is a tangable truth to perception that limits us to a realm of shared experiences to draw from. Exceeding this coporeal line of reasoning draws upon belief more often than it draws upon facts. Relegating belief as a measure of reality is a communal attachement we all share but is currently exhibited more strongly on this forum supposedly dedicated on the ridge defining of the world rather than a societal perception of it. The relative association of science and perception create a percieved state of communal superiority where strength in the numerical is percieved through the vagaries of perception elevate belief to an equal plane with that of facts and logic. While it is true that Facts and Logic require an association with societal context they remain mostly unshakable in acceptance. Societal perceptions become agrivated when questioned and become taboos and superstitions. Taboos are societal defined fears. Fear leads to avoidance, avoidence to intolerance, intolerance leads directly to an unquestioned teaching of the original perception subsequently straying far from science.

As always, I remain open to meaningful communication.

Gustav

11-10-07, 02:19 PM

As always, I remain open to meaningful communication.

and therein lies the only fault i have identified within a most sophisticated and thoughtful discourse; an unreasonable expectation. an expectation that is magnified tenfold when situated in sigh

work on it, buddy
it is just a minor imperfection

Saquist

11-10-07, 02:22 PM

It is true, not all discourse can be a realisticly expected to be meaningful when meaning and knowledge are taken for granted.

Gustav

11-10-07, 02:31 PM

no sarcasm intended
however, i do not require instruction on dogma

Saquist

11-10-07, 02:47 PM

Myles

11-10-07, 03:10 PM

[QUOTE=Saquist;1623451]Your post seems to take the perspective against defending the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures from not being malicious and tyranical. You've stated these accusations premptively to curtail widening your own understanding. Or perhaps from listening to any other contrary perspectives, leaning upon your own understanding. That is exmplified in your most immediate response posing a question as a statement then routing the need for rejoinder. This must be a direct contradiction to opening such a topic to discussion.

Aside from this diversion, it is established through the apparent lack of disagreement on your part that there is a tangable truth to perception that limits us to a realm of shared experiences to draw from. Exceeding this coporeal line of reasoning draws upon belief more often than it draws upon facts. Relegating belief as a measure of reality is a communal attachement we all share but is currently exhibited more strongly on this forum supposedly dedicated on the ridge defining of the world rather than a societal perception of it. The relative association of science and perception create a percieved state of communal superiority where strength in the numerical is percieved through the vagaries of perception elevate belief to an equal plane with that of facts and logic. While it is true that Facts and Logic require an association with societal context they remain mostly unshakable in acceptance. Societal perceptions become agrivated when questioned and become taboos and superstitions. Taboos are societal defined fears. Fear leads to avoidance, avoidence to intolerance, intolerance leads directly to an unquestioned teaching of the original perception subsequently straying far from science.

As always, I remain open to meaningful communication.[/QUOTE

Be patient. God will communicate with you as you have the obvious ability to talk in tongues.

Myles

11-10-07, 03:45 PM

[QUOTE=Myles;1623493][QUOTE=Saquist;1623451]

I have just read one of your posts elsewhere, in which you say the world is in the grip of Satan. As we say on this side of the pond. you are stark, raving bonkers and not open to any discussion that does not fit in with your view of the world.

You express yourself in such a stilted fashion that it is reasonable accuse you of blustering. I have seldom come across such verbosity. Are you hoping that your obscurantism and verbosity will persuade us that you are saying something worth listening to?

You have been trained in the same way as salesmen are trained. i.e., never mention price until the last possible moment by which time you will have "sold" them. For price read beliefs.

Can you avoid prolixity and give a straight answer to my question: Do you believe the bible to be the revealed word of god and that everything it contains is literally true ? Which version do you use ?

Gustav

11-10-07, 03:59 PM

My purpose is to maintain an "exact" perception, (if those two words share any relation at all) of yours and any other post I deam necessary to make response. At the very least I attribute to words their meaning and to statements only their immediate context. Thus I honestly did not take offense of a comment which was inherently true.

while technical competence is the immediate requirement, there also is a psychosocial component that should not be neglected nor ignored. utilizing the resources here can aid in resolving any ambiguity within the words themselves or perhaps applied towards any professed discordance between intent and its expression

i find these projections useful in most cases

"face value" is the manner of acceptance
"inherent dignity" is the value accorded
"rationality" is the assumption

/born again

Gustav

11-10-07, 04:04 PM

you gotta love it, man
those were the days

I have just read one of your posts elsewhere, in which you say the world is in the grip of Satan.

citation please. an exact link

Myles

11-10-07, 05:12 PM

you gotta love it, man
those were the days

citation please. an exact link

Thread: Is god willing but not able ?
Page2. Number 37 posted yesterday05.13 pm
I quote: " Thus this is Satan's world"

If you care to look you will see that much of what he says contains references to the bible.

I'm afraid it's the old story; the answer is in the bible. I cannot find any post of his which attempts to show why we should believe what's in the bible. He like the people who come to my door. They "support" everything they say by quoting the bible. When asked why I shoul believe the bible they simply give me another quotation.

As far as I can make out., all of these people live in a cosy cocoon which puts them beyond the reach of reason.

I have asked him some questions which can be answered without resorting to linguistics, metaphysics or anything of the kind. Does he believe the bible is the revealed word of god ? Does he regard it as infallible ? These questions can be answered with a simple yes or no, before we enter into any further dialogue. If a straight answer is not given, we are entitled to draw our own conclusions as to why not. Seems fair to me.

Myles

11-10-07, 06:07 PM

[QUOTE=Gustav;1623526]you gotta love it, man
those were the days

This should bring a smile to your face. I have just come another of this man's posts in which he says that the ability to see god is beyond us. That is the gist of what he said. I couldn't be bothered to copy it outexactly or yo quote chapter and verse.

So you may join me in thinking that it's very convenient for the door-knocking god-botherers that we cannot see the god they talk about with such confidence.
If they are right. I wonder what god has to hide I can't wait for judgement day when I may get to see him. You must visit my home country, Ireland, one day. the place is crawling with fairies and leprechauns. You won't be able to see them but the natives will tell you all you want to know, as long as you keep buying pints of Guinness for them. I now live in England because the littlr people never gave me a minutes peace at home

Gustav

11-10-07, 06:10 PM

Myles

11-10-07, 06:44 PM

alright grasshopper
i appreciate the effort
let me break it down
you seem lucid enough

i notice my intrusive questioning
i see frag's sanctimonious preaching

we dont do that kind of thing in sci

how this turn of events came about...clueless
sci is your place. find your own role here
you stand or fall on your own intellect

sit back, observe, interact. try to have some fun!

oh, you will find out that most answers are qualified
it is just a reflection of our status and there is nothing wrong with a dash of ambiguity to spice things up

now give me the finger and be on your way

and stop being so enthusiastic
we are dying in here

Sounds like you are off to Japan soon but you really must learn to say "glasshopper". You see the Japanese have a problem with rs. It even has a name, "lambdacism". Aren't I the clever one but , to be honest, I cannot take the credit for my erudition. Angels teach me while I sleep.

Apropos of dying I'm nearing the end of the road and it doesn't bother me in the least

greenberg

11-11-07, 03:46 AM

Consider what people have suffered and are continuing to suffer because there are others who insist that their belief in some holy book guarantees the TRUTH.

I find it telling that this is how you (and many others) are formulating it. It's basically a tradition.

The theist perpetrators have defined their fight against others as being a matter of those others "denying the truth".

The victims have bought the perpetrator's definition as true and pertinent.

So the victims are now playing the perpetrator's game, defining their hardship on the terms set by the perpetrator.

It's as if I were assaulted and the perpetrator would tell me "You deserve to be assaulted and killed because your name starts with a G and I hate names starting with G". And then I would seek to find "evidence" or "proof" that there is nothing hatable about names starting with G and that thus he was not entitled to assault me.
- Would I have done that, I would be plaiyng his game, understanding the assault ON HIS TERMS. It would be really stupid of me.

The above is a very simplistic example - and yet, it captures exactly the way that so many victims behave: They are hurt, and they take the pepetrator's definition of what is going on to be true, or they seek to refute it. Either way, the victims are thus playing the perpetrator's game, and it never ends.

And yes, their belief will be verified by their guillible followers. So we come back to the question of the value of personal belief in providing evidence for the existence of god. If I ask for proof I will be treated to a quotation from the Bible, the Koran, the book of Mormon or whatever. If I am not satisfied, one quotation will be propped up by another from the same source. The people I am talking to are simply begging the question, so no progress can be made. If one cuts a swathe through the verbiage the arguments put forward by theists amount to; God exists because it says so in some book and because that book is the holy word of god or words he has dictated to someone it cannot be wrong, ergo god exists

I'm starting to seriously wonder -

Why do non-theists engage in dicsussions with theists?
What is hoped for?
What is to be gained?

Do we think that if we outargue them, they will leave us alone?

Do we think that if we outargue them, they will admit the error of their ways and change?

greenberg

11-11-07, 03:54 AM

I have been concerned with knowledge of the external world, not subjective experiences.

Let's not forget that using terms like these suggests that you hold that the distinction "external vs. internal" truly applies, and also that the distinction "subjective vs. objective" truly applies.

These distinctions are traditionally taken for granted, but neither are they universally accepted, nor can they be proved.

Grantywanty

11-11-07, 05:25 AM

I have been concerned with knowledge of the external world, not subjective experiences.Perhaps I should have made my position clearer.

As Greenberg has said this distinction is not that clear and what consensus has said was 'internal' has sometimes turned out to be external.

Further Quantum Mechanics also calls into question the hardness of this distinction and so does the latest neuroscience.

Toss in the general confusion about how we reify things using words.

As to your being pleased that people before you did not wait for science etc. don't overlook the downside. How would you fancy a doctor bleeding you to cure the vapours or whatever.

1) I could point out some of the horrors of conventional medicine errors in the past (and present), but I think that again you would assume I am against science. In fact what I am against is people thinking that scientific explanations preclude others. I am also against the non-historical view people have in relation to science. They assume that they can tell the liklihood of certain phenomena given what science has proven so far. This is just intuition.
2) I have treated myself for a wide variety of medical problems using herbs, my knowledge of them coming primarily from Native American traditional healers. Just because some European folk healers were goofballs with poor intuitions and theories does not mean that everyone must be. Further I think you need to look at the way you use worst case scenarios to reinforce your certainty about approaches of gaining knowledge that are different from yours. Psychiatrists used to regularly stick a needle above the eye into the brains of uppity women and sever the connection between their brain halves.
Have i now proven something about Western Medicine? This is not an either or situation. On my part that is.

Less than 200 years ago , if you were considered insane one possible part of the "cure" would be to beat hell out of you.
Shall I go into the mass drugging of children today and the way pharmaceutical companies market illnesses now instead of simply medicines? And also see above.

This still happens today in cultures which regard some individuals as being possessed by evil spirits. You make a good point for me when you say you might have been killed for your beliefs. Some theists, or people claiming to be theists, still slaughter innocent people today, as you well know. They blindly believe what they are told by men they regard as wiser than themselves.

Yeah, thank God the non-theists are so nice. China, USSR, for example. And how do I categorize the behavior of the USA in relation to South America? Who were the major decision-makers, theists, non-theists. A combination? This article of faith on atheists' parts that once religion is gone we will be nice to each seems just ludicrous to me. It certainly just sounds like a hypothesis to me. Let me know when it is backed up by some evidence. Of course the people who want us to have wars have used religion. If we all became athiests and their was water scarcity, tell me they wouldn't find another kind of excuse to start that war and get that water.

After all our exchanges, it seems we are closer in outlook than we first imagined. I wish you well.

I wish you well to, though I am not sure you will think the above after this message.
Good on you for making it 75 years. I am always surprised to have hit another decade.

Myles

11-11-07, 05:28 AM

I find it telling that this is how you (and many others) are formulating it. It's basically a tradition.

The theist perpetrators have defined their fight against others as being a matter of those others "denying the truth".

The victims have bought the perpetrator's definition as true and pertinent.

So the victims are now playing the perpetrator's game, defining their hardship on the terms set by the perpetrator.

It's as if I were assaulted and the perpetrator would tell me "You deserve to be assaulted and killed because your name starts with a G and I hate names starting with G". And then I would seek to find "evidence" or "proof" that there is nothing hatable about names starting with G and that thus he was not entitled to assault me.
- Would I have done that, I would be plaiyng his game, understanding the assault ON HIS TERMS. It would be really stupid of me.

The above is a very simplistic example - and yet, it captures exactly the way that so many victims behave: They are hurt, and they take the pepetrator's definition of what is going on to be true, or they seek to refute it. Either way, the victims are thus playing the perpetrator's game, and it never ends.

I'm starting to seriously wonder -

Why do non-theists engage in dicsussions with theists?
What is hoped for?
What is to be gained?

Do we think that if we outargue them, they will leave us alone?

Do we think that if we outargue them, they will admit the error of their ways and change?

Your sophistry astounds me.

So, in your terms, people who were tortured or put to death by the Inquisition were wrong if they thought they were being persecuted for their failure to conform to the beliefs of others. They ought to have looked elsehere for the cause of their suffering, despite their having been told the reason for their plight by those inflicting that suffering on them.So, where do you suggest theyought to have looked ? Pehaps they should have accepted that it was god's will and left it as that.

As I understand things Christian in ancient Rome believed, as I do, that they were persecuted for their beliefs. In your terms they were wrong to do so. Their belief that the Romans threw them to the lions because they would not give up what they held to be true was incorrect. Should they, perhaps, have thought that the real reason for their predicament was a need for some more martyrs in heaven, thus refusing to play the the Romans' game.

Then , of course we have Jesus. There he was , suffering on the cross, believing he was being put to death to save us sinners from the wrath of his " loving" father. What should he have thought ,to avoid playing the game in his father's terms. How about " I am being put to death so I can go to heaven and sit on my own right-hand side "

In our own time people are being blown to pieces. We are playing the suicide bombers' game on their terms, if we attribute their motives to their professed fanatical beliefs, are we. The victims themselves have no time to think about motivation at all.

You say you are beginning to wonder ...... I find it hard to believe that you wonder about anything . You have no need to do so as you have a ready-made answer for everything. To wonder implies thinking and , from my experience, that is not something you and your ilk are capable of doing. Otherwise you would spend some time wondering about the self-contradictory system of belief you espouse. The bible is riddled with contradictions, as you will find if you examine it with a critical eye, preferably one that has evolved.

You ask why non-believers engage in discussions with theists. In the first instance it happens because theists come to my door asking silly questions such as, " have you been born again"? , have you accepted Jesus into your life ? " Atheists do not behave in this way; at least I have yet to find one on
my doorstep asking me whether I have come to my senses and stopped believing in god.

My understanding is that forums like this are meant to serve as a vehicle for discussion rather than a platform for your personal beliefs. Am I viewing things in the wrong terms as you might put it ?

When you wonder why I engage in discussion with theists you seem to imagine that we are exchanging private correspondence. Not so. Others read what appears here, so I am expressing a point of view different from yours to show that there are other ways of looking at things. Doubtless, you would prefer to confine the discussion to the merits of theism.

Perhaps your time would be better spent if you sarted a thread of your own. You could, perhaps, call it: I only wish to talk to theists.

Myles

11-11-07, 05:50 AM

Let's not forget that using terms like these suggests that you hold that the distinction "external vs. internal" truly applies, and also that the distinction "subjective vs. objective" truly applies.

These distinctions are traditionally taken for granted, but neither are they universally accepted, nor can they be proved.

Nothing can be proved to someone who refuses or is unable to think. Who are these people who refuse to accept the distinction betweenwhat is internal and that which is external ?

My thoughts are internal and private unless I choose to reveal them to you. What I write here is external to me because it is available to others. Is that so difficult to understand ?

greenberg

11-11-07, 06:01 AM

So, in your terms, people who were tortured or put to death by the Inquisition were wrong if they thought they were being persecuted for their failure to conform to the beliefs of others. They ought to have looked elsehere for the cause of their suffering, despite their having been told the reason for their plight by those inflicting that suffering on them.So, where do you suggest theyought to have looked ? Pehaps they should have accepted that it was god's will and left it as that.

You are misinterpreting me badly.
The example with the assaulter who'd assault me for my name starting with G is clear.

When someone persecutes you, you don't have to believe that the things they are accusing you of, are true. In fact, you don't even have to prove them wrong.

The problem is that many people (including myself) tend to automatically take the accusation seriously, and try to prove the accuser wrong.

You ask why non-believers engage in discussions with theists. In the first instance it happens because theists come to my door asking silly questions such as, " have you been born again"? , have you accepted Jesus into your life ? "

You seem compelled to answer those questions.
Why? Why do you take theists seriously enough to engage in such discussions?

Doubtless, you would prefer to confine the discussion to the merits of theism.

This is really mean of you.

I used to be a Christian, and other Christians would say I was a bad one, I had way too many doubts.
I am not a theist anymore. Yet, I still feel obligated to defend myself against the accusations theists haul against me, I feel obligated to engage in discussions with them, be it in forums, IRL, or in my mind.
Recently, I started to wonder why I do that. Why do I take them seriously. What is to be gained by convicing the theists that my non-theist position is a worthy one too.

greenberg

11-11-07, 06:03 AM

Nothing can be proved to someone who refuses or is unable to think. Who are these people who refuse to accept the distinction betweenwhat is internal and that which is external ?

My thoughts are internal and private unless I choose to reveal them to you. What I write here is external to me because it is available to others. Is that so difficult to understand ?

I was referring to the problems that philosophers have been pondering for millenia.

Myles

11-11-07, 06:49 AM

My last word on the subject. If someone persecutes me for being bald then I have no need to look elsewhere. He is persecuting me because he is bald and that is his motivation. Why look elsewhere for an answer ?

greenberg

11-11-07, 06:51 AM

Jan Ardena

11-11-07, 07:33 AM

Myles,

Unless you are a solipsist you must surely accept that belief is private and knowledge is public.

Knowledge is known to those who understand, otherwise it is information, belief is based on forms of knowledge (including information).
Niether are public or private, they just are.

Evidence for god ? Offer me some and I shall comment.

There are lots of evidences to support belief in God, either you haven't heard any, or you don't regard them as evidences.
The question though, was directed at you

...and this is precisely why we require evidence ,if we wish claims we make to be taken seriously.

What evidence would be required to make you believe that God exists?

To be "taken seriously" by the "we", is not my aim, anymore than wanting everyone in the world to buy my music.
You have set a standard of what you would class as evidence (scientific method), and I would guess you are not prepared to accept anything as "knowledge" unless it has been verified by the scientific community. Correct me if I am mistaken.
Either you have not made any real effort to understand why belief in God is justified, or you have chosen your position, in the knowledge that God cannot be proven to the point of undeniability by the scientific community.
Either way it shows a lacking on your part.

The question of whether my hypothetical headache would make a difference to your life is totally irrelevant to this discussion

If I say I have a headache you will know what I am talking about and believe I know what a headache is.

Okay, so I have knowledge of headaches.

If for some reason you doubt that I have knowledge of headaches, you can ask me to describe what I mean ( provide evidence ) to you or a doctor.

There are various levels of knowledge of what headaches are, my level of knowledge is based on my experience, and the experience of others.
I would have more reason to doubt your LACK of knowledge.
The evidence is abound for everyone not just a privelidge few, and the larger, scientific knowledge base on headaches is based on personal experience.
In the context of God, God has always been understood in the same basic way from time, I doubt that you can name a time and place where this has not been the case. An atheist is one who denies this understanding.

If I fail to provide a satisfactory explanation, you are entitled to doubt me.

But I can still doubt you even if you provide such an explanation, you could be lieing. Once we acquire knowledge of something, we can use it in various ways, especially to those that do not have that knowledge.
How do we "know" things;
personal experience, and learning from someone who has knowledge of things.
In my opinion it is best to base the latter form on the former, then if faith is necessary (i.e believing authority), your position much more secure.

Now try the same test with the tactile qualities of a unicorn. Do you see the difference ?

Who and why would someone claim unicorns are real in the here and now sense?
Have you read scriptures?
Maybe if you do, you would understand why these comparisons, although seemingly plausible at first, is silly, and devicive. :)

Jan.

Myles

11-11-07, 08:00 AM

You are misinterpreting me badly.
The example with the assaulter who'd assault me for my name starting with G is clear.

When someone persecutes you, you don't have to believe that the things they are accusing you of, are true. In fact, you don't even have to prove them wrong.

The problem is that many people (including myself) tend to automatically take the accusation seriously, and try to prove the accuser wrong.

You seem compelled to answer those questions.
Why? Why do you take theists seriously enough to engage in such discussions?

This is really mean of you.

I used to be a Christian, and other Christians would say I was a bad one, I had way too many doubts.
I am not a theist anymore. Yet, I still feel obligated to defend myself against the accusations theists haul against me, I feel obligated to engage in discussions with them, be it in forums, IRL, or in my mind.
Recently, I started to wonder why I do that. Why do I take them seriously. What is to be gained by convicing the theists that my non-theist position is a worthy one too.

I have no wish to be offensive but my I say that if you had expressed yoursely as clearly the first time as you have now, the misunderstanding would not have arisen.

I do not take theists seriously and I have no quarrel with those who do not wish to foist their views on others. Look at the objections there are to the teaching of evolutionary theory in US schools. Some would ban it if they could. What are they afraid of ? I believe they worry about losing their influence in society. Far better to proclaim themselves as experts who will guide us according to their unquestioned understanding of the bible.

I'll give you two reasons why I enter into what is admittedly a futile dialoge ( from both perspectives ) with them:

1. I was brought up as a Roman Catholic in Ireland without ever having asked to join the church. When I began to think for myself and question some of the things I was being taught, instead of being given considered answers I was shouted down and called all sorts of names, told I would burn in hell and so on. From my perspective all I was seeking was guidance in understanding doctrines and dogma which made no sense to me. In short, rather than being helped, I was given a hard time. Whn I came to live here in the UK I had no such problems.

2. Because of what I have said above I enter into dialogue with such theists in the (vain ?) hope that it will get some who read our correspondence to think for themselves rather than blindly accept what others , an I include myself, tell them.

So, in summary, my position is that children should be exposed to all points of view and allowed to decide for themselves and choose what to believe, when they have reached maturity. The Christians I oppose are those who simply want to produce clones of themselves, that is, bigots who will not allow others to think for themselves.

Myles

11-11-07, 08:44 AM

As Greenberg has said this distinction is not that clear and what consensus has said was 'internal' has sometimes turned out to be external.

Further Quantum Mechanics also calls into question the hardness of this distinction and so does the latest neuroscience.

Toss in the general confusion about how we reify things using words.

1) I could point out some of the horrors of conventional medicine errors in the past (and present), but I think that again you would assume I am against science. In fact what I am against is people thinking that scientific explanations preclude others. I am also against the non-historical view people have in relation to science. They assume that they can tell the liklihood of certain phenomena given what science has proven so far. This is just intuition.
2) I have treated myself for a wide variety of medical problems using herbs, my knowledge of them coming primarily from Native American traditional healers. Just because some European folk healers were goofballs with poor intuitions and theories does not mean that everyone must be. Further I think you need to look at the way you use worst case scenarios to reinforce your certainty about approaches of gaining knowledge that are different from yours. Psychiatrists used to regularly stick a needle above the eye into the brains of uppity women and sever the connection between their brain halves.
Have i now proven something about Western Medicine? This is not an either or situation. On my part that is.

Shall I go into the mass drugging of children today and the way pharmaceutical companies market illnesses now instead of simply medicines? And also see above.

Yeah, thank God the non-theists are so nice. China, USSR, for example. And how do I categorize the behavior of the USA in relation to South America? Who were the major decision-makers, theists, non-theists. A combination? This article of faith on atheists' parts that once religion is gone we will be nice to each seems just ludicrous to me. It certainly just sounds like a hypothesis to me. Let me know when it is backed up by some evidence. Of course the people who want us to have wars have used religion. If we all became athiests and their was water scarcity, tell me they wouldn't find another kind of excuse to start that war and get that water.

I wish you well to, though I am not sure you will think the above after this message.
Good on you for making it 75 years. I am always surprised to have hit another decade.

I can forgive you if you rfuse tobelieve me but I have written and lost, through my own ineptitude, two previous messages to you. I have no witnesses, so I may not have written at all, hahha.

I accept everything you say about modern medicine. You might have pointed out the malpractices of the pharmaceutical companies. Some studies which they produce are skewed and have been shown to be so. There is alos the question of the morality of offering inducements to doctors to prescribe on drug rather than another. I imagine they succeed occasionally.

All I ask you to agree to is that , on balance, people are healthier and living longer today than they were in the past.

I do not believe the world would be a better place without religion. What we both regard as wicked behaviour would continue under the banners of some other ideologies. Of course The Russian and Chinese regimes are abhorrent. I refuse to buy anything imported from China, but my choices are becoming increasingly limited owing to the increasing flood of imports from China where labour is cheap and human rights non-existent. If we in the West were less greedy and refused to profit from exploited labour, things might improve in China.

I'm sure you will agree that the majority of people in Russia and China are just ordinary human beings like the rest of us. It's the people who rule the roost who are at fault. I feel the same is true in the US with it's dubious foreign policy. In the UK we have just seen the last of your president's poodle.
He is now earning megabucks on the lecture circuit.

Back to theism. I have set out my objections in a message to another correspondent on this thread. Please read it and spare my strained index finger the work of having to repeat my views here.

I believe that if your Christian Fundametalists ever got their way you would be living in a theocracy. Would that be any better than living under Chinese or Russian rule ? The difference, if any, would be marginal. We would have thought-police, a present day version of the Inquisition and so on. I have some first-hand knowledge of what goes on in the bible belt on which I base my conclusions.

The jury is still out on QM, as you must know. Do we accept the Copenhagen interpretation or the many-worlds explanation, or do we reject both. In the current Issue of New Scientist there is an article on a scientist who is questioning the validity of action at a distance which, as you know, is tied up with the question of entanglement. So any inferences you draw from QM can only be rgarded as tentative at present

I still wish you well and something tels me we would get on if we settled down for a pint or two in front of a log fire in a cosy pub

Myles

11-11-07, 10:34 AM

Myles,

Knowledge is known to those who understand, otherwise it is information, belief is based on forms of knowledge (including information).
Niether are public or private, they just are.

There are lots of evidences to support belief in God, either you haven't heard any, or you don't regard them as evidences.
The question though, was directed at you

To be "taken seriously" by the "we", is not my aim, anymore than wanting everyone in the world to buy my music.
You have set a standard of what you would class as evidence (scientific method), and I would guess you are not prepared to accept anything as "knowledge" unless it has been verified by the scientific community. Correct me if I am mistaken.
Either you have not made any real effort to understand why belief in God is justified, or you have chosen your position, in the knowledge that God cannot be proven to the point of undeniability by the scientific community.
Either way it shows a lacking on your part.

Okay, so I have knowledge of headaches.

There are various levels of knowledge of what headaches are, my level of knowledge is based on my experience, and the experience of others.
I would have more reason to doubt your LACK of knowledge.
The evidence is abound for everyone not just a privelidge few, and the larger, scientific knowledge base on headaches is based on personal experience.
In the context of God, God has always been understood in the same basic way from time, I doubt that you can name a time and place where this has not been the case. An atheist is one who denies this understanding.

But I can still doubt you even if you provide such an explanation, you could be lieing. Once we acquire knowledge of something, we can use it in various ways, especially to those that do not have that knowledge.
How do we "know" things;
personal experience, and learning from someone who has knowledge of things.
In my opinion it is best to base the latter form on the former, then if faith is necessary (i.e believing authority), your position much more secure.

Who and why would someone claim unicorns are real in the here and now sense?
Have you read scriptures?
Maybe if you do, you would understand why these comparisons, although seemingly plausible at first, is silly, and devicive. :)

Jan.
Thank you for your contribution

Myles

11-11-07, 10:43 AM

But do you believe that being bald is bad and something you should be persecuted for?

No, of course not. But looking for reasons other than the obvious one given by the guy who is persecuting me is futile. It will not end the persuction and I would have no way of recognizing the "real" reason if there is one. So why not just take things at face value because I cannot imagine a useful alternative.The guy persecuting me could be lying about his reasons for doing so where would all this speculation get me.

I believe it is wrong to persecute anyone for any reason, which makes motive largely irrelevant to me.
Does that make sense ?

Myles

11-11-07, 10:58 AM

Thank you for your contribution

Afterthought. Im not an expert . which you obviously are, in scriptures but I have a nodding acquaintance with the following:
The Bible, Catholic version and King James version

The writings of Mary Baker-Eddy, if I remember her name correctly.

The Book of Mormon as explained by Mormons who call on me from time to time,

The Jehovah's witnesses inteerpretation of the Bible

The Dharma as it is represented by followers of the Therevada school of Buddhism

The Upanishads

The Bagavhad Gita

I have also personally known members of many of the numerous Christian denominations, each of whom gave me what he'she claimed to be the only true way of understanding things.

If you are averse to discussing non-Chriostian literature, perhaps ypou could make a start by explaining to me your understanding of Judges:19 23-4

Perhaps you could also tell me whether you have read the Origin of Species, The Descent of Man, Why I am not a Christian ( Bertrand Russell) and Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion ( David Hume ) and , for a bit of fun, Voltaire's Candide. I would enjoy discussing any of these works with you, not to mention the writings of Richard Dawkins

greenberg

11-11-07, 11:27 AM

I have no wish to be offensive but my I say that if you had expressed yoursely as clearly the first time as you have now, the misunderstanding would not have arisen.

I think I was clear the first time, but that my input came a bit from the left field. It happens sometimes.
But - no hard feelings.

So, in summary, my position is that children should be exposed to all points of view and allowed to decide for themselves and choose what to believe, when they have reached maturity. The Christians I oppose are those who simply want to produce clones of themselves, that is, bigots who will not allow others to think for themselves.

I see.

greenberg

11-11-07, 11:42 AM

No, of course not. But looking for reasons other than the obvious one given by the guy who is persecuting me is futile. It will not end the persuction and I would have no way of recognizing the "real" reason if there is one. So why not just take things at face value because I cannot imagine a useful alternative.The guy persecuting me could be lying about his reasons for doing so where would all this speculation get me.

I believe it is wrong to persecute anyone for any reason, which makes motive largely irrelevant to me.
Does that make sense ?

I see. But my concerns are primarily about feeling guilty for not believing in God, and the sort of discussions and the sort of atheism this guilt leads to.

I'm not sure you reciprocate this concern of mine. I know many people, including myself, who engage in discussions with theists often because we feel we need to prove ourselves to them. This way, we're playing their game, on their terms - and we're bound to lose. This leads to a lot of grief and stress on our part, while those theists feel even more justified in their conviction.

Like I said elsewhere earlier, I don't want to feel terror anymore whenever a Christian accuses me of denying God and such. I don't want to feel obligated anymore to defend myself against the accusations Christians haul against me.

I don't think I'm the only one feeling this way. But so far, I haven't found much sound advice on how to deal with these things.
The usual atheist ways for countering Christian claims have not really helped me - because there is so much anger, so much hostility, so much poor thinking in those ways. Adopting those ways might surely make me a good atheist, but still, an unhappy person.

(Q)

11-11-07, 11:59 AM

Adopting those ways might surely make me a good atheist, but still, an unhappy person.

If not condoning the atrocities of cults and not following the myths and superstitions they purport, freeing yourself from the ignorance and oppression fettering your intellect isn't reason enough to be a happier person, then maybe being an atheist isn't for you.

Jan Ardena

11-11-07, 12:12 PM

Myles,

Afterthought. Im not an expert . which you obviously are, in scriptures but I have a nodding acquaintance with the following:
The Bible, Catholic version and King James version

The writings of Mary Baker-Eddy, if I remember her name correctly.

The Book of Mormon as explained by Mormons who call on me from time to time,

The Jehovah's witnesses inteerpretation of the Bible

The Dharma as it is represented by followers of the Therevada school of Buddhism

The Upanishads

The Bagavhad Gita

There are many experts in the feild of religion and scriptures, just as there are many medical experts, but in some cases we do not need "experts" to tell us how we feel, or what works best, we are capable of doing it ourselves.
Did you not gain anything from these scriptures?

I have also personally known members of many of the numerous Christian denominations, each of whom gave me what he'she claimed to be the only true way of understanding things.

You'll also find people who don't think like that, and theist too.
There are also people who will sell you a dodgy second hand motor, under the pretense that it is a sound car. There are cheaters in every corner of society, which is why we must choose our authority carefully. The choice shouldn't be based soley on appearance, or the words that come out of their mouth, that way we are likely to get conned.

If you are averse to discussing non-Chriostian literature, perhaps ypou could make a start by explaining to me your understanding of Judges:19 23-4

In short; A true servant of God is held in higher esteem than those women.

Perhaps you could also tell me whether you have read the Origin of Species, The Descent of Man, Why I am not a Christian ( Bertrand Russell) and Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion ( David Hume ) and , for a bit of fun, Voltaire's Candide. I would enjoy discussing any of these works with you, not to mention the writings of Richard Dawkins

How is any of these works relavant to the discussion?

Jan.

(Q)

11-11-07, 12:25 PM

There are many experts in the feild of religion and scriptures, just as there are many medical experts

As asinine a comparison as you've ever made, you also insult the medical profession, the same institution that helps you and your family live longer and healthier lives.

So-called experts in theologies are some of the more vile and despicable of mankind, making it their "profession" interpreting scriptures, leading to all sorts of atrocities and tragedies.

but in some cases we do not need "experts" to tell us how we feel, or what works best, we are capable of doing it ourselves.

And we are usually wrong, attempting to diagnose ourselves with little more than an inkling of medical knowledge and guesswork as our guides.

greenberg

11-11-07, 01:00 PM

If not condoning the atrocities of cults and not following the myths and superstitions they purport, freeing yourself from the ignorance and oppression fettering your intellect isn't reason enough to be a happier person, then maybe being an atheist isn't for you.

Come on, Q, we both know that this is a false dichotomy you're suggesting there.
It's not like happiness could only be found either in being a fundamentalist religionist or the kind of atheist you are.

greenberg

11-11-07, 01:08 PM

There are many experts in the feild of religion and scriptures, just as there are many medical experts, but in some cases we do not need "experts" to tell us how we feel, or what works best, we are capable of doing it ourselves.
Did you not gain anything from these scriptures?

Good point. Something I struggle with to this day, having been taught that my own knowledge doesn't count.

When I came to Buddhism, and found a teaching like this, I felt very challenged:

Making the Dhamma Your Own

There are three sorts of Dhamma: the Dhamma of theory, the Dhamma of practice, and the Dhamma of attainment.
The Dhamma of theory refers to the teachings of the Buddha: the discourses, the discipline, the Abhidhamma, all 84,000 sections of the Pali canon. This sort of Dhamma is everyone's common property.

As for practice and attainment, they're the individual property of those who do them. For example, Ven. Moggallana's practice was his own practice. His attainment of the paths and fruitions leading to nibbana was his own attainment. The same holds true for Ven. Sariputta and each of the noble disciples, all the way down to all of us practicing here. The practice and attainments of each person are that person's very own. It's like your own land and fields. They belong to you; they're not common property.

The Buddha set out the Dhamma of theory for each of us to practice. When we practice it, it becomes our own. If we follow the precepts, they become our own precepts, our own virtues. If we practice concentration, it becomes our own concentration. If we attain jhana (mental absorption) or any of the paths and fruitions leading to nibbana, they become our own attainments. So understand this point and practice in line with it.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/khamdee/yourown.html

I think this is a perspective which is completely foreign to what many of us have been taught both by Christianity as well as by science.

(Q)

11-11-07, 01:09 PM

Come on, Q, we both know that this is a false dichotomy you're suggesting there.
It's not like happiness could only be found either in being a fundamentalist religionist or the kind of atheist you are.

I'll ignore that last bit as you've not opined as to what "kind" of atheist I am.

But, it should be pointed out that it doesn't appear that you understood my post, and that I offered no such extremities of fundamentalism as you've suggested.

I only stated that if you prefer equating ignorance to happiness, then I should be able to equate the avoidance of it with equal opportunity.

I see no false dichotomies other than what you've offered.

greenberg

11-11-07, 01:31 PM

I'll ignore that last bit as you've not opined as to what "kind" of atheist I am.

Not to get too personal - but I don't want to hold the positions you do.

I don't want to commit myself to believing that the sort of happiness that comes with holding and acting on scientific and intellectual positions, is the best there can be.
Nor do I want to commit myself to believing that the sort of happiness that comes with holding and acting on particular theist positions, is the best there can be.
Nor do I want to commit myself to believing that the sort of happiness that comes with zoning out is the best there can be.

One thing that both various theisms as well as various atheisms have in common is their low regard for a person's true happiness.

Oniw17

11-11-07, 01:54 PM

Personal experience canot be used as a basis for the existence of god. It can be a basis for belief but that is not the same thing as knowledge.

If a mentally ill patient believes that he is Napoleon , do we believe him ? He certainly believes it. Does believing that the earth is flat make it so ? Of course not.

We can believe anything but to know something means that we can support our belief with objectively verifiable evidence. I am not aware of any argument which supports a belief in god, which is not to doubt the sincerity of those who do hold such beliefs. I just think they are mistaken.

Your post is entirely correct; nonetheless, if I, myself had some personal experience which compelled me to believe in a god, it would be enough for me. Sadly, I don't see that happening.

(Q)

11-11-07, 02:24 PM

Not to get too personal - but I don't want to hold the positions you do.

And what might those positions be?

I don't want to commit myself to believing that the sort of happiness that comes with holding and acting on scientific and intellectual positions, is the best there can be.

That is unfortunate, for you.

One thing that both various theisms as well as various atheisms have in common is their low regard for a person's true happiness.

That is entirely false. How little you appear to know of atheism.

kaneda

11-11-07, 02:58 PM

There are no miracles, otherwise religion and science would have proved them long ago. Prayers provably do not work so even churches admit it. The bible is full of contradictions and mistakes and is not backed up by history or science.

That leaves only claimed personal experiences which cannot even be shared by other christians so is of extremely doubtful value.

Myles

11-11-07, 02:59 PM

Myles,

There are many experts in the feild of religion and scriptures, just as there are many medical experts, but in some cases we do not need "experts" to tell us how we feel, or what works best, we are capable of doing it ourselves.
Did you not gain anything from these scriptures?

You'll also find people who don't think like that, and theist too.
There are also people who will sell you a dodgy second hand motor, under the pretense that it is a sound car. There are cheaters in every corner of society, which is why we must choose our authority carefully. The choice shouldn't be based soley on appearance, or the words that come out of their mouth, that way we are likely to get conned.

In short; A true servant of God is held in higher esteem than those women.

How is any of these works relavant to the discussion?

Jan.

What I gained from reading the sources I listed was a clear and distinct notion that there were no experts. They we all pushing their own views. You talk of authority. I recognize none so have to rely on my own experience and muddle through as best I can. I feel no need for authority. I shall conclude this message by quoting Omar Khyam, whose verse chimes with my experience.

When I read Judges: 19 I was horrified. If that were to happen today we should call it gang rape. But it's even worse than that. I'ts about a man who handed his daughter to a mob inviting them to do what they would with her. I find that revolting. The concubine also deserved to be treated with respect.

If god wants to demonstrate the dominion of men in this way, I want none of it. The bottom line is I do not believe a loving god would countenance such behaviour, so either the Bible is wrong or god is a monster. If you choose to believe such stuff is the revealed word of god, I just cannot understand your mentality. You have clearly been brainwashed.

Could you please answer my question as to whether you have read any of the books I listed because I would gladly discuss their merits/demerits with you.

Finally, as promised, a quotation from Omat Khyam which chimes with my experience:

And oftentimes when young did I frequent
Doctor and Saint and heard great argument
About this and about that, and anon
Came out by the same door as in I went

That is the experience of everyone who chooses to think for himself and question so-calles Authority

Myles

11-11-07, 03:04 PM

Your post is entirely correct; nonetheless, if I, myself had some personal experience which compelled me to believe in a god, it would be enough for me. Sadly, I don't see that happening.

It's good to find someone who agrees with my point of view. I struggled for years before coming to my conclusions. The cop out ( soft option ) is to let others tell one what to think. In my case that would have been Jesuits in the Roman Catholic church, which I abandoned when I reached maturity. Boy, was I shown god's love !!!!!!!

Myles

11-11-07, 03:10 PM

And what might those positions be?

That is unfortunate, for you.

That is entirely false. How little you appear to know of atheism.

If I may say so you will lose the argument because you are coming at them too hard,. Be gentle, give them enough rope....

At the age of 75 I have yet to find a religious person who can be swayed by reason.

I used to be like you but I now find the softly. softly catchee monkey approach is better. Try it See my thread on science.

greenberg

11-12-07, 02:14 AM

And what might those positions be?

In short: Your aprioristic objectivism.

One thing that both various theisms as well as various atheisms have in common is their low regard for a person's true happiness.

That is entirely false. How little you appear to know of atheism.

Read again. I'm not speaking of all forms of atheism. I don't know all of them, but those that I do know I find to be lacking.

greenberg

11-12-07, 02:23 AM

I used to be like you but I now find the softly. softly catchee monkey approach is better. Try it See my thread on science.

And what do you have to offer?

This?

Join the club and live for the day because, in the end, that is all you can do anyway. Have a good trip !

Talking about whittling down one's ambitions.

Grantywanty

11-12-07, 03:09 AM

All I ask you to agree to is that , on balance, people are healthier and living longer today than they were in the past.

I don't see it as either or. I think the assumption that one must choose either Science or other ways of seeking knowledge is not a good one. And I notice that a lot of health care, especially in Europe is now integrating a lot of ideas from barbarians.

I do not believe the world would be a better place without religion. What we both regard as wicked behaviour would continue under the banners of some other ideologies.

If violence is simply human, I think some of the ways you snapped about religious violence seems outof place.

I'm sure you will agree that the majority of people in Russia and China are just ordinary human beings like the rest of us. It's the people who rule the roost who are at fault.

And so it has always been. Leaders will find a way to channel hate.

I believe that if your Christian Fundametalists ever got their way you would be living in a theocracy. Would that be any better than living under Chinese or Russian rule ? The difference, if any, would be marginal. We would have thought-police, a present day version of the Inquisition and so on. I have some first-hand knowledge of what goes on in the bible belt on which I base my conclusions.

1) not all theists are Monotheists or Christian ones.
2) this is separate from the core issue which is about how one comes to know things.
3) to me it seems like the philosophical issue, a epistemological one that applies even to rationalists and non-believers - we all use intuition, well all believe in things despite not really understanding the proof of them - slides in a discussion with you to tirades about monotheists. I certainly share some of that anger. But the assumption that anyone who does not share your epistomological philosophy will be like the Christian fundamentalists or should somehow defend them seems off to me. Kind of a straw man.

The jury is still out on QM, as you must know. Do we accept the Copenhagen interpretation or the many-worlds explanation, or do we reject both. In the current Issue of New Scientist there is an article on a scientist who is questioning the validity of action at a distance which, as you know, is tied up with the question of entanglement. So any inferences you draw from QM can only be rgarded as tentative at present

I think you will find that only a very small percentage of physicists will back you up on this claim. Much of it has been confirmed by testing over and over and over.

I still wish you well and something tels me we would get on if we settled down for a pint or two in front of a log fire in a cosy pub

Probably right.

Myles

11-12-07, 04:31 AM

And what do you have to offer?

This?

Talking about whittling down one's ambitions.

You omitted my comment to " be true toyourself". This means finding your own way rather than allowing others to dictate what you must believe. In this context, I am one of the others, so you are liberty to ignore anything I say in favour of what seems better to you. What is so wrong with that ?

I found my own way, as have many others. There can be no right way because we are all individuals with different levels of intelligence, physical attributes and so on.

Your problem seems to be that you are struggling towards the light but at present unable to come to terms with being free to choose.Some part of you still has a need for a father figure to tell you what to think and what to do so that you will live happily ever after. If only things were that simple.

Read widely, think a, listen to others and decide for yourself. There is no other way. If there were, someone would have found it by now and we would not be engaged in this dialogue.

You will, of course, find plenty of people telling you how simple it all is. The answers are in the Bible, the Koran or sone other "holy" book. They will also tell you what it means so that you can avoid the hard procedd of thinking. But if you listen to such people, you will end up even more confused than you are now. Ever Christian you meet wil tell you the answers you seek are in the Bible. But those answers can only be understood in terms of his belief system.He will gladly explain what the Bible is telling us.

So do you become some type of Baptist, a Mormon, a Methodist , a Jehovah's Witness, a Roman Catholic or do you join one of the many cults. A Muslim will tell you all of these people are infidels. Why ? Because that's what it says in the Koran which is Allah's holy word as dictated to Mohammed. On the other hand you will find Christians telling you that Muslims are infidels. All very confusing, isn't it. Perhaps you should take the Buddha's advice which is to work out your own salvation which is what I. an atheist , am advising you to do.

greenberg

11-12-07, 11:56 AM

Myles,

I'm just letting you know that I've read your post. I don't have any comments.
Thank you.

Myles

11-12-07, 12:58 PM

I think you will find that only a very small percentage of physicists will back you up on this claim. Much of it has been confirmed by testing over and over and over.

Probably right.

It i not my claim;it is the claim of some physicists. Before we get into a rut again, can I simply say that, as far as I am awahow re, no physicist doubts the experimental results. It is the interptetation of thow those results come about which is a matter of contention. That is what I was talking about when I mentioned this week's issue of New Scientist.

For example, action at a distance, which Einstein abhorred ( God does not play at dice ) is being called into question. It is being argued that the spins of the entangled particles exist before they are seperated and this is suggested to be so because of "hidden variables". If this is so, there is no action at a distance. It argues for am underlying determinism.

I read a book some years ago which was written by an Australian judge. I cannot remember the title or the author. It was an attempt to show that free will exists because quantum events are not determined , but see my remarks above about entanglement.

The book offered a very good account of QM but did not discuss the much-vexed question of why we do not see rando event at a macro level . When did a table last appear from nowhere ? James Randi might explain it

So I will conclude by saying that it would be a brave, should that be foolish, man who rely on QM to support his argument at present

I think, after all this. that Voltaire had the answer. Have you read Candide ? If not , I recommend it to you. After much philosophical nonsense throughout the book, which is making fun of Leibniz, the eponymous hero says: " One thing I know is that I must cultivate my garden" , my rough translation

Best wishes

Myles

11-12-07, 01:42 PM

Myles,

I'm just letting you know that I've read your post. I don't have any comments.
Thank you.

Thaks for your message. You don't need comments. you need action.

There was a man who had a sailing boat. He could not put to sea if the wind was not strong enough to blow out a candle. He refused to put to sea if the wind WAS strong enough to blow out a candle. Ring any bells ?

Take the plunge and live dangerously ! Otherwise you have very little to look forward to

Best wishes

Grantywanty

11-12-07, 01:54 PM

For example, action at a distance, which Einstein abhorred ( God does not play at dice ) is being called into question. It is being argued that the spins of the entangled particles exist before they are seperated and this is suggested to be so because of "hidden variables". If this is so, there is no action at a distance. It argues for am underlying determinism.

Einstein's quote was about a statistical universe with probabilities not about action at a distance.

My read of recent physicists' thoughts is different from yours, but it is not my field so I am not up to a debate with someone else whose field it isn't either - man that was terribly worded but you get my point.

So you are a determinist. I have always found this an ironic position. It certainly could be true. But how could someone who is completely determined know that the reasons they believe in determinism are logical. They are simply compelled to believe. Atoms bashing along in domino chains. Of course it would seem logical. (I do know this is not a proof against determinism, but I think it does point out some of the oddness of arguing for it rationally)

Myles

11-12-07, 02:32 PM

I'll ignore that last bit as you've not opined as to what "kind" of atheist I am.

But, it should be pointed out that it doesn't appear that you understood my post, and that I offered no such extremities of fundamentalism as you've suggested.

I only stated that if you prefer equating ignorance to happiness, then I should be able to equate the avoidance of it with equal opportunity.

I see no false dichotomies other than what you've offered.

You are clearly not aware of one of the beatitudes: " Blessed are the blinkered"

I rest my case

Myles

11-12-07, 02:35 PM

Good point. Something I struggle with to this day, having been taught that my own knowledge doesn't count.

When I came to Buddhism, and found a teaching like this, I felt very challenged:

I think this is a perspective which is completely foreign to what many of us have been taught both by Christianity as well as by science.

I don't wish to quibble but upper-class Buddhists speak of the Dharma; they prefer Sanskrit to Pali.

Myles

11-12-07, 02:37 PM

Myles

11-12-07, 02:40 PM

Myles

11-12-07, 03:03 PM

Einstein's quote was about a statistical universe with probabilities not about action at a distance.

My read of recent physicists' thoughts is different from yours, but it is not my field so I am not up to a debate with someone else whose field it isn't either - man that was terribly worded but you get my point.

So you are a determinist. I have always found this an ironic position. It certainly could be true. But how could someone who is completely determined know that the reasons they believe in determinism are logical. They are simply compelled to believe. Atoms bashing along in domino chains. Of course it would seem logical. (I do know this is not a proof against determinism, but I think it does point out some of the oddness of arguing for it rationally)

You will find that Einstein did abhor the thought of action at a distance, even if I used the wrong label, not that I'm certain I did. I rely on my education plus associated background reading to keep up to date with developments. A lot of people one here and, please believe me, I am not suggesting that you are one of them, seem to dip into Wilkipaedia ( ? ) and start arguments based on things they have not properly understood. A bit like reading the bible for answers and then impressing you neighbours with your pseudo-erudition

I did NOT say I am a determinist. I said tsomething to the efect I can't be bothered to look it up ) the view held by some that there is no action at a distance argues an underlying determinism, which is a totally different matter

Having said that, can I point out that I am familiar with the argument you quote against determinism. Are you aware of the opposing argument ? If your actions are not the result of cause and effect, then they are random.

You take your pick. I will back neither horse at present

Grantywanty

11-13-07, 02:35 AM

You will find that Einstein did abhor the thought of action at a distance, even if I used the wrong label, not that I'm certain I did.

Yes, Einstein did not like action at a distance. I just meant the quote was not about that. Einstein also thought many times he had found a proof against certain facets of QM but admitted each time that he had not in fact done this. Consider the possibility that just as physicists before Einstein had trouble accepting his paradigmn shift he may have had trouble with the next one. I think sometimes people drop Einstein's name like if he believed it it must be right. He also believed that death was illusory and that the future was already there. And the past is only apparently gone. If we want to use him as a sort of reference work, we can't simply pick and choose.

I rely on my education plus associated background reading to keep up to date with developments. A lot of people one here and, please believe me, I am not suggesting that you are one of them, seem to dip into Wilkipaedia ( ? ) and start arguments based on things they have not properly understood. A bit like reading the bible for answers and then impressing you neighbours with your pseudo-erudition
You know for all your disclaimers I can't see some other reason to bring it up.

I have not gotten my knowledge from Wikipedia.

I did NOT say I am a determinist. I said tsomething to the efect I can't be bothered to look it up ) the view held by some that there is no action at a distance argues an underlying determinism, which is a totally different matter
I went back and looked. This is what you said:

For example, action at a distance, which Einstein abhorred ( God does not play at dice ) is being called into question. It is being argued that the spins of the entangled particles exist before they are seperated and this is suggested to be so because of "hidden variables". If this is so, there is no action at a distance. It argues for am underlying determinism.
I actually find this very confusing. Action at a distance does not preclude determinism. In fact it is making a claim about a certain kind of cause effect relationship.

OK. You are not a determinis., but aren't you, despite your sources not being Wikipedia, doing a bit of the same slap dab stuff you are claiming the Wikipedia readers are doing?

As far as chairs appearing in the air, this has been answered frequently by books about Quantum Physics. The odds against it are so enormous one would have to live billions (?) of years to be likely to see such a statistical anomaly.

Having said that, can I point out that I am familiar with the argument you quote against determinism. Are you aware of the opposing argument ? If your actions are not the result of cause and effect, then they are random.

They used to say things were either matter or energy. Particles or waves.
People tell me all the time that the choice is between liberal 'free' market capitalism or the USSR.
I don't assume that those are the choices.

Jan Ardena

11-13-07, 06:22 AM

Myles,

What I gained from reading the sources I listed was a clear and distinct notion that there were no experts. They we all pushing their own views.

How is it that the "views" describe God in the same way? It is reasonable to assume that "different views" mean different descriptions, lifestyles, ideaologies, beliefs, etc, yet they are the same, thousands of years and miles apart.

You talk of authority. I recognize none so have to rely on my own experience and muddle through as best I can. I feel no need for authority. I shall conclude this message by quoting Omar Khyam, whose verse chimes with my experience.

This is the crux of your position, which, for all intent and purpose has nothing to do with God.

When I read Judges: 19 I was horrified. If that were to happen today we should call it gang rape.

There lies your problem, you are equating mentalities of today with mentalities of folks thousands of years ago.
What made you think sex was involved in the acts?
To abuse somebody or something does not necessarily mean gang-rape.

But it's even worse than that. I'ts about a man who handed his daughter to a mob inviting them to do what they would with her. I find that revolting. The concubine also deserved to be treated with respect.

How can you find it disgusting if you have no idea what happened, nor it seems you have any idea of the morality and ethics of the everyday people at that time. It seems you are basing your emotion on the world as you see it today.

If god wants to demonstrate the dominion of men in this way, I want none of it. The bottom line is I do not believe a loving god would countenance such behaviour, so either the Bible is wrong or god is a monster.

You have already demonstrated that your method of understanding is at fault, and as such your conclusions are very personal.

If you choose to believe such stuff is the revealed word of god, I just cannot understand your mentality. You have clearly been brainwashed.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
I just don't understand your mentality.
You and people like you are gross.
I hate you.

Do you see what can happen when false assumptions are made?

Could you please answer my question as to whether you have read any of the books I listed because I would gladly discuss their merits/demerits with you.

We're not talking about the merits of these books, maybe you should start a new thread in the 'arts' section of the forums.

Finally, as promised, a quotation from Omat Khyam which chimes with my experience:

And oftentimes when young did I frequent
Doctor and Saint and heard great argument
About this and about that, and anon
Came out by the same door as in I went

That is the experience of everyone who chooses to think for himself and question so-calles Authority

How is it that you think "abuse" in the context of that verse means gangrape?
Yet you talk of "thinking for yourself".
Why do you feel the need to invoke the authors you mentioned, to a subject matter which has nothing to do with their particular field of knowledge?
How is it you said this;

What I gained from reading the sources I listed was a clear and distinct notion that there were no experts. They we all pushing their own views.

When in fact they are all united.
What have you added to this discussion that you can call your own thinking?

Jan.

Myles

11-13-07, 06:33 AM

I have taken the trouble to make a few phone calls because when I spoke of the possibility of determinism underlying QM, you suggested that not many physicists would support that view/ possibility. So I append a partial list of scientists who are currently seeking to refute the accepted explanation of QM and replace it with an explanation which would support a deeper , deterministic explanation. Action at a distance implies indeterminism because the spin of the individual entagled particles could, for example , be either up or down before an observation is made. I will not discuss it further.

So, here is is the partial list I promised :

Joy Christian, University of Oxford. He has a paper curently under review at " Physical Review Letters

Gerard 't Hooft. University of Utrecht, Netherlands

Nicolas Gibson, University of Geneva

Les Smolin, Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Canada

Fontini, also at Perimenter Institute ( loop quantum gravity )

Markus Aspelmeyer, University of Vienna, Austria

Roger Penrose, Oxford

Stephen Adler, Institute of Advanced Studies, Princeton

Philip Pearle ( retired ) Hamilton College in New York has commented favourably

Myles

11-13-07, 06:59 AM

Myles,

How is it that the "views" describe God in the same way? It is reasonable to assume that "different views" mean different descriptions, lifestyles, ideaologies, beliefs, etc, yet they are the same, thousands of years and miles apart

You have a point . I have always regarded the Inca sun god , Ganesh and Shiva on a par with Jesus.

This is the crux of your position, which, for all intent and purpose has nothing to do with God.
What are you talking about ?

There lies your problem, you are equating mentalities of today with mentalities of folks thousands of years ago.

So if the bible is the revealed word of god and as relevant today as it was in Biblical times, gang -rape is ok ?

What made you think sex was involved in the acts?
To abuse somebody or something does not necessarily mean gang-rape

Correct, but that is precisely what is being described in Judges.

How can you find it disgusting if you have no idea what happened, nor it seems you have any idea of the morality and ethics of the everyday people at that time. It seems you are basing your emotion on the world as you see it today.
I have an idea what happened. I told you my interpretation. Don't indulge in vague statements. Prove my interpretation wrong.

If what is described in Judges is true, as it must be because it's in the bible, and what is what god sanctioned at that time then Don't Give Me that OLD-Time Religion. ; it's disgusting

You have already demonstrated that your method of understanding is at fault, and as such your conclusions are very personal.

That is what happens when one thinks for onself; you run the risk of being wrong, something I imagine you would not contemplate. You don't need to think. You know. Aren't you the lucky one !

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
I just don't understand your mentality.
You and people like you are gross.
I hate you

You are using this out of context. It goes: " Have you stop practising your disgusting atheistic science yet. The answer is no.

Do you see what can happen when false assumptions are made?

You have not shown thtat I have made false assumptions; you would simply like it to be so.

We're not talking about the merits of these books, maybe you should start a new thread in the 'arts' section of the forums.

How is it that you think "abuse" in the context of that verse means gangrape?
Yet you talk of "thinking for yourself".
Why do you feel the need to invoke the authors you mentioned, to a subject matter which has nothing to do with their particular field of knowledge?
How is it you said this;

What I gained from reading the sources I listed was a clear and distinct notion that there were no experts. They we all pushing their own views.

When in fact they are all united.
What have you added to this discussion that you can call your own thinking?

Jan.

There is nothing more I can usefully say to you. I do not acept unquestioned authority. My reference to those books was, as you well know, an attempt to see whether you have ever taken your nose out of the bible to look at other possibilities.

I like your sense of humour. So they are all united ? How about the Muslims who regard Christians as infidels and and some Christians who will say it is the Muslims who are infidels. Lots of accord there.

Finally, how about the bickering between Christians who accept that evolutionary theory does not rule out a creator and those hard-nosed born -again Christians who will have none of it. Those who drive to rallys to rant on about atheistic science, conveniently overlooking the fact that their cars are a spin-off "atheistic" science. Why don't they walk or ride donkeys as in biblical times ? All a bit confusing for anyone who chooses to think about it.

Here endeth the last message; You are totally confused and beyond help. Please read my remarks interspersed with your response above. I am new to this so I do not know how to use colour as you have done.

(Q)

11-13-07, 07:39 AM

In short: Your aprioristic objectivism.

How quaint. And silly, too.

Read again. I'm not speaking of all forms of atheism. I don't know all of them, but those that I do know I find to be lacking.

The one important atheism is the one where atheists don't accept the unsubstantiated claims of theists. Is that one lacking?

Myles

11-13-07, 08:32 AM

Myle

How is it that you think "abuse" in the context of that verse means gangrape?
Yet you talk of "thinking for yourself"

Jan.

Verily I now see that I gave thee less than full measure. So I shall now quote from Judges and let others decide which of us has the correct interpretation.
Anyone interestedmay look the passage up for themselves to ensure I have not distorted it. So, here we go.

Verses 22 onwards

A number of men come to the door of the house where the visitor and his concubine are staying.

They say: " Bring forth this man that we may know him"

Were they asking for an introduction are wanting to sodomize him ? To "know" someone as used in the bible means to have carnal knowledge of, sex, etc.

Should there be any doubt about my interpretation. consider what comes next.

23 The master of the house says to the men; " do not do so wickedly"

So was it wicked to ask for a personal introduction or did the master of the house believe they wanted the man for some other purpose? Consider what follows.

24 The master says " Here is my daughter, a maiden, and his ( the visitor's) concubine. Do what seemeth good unto you but unto this man do not so VILE a thing.

25 They knew her and abused her all night until the morning

28/29 To cut to the chase, the concubine is found dead on the doorstep by her master. He takes her corpse on his ass, takes her home and cuts her body into 12 pieces.....

If you believe the above is not a description of gang rape and murder then there is nothing anyone can say to you. You are beyond reason. People like you thrive on taking advantage of others, even more ignorant than yourselves.

For my part, I find the whole passage disgusting. If you can believe such rubbish, I pity you. You should, however, be pleased that I am encourging others to read gos's holy word

You accuse me of not thinking for myself . I know it's difficult for you to understand , but Ihave worked out my interpretation of judges, unaided. What is yor PERSONAL interprettion if you have one. If on the other hand ,you are simply going to repeat what someone told you or ask stupid questions such why I assume abuse to be rape in the context I have quoted , please don't bother me.

Myles

11-13-07, 12:37 PM

I actually find this very confusing. Action at a distance does not preclude determinism. In fact it is making a claim about a certain kind of cause effect relationship.
.

Everybody who is trying to understand what is going on finds QM confusing because it is counter-intuitive. The scientists I have referred to are trying to show that there is or may be an underlying determinism. So why not give them the benefit of your knowledge by writing to them and explaining that they are chasing their tails. No need to take my word for it.Think of the time and effort , not to mention the money , that will be saved. The only requirement is that you explain why, preferably with a few equations, they are wasting their time.

Einstein referred to "spooky action at a distance". He was never comfortable with it. And don't try to tell me that I believe everything Einstein was right in everything he said. I don't know anyone who believes that. Like the rest of us , as he got older his powers waned.

I have an honours degree in physics. Admittedly, I have been in retirement for 15 years bit I have done my best to keep up to date with developments in physics. Your sources, whatever they are, are not up to date with current developments, or you misunderstand what you read.

Lastly, it is irrelevant what you choose to believe or deny. It's not about personal preference. On the question of free will ,if our actions are not the result of cause and effect, it suggests they are random. Nobody is asking you to believe anything but it would be helpful if you offered alternative explanations . EXPLANATIONS, not just a statement that you do not regard the possibilities I have mentioned as choices. Perhaps you have a theory of "Random Determinism" or some such. To repeat myself, it's not a matter of your belief about choices. You have choices which are:

1 To refrain from making a choice

2. To say that one explanation seems more plausible to you than another and that you will go with it until you are convinced otherwise.

3. To suggest other possibilities supported by evidence

To say you do not regard randomness or determinism as choices is to say nothing.If I offer you tea or coffee and you regard neither as a choice, surely it's incumbent on you to state what you would regard as a choice. If you want a coke I'm sure you would tell me. So what would you regard as offering you a choice if you do not accept randomness or determinism as mentioned above. Or are you going with 1, which is fine if you say so. But the way you express yourself suggests there are other choices, If so, what are they

(Q)

11-13-07, 02:10 PM

You are clearly not aware of one of the beatitudes: " Blessed are the blinkered"

I rest my case

Let's not forget: " Myopic are the masses "

Grantywanty

11-13-07, 02:12 PM

Myles

11-13-07, 03:09 PM

It may have escaped your attention . but the year is 2007. not 2003 Write to to the individuals concerned and ask what the current state of play is.

As to choices, it is not incumbent upon you to do or say anything. So why venture an opinion in the first place. The opiniion you expressed implies you believe in other possibilities. So where's your problem in stating what you believe them to be ? Do you enjot being a " dog in the manger" or do you want us to believe you know something we don't. I cannot understand the mentality of someone who claims or implies he has an opinion but is not prepared to explain himself. So, I insist that you are saying nothing. You are simply making a statement which adds nothing to the debate. Are we not supposed to be engaged in dialogue ? Enlighten us or stop making blanket statements which mean nothing.

If you believe you are saying something and you are challenged the burden of proof IS on YOU . So if you belive there are other possibilities tell us what they are or accept that you have said nothing meaningful. Is it possible that you have another referemce book which tells you that the accepted rules of philosophical debate have been discarded and that anything goes.

I know there are cabbages on Mars which look like elephants and squeek like mice but I am not prepared to offer evidence. Ordinary mortals like you could not possibly understand my explanation. I'm sure you'd accept such a statement and add it to your store of knowledge. wouldn't you. You misunderstand more than QM
I have spent enough time talking to you, so if you regard yourself as having won some sort of prize I congratulate you.

Ps.Have you got a book which tells you that by the time a book on physics get to the shops, much of it may be out of date ?

Myles

11-13-07, 06:15 PM

Ah so, you are an expert and I believe what you said about your colleagues. I plucked down The Oxford Guide to Modern Science, 2003 and read their description in which they write with great certainty about non-locality and action at a distance. No controversy mentioned. They tell it as a flat dead issue and even talk about technological uses of action at a distance in teleporting photons and quantum encryption. Over my head, in any case, but I hope you will pardon my lay confusion.

I missed somethinmg in my lst reply which I shall mention now.

As I suggested on a previous occasion , you misunderstand the situation. Please give what follows your complete attention.

There is no argument about what happens, that is, the results of experiments.
It is the EXPLANATION of what is going on that I am talking about, as are the scientists I mentioned.

To give you a prosaic example. All drivers accept that their cars go when operated in a particular fashion. Put your foot on the gas and the car accelerates, on the brake and it slows down and so on. What is being questioned is the description of how or why an IC engine works. In short. the theory of the IC engine is still up for grabs. It's even worse than that; we cannot see under the bonnet so we are inferring it's existenceI cannot explain things any better than that.

To explain what was over your head. You wil see an exaggerated form of teleportation if you watch an episode of Star Trek....Beam me up Scottie. This has been done numerous times under laboratory conditions but not on such a scale, obviously. The only available explanation available at present is what you have read. But, as ever with science, the current description is being questioned by a number of researchers and if that is what you are denying you are wrong. In my previous message I referred to a paper on this very topic , which is currently under peer review.

Quantum encryption is a way of encoding and storing information . In theory, becauseof the associated complexity, the code cannot be cracked. In the near future when you get money from an ATM the vital information will have been encrypted in this manner. Again, in theory, it should be foolproof such that your card cannot be copied as happens today with hiden cameras and other devices. ATM cards of this type are in the pipeline. You can easily imagine other applications. Such information would not appear in a book which went to press in 2003 becausewhat I have referred to was only a gleam in the eye.

I correspond from time to time with two other physicists when there is something of significance to talk about. There is no such reward on this site.

If you truly want to get up to speed with what is going on, I suggest you subscribe to Scientific American. The articles are lucid, despite which they may require a bit of thinking about the issues discussed. They are aimed at the intelligent non-specialist. A chemist may read it to find out what physicists are getting up to and so on.If you know of it that's fne. If not, look at a copy on your local newstand or wherever its available and you may decide to become a subscriber.

Grantywanty

11-14-07, 03:21 AM

As to choices, it is not incumbent upon you to do or say anything. So why venture an opinion in the first place. The opiniion you expressed implies you believe in other possibilities.
I did not express an opinion. I stated a fact, Myles. I said I do not assume those are the choices. Which is the truth.

So where's your problem in stating what you believe them to be ? Do you enjot being a " dog in the manger" or do you want us to believe you know something we don't.

No, bad guess.

I cannot understand the mentality of someone who claims or implies he has an opinion but is not prepared to explain himself. So, I insist that you are saying nothing. You are simply making a statement which adds nothing to the debate.

It wasn't an opinion. It was a fact. In the context I had pointed out an irony determinists face. You returned with what the irony or problem the non-determinist must face. I was stating that I don't feel I have to face that problem/irony despite my disbelief in determinism. We were in a tangent, pointing out problems/ironies they face. I stated a fact about myself in relation to that. If I had known that in your world this made me an immoral person for not taking my best shot at positing a theory, I would have just answered 'yes, I have heard that.'

Are we not supposed to be engaged in dialogue ? Enlighten us or stop making blanket statements which mean nothing.

It was not a blanket statement.

If you believe you are saying something and you are challenged the burden of proof IS on YOU . So if you belive there are other possibilities tell us what they are or accept that you have said nothing meaningful. Is it possible that you have another referemce book which tells you that the accepted rules of philosophical debate have been discarded and that anything goes.

The burden of proof is on me if I make a claim that there is a third option and here it is. At present I remain unconvinced, just like you, by either determinism or randomness. And if I noticed correctly you had some respect for the oddness of believing everything we do is completely determined AND assuming you would be able to tell if a proof of determinism was correct or not. You also said about a random universe

Having said that, can I point out that I am familiar with the argument you quote against determinism. Are you aware of the opposing argument ? If your actions are not the result of cause and effect, then they are random.
which also does not make much of a case for engaging in the activity you are engaging in right now on the internet.
Tell me in which universe it makes sense to engage in debate in an internet forum with other people. The one where everything is absolutely determined or the one that is random. Yet here you are. And don't assume I am naive here about determinism. I understand that people might very well engage in debates in a determinist universe. However I think it would be very odd for them to continue once they were shown it was deterministic and they believed it. I also think it would be odd to spend time engaging in debates in a random universe, where any motivation for engaging in such a debate is made a mockery of by the absence of cause and effect.

Since you believe that it MUST be one of those two options why do you believe this is worthwhile activity. So worthwhile that your smugness goes up to a more strident pitch when I do not seem to engage in debate in the way you think I should.

In which universe, the determined or the random, is there a should, Myles?

You make a claim that you believe it must either be random or deterministic and are quite happy to roll into sarcastic mockery at the possiblity there might be something else. And yet here you are acting, it seems like, you belief in some third possibility.

Should I believe your actions or what you claim to believe?

Well, oddly enough I have trouble accepting either one, just like you Myles. I take that a step further and think there might be a third and that we may not have not hit the answer.

I was not about to have you come down sarcastically on what I have only vague inklings of. You do not strike me as an open person that I could explore that third possibility. You do not strike me as someone to help move from belief to knowledge with if that belief seems strange to you. I am quite sure you can do that with certain kinds of beliefs, but not where you are sure and not where it is something that is based on experiences you haven't had.

I can certainly take some battering now that you have turned out to have much more knowledge about physics than I do. I thought your problem with QM events not appearing in the macro had been well answered in the books I had read. That it was an issue of scale and probability. I thought it was a kind of novice problem. Clearly I have been duped by at least three physicists into thinking this response was accepted in general. And I do not mean that sarcastically. I mean it literally. I am an annoyed lay person and not at you in that case.

As far as my third option, as I said it is vague. If you want to direct more sarcasm at me, well you can have that pint by yourself. If you are actually capable of exploring something, this is what I think about as possible areas to look at.

Consciousness and creativity. I don't experience a random universe, so this is more directed at determinism. What would be the evolutionary benefit of consciousness in a deterministic universe? The dominoes could fall just as well without an observer. Certainly sensory mechanisms make sense and even the complicated nervous systems animals have. But an experiencer: seems superfluous to me; hell, it even has drawbacks. Also when I imagine a deterministic universe - however limited my ability to imagine it - I don't see where consciousness arises. Particles move around, energies dissipate, fields take place. I don't get how something with a meta-relationship to energy, particles and fields arises.

And sure there is the subjective feeling of not being determined, of their being possiblity, choice, and multiple possible futures. More fundamentally than that it feels like there is a quasi status to the now. A tentativness where I am. (and yes, I realize that this is subjective. I am being honest about where my sense comes from, but also wondering if, perhaps, an answer might rest in some of these subjective impressions. Or they might lead to an explanation of a third possibililty. Could we get some use in exploring from the present moment having a quasi status? for example.)

Creativity. We make choices. Determinists assume that these choices are predetermined: they are given by both internal and external causes. We simply have a feeling of choosing or we do choose, but we confuse this word with some kind of freedom. Our choosing is the same as the domino choosing to hit the next only more complicated. But what if there is a cusp, created by consciousness between the past and the future. (NOW certainly does not seem like either of those regions? periods?. ) What if consciousness allows a choosing forward that is creative, not simply determined by what has gone before? That somehow imagination and desire for what is not already. Does consciousness allow us to have a metaposition from which our creative ability can lead us to actions that are not determined by what has gone before. Limited, but not completely constrained. And here I feel stopped and generally reluctant to reach this point with others who are completely sure that the universe must be random or completely determined. I am aware it is far from complete or compelling. However we are in a philosophy forum not a hard science one.

I am also aware that I am looking at some form of free will with humans as an exception. I have a gut feeling it is not limited to us, but I am even less sure which direction to go with that.

You want to chew it up. Go ahead. Be smug. Though why anyone would be smug in a determined or random universe while KNOWING those are the only possiblities is beyond me. I mean how could I have helped myself. I was either compelled to do it or it certainly wasn't something I could control with randomness.

You want to explore with me you are welcome to.

Myles

11-14-07, 05:46 AM

I will not attemp to answer all of your questions nor any one of them in any detail because, to be honest, I would regard it as a waste of time.

Determinism: At no point have I said that that I am a determinist. I simply pointed out that there are two mutually exclusive possibilities. If something is not determined, that is , it is not the result of a process of cause and effect, then it has occured randomly. I said I would back neither horse at present. I have insufficient proof. But you are representing or misunderstanding what I have said.

I am saying I don't know which choice to makebut you are hinting at other possibilites which you will not discuss, so I am entitled to ignore you. Muddying the waters by attenpting to introducing consciousness and asking questions about it in terms of determinism /randomness when I have told you on at least one previous case that I take a stand on neither is disingenouous.

I provided you with a list of scientists who are currently attempting to construct theories. I even referred to a paper under peer review at present. And what is your response ? There is no mention of it in a reference book published some years ago, so you cast doubt on what I say.

How very different if you could have retorted : I contacted X and he assured me he is doing no such thing. Or I contacted X's university and was told by Y that he knows X is not doing what I said he was.

Micro/macro: Quantum effects disappear if we zoom out to the atomic level. That is a FACT. So do not expect to see objects like chairs appearing ex nihilo now or at any time in the future. I have never said anything to the contrary.

Einstein could never accept the current explanation because he could not accept the notion of a random ,i.e., non-deterministic universe. Others followed, see Bell, but they also failed to make the case for " hidden variables " as evidence of an underlying determinism "

It has recently been suggested that Bell assumed the hidden variables would be ordinary numbers. He did not consider numbers with non-commuting properties. You may care to look up " quaternions" used in computer graphics, for example.This latest suggestion has not received much support but that is beside the point. It supports what I say about current attempts to find an underlying determinism in QM.

By now, you may have some inkling what Feynman was driving at when he said how difficullt it is to know something.

I will not discuss consciousness with you but I will suggest some reading matter if you wish.As we have had so many problems with QM, i have more sense than to join you in another minefield If you choose to believe that I have no knowledge of current issues in neuroscience, please do so; I can live with it.

Leaving aside the problems with QM , when we initially discussed the topic of this thread, you could not accept the distinction I made between knowledge and belief. May I suggest that, before you become too engrossed in neuroscience, you get one of the many good books on the "Theory of Knowledge" or, if you choose to call it it by a more impressive name "Epistemology". When you have worked your way through it , which is a very different matter from reading it, you can have a go at the author and tell him how wrong he is. Or will you see the light and keep stumm?

I did not come on here to teach physics, so please take what I have said above as my last word on the subject.

Grantywanty

11-14-07, 06:57 AM

Determinism: At no point have I said that that I am a determinist. I simply pointed out that there are two mutually exclusive possibilities. If something is not determined, that is , it is not the result of a process of cause and effect, then it has occured randomly. I said I would back neither horse at present. I have insufficient proof. But you are representing or misunderstanding what I have said.

In the post above I could not possibly have made it clearer that I understood you did not claim to be a determinist. In fact I made it clear that you considered there to be two possibilities which you repeat above.

I am saying I don't know which choice to makebut you are hinting at other possibilites which you will not discuss, so I am entitled to ignore you. Muddying the waters by attenpting to introducing consciousness and asking questions about it in terms of determinism /randomness when I have told you on at least one previous case that I take a stand on neither is disingenouous.

No it is not. You have taken a stand that it has to be one or the other. I made it clear that I found certain types of behavior odd if one believes that one of those two must be true. My point is that your behavior takes a stand and I do not think it fits with a belief on your part that the universe is either random or determined. You say I should get a book on epistemology. Perhaps you need a book on logic. If you say either this is true or that is true and I see you acting in ways that imply you actually believe a third thing, it is perfectly valid to point this out and ask you what is going on and what you actually believe.

I provided you with a list of scientists who are currently attempting to construct theories. I even referred to a paper under peer review at present. And what is your response ? There is no mention of it in a reference book published some years ago, so you cast doubt on what I say.

I am sorry. The post where I responded to that post I wrote several times and edited it poorly taking out a large portion. The Ah you are an expert comes off sarcastic and I meant it as more Oops, now I know. The rest was meant to be an explanation of why I believed what I did, checking the one book I had access to that had mislead me. My apologies, the poor communication was my fault.

The book offered a very good account of QM but did not discuss the much-vexed question of why we do not see rando event at a macro level
From my readings it did not seem like a much vexed question. And I wrongly concluded you were a novice. Here you are saying it is not a much vexed question for you.
Micro/macro: Quantum effects disappear if we zoom out to the atomic level. That is a FACT. So do not expect to see objects like chairs appearing ex nihilo now or at any time in the future. I have never said anything to the contrary.
I certainly never thought 1) that chairs would start appearing ex nihilo or 2) that you thought so. I thought you thought the absence of such phenomena was problematic if QM interpretations were correct. Now it seems like that is not the case.

Leaving aside the problems with QM , when we initially discussed the topic of this thread, you could not accept the distinction I made between knowledge and belief.

We had different interpretations of the meanings of the words. Once this was pointed out I used yours. I got the impression you felt we should not base beliefs on personal experience. I disagree. Sometimes that is the only option.

So you demanded and demanded that if I was an honorable participant in a debate I would come forward with something about the third possibility. I can see now how wrong it was of me not to have immediately done that.

Myles

11-14-07, 08:15 AM

I did not express an opinion. I stated a fact, Myles. I said I do not assume those are the choices. Which is the truth.

There is no alternative. Randomness and determinism are mutually exclusive. There is no third option in terms of what we have been discussing. We are so accustomed to seeing an effect preceded by a cause that randomness is counter -intuitive. So we want to believe in causality.And that is why it is so difficult to accept uncertainty as the final explanation/

But see Hume on this. He argues that we infer cause and effect from observing a constant conjunction of events. If someone has never see a game of billiards and so, for the first time in his life is permitted to see one ball travelling towards another he has no way of knowing what will ensue. When he subsequently observes that on every occasion he has seen billiard balls collide the outcome is always the same, ( one ball causes anothwer to move ), he concludes that he has found a causal relationship. Hume argues that this is not necessarily so. Hume is not denying causality, merely casting doubt on it. He is a mitigated sceptic. ( An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding )

It wasn't an opinion. It was a fact. In the context I had pointed out an irony determinists face. You returned with what the irony or problem the non-determinist must face. I was stating that I don't feel I have to face that problem/irony despite my disbelief in determinism. We were in a tangent, pointing out problems/ironies they face. I stated a fact about myself in relation to that. If I had known that in your world this made me an immoral person for not taking my best shot at positing a theory, I would have just answered 'yes, I have heard that.'

Concerning debates in a determined universe. We believe we have free willand so we behave as if it were true. It may be an illusion but we have no wa of knowing. See " How Free Are you" ( Ted Honderich ) forwhat is probably the most accessible intriduction the this topic

Consciousness and creativity. I don't experience a random universe, so this is more directed at determinism

See my remarks above on free will versus determinism

If your actions are free that is what you will feel, If they are determined you will still believe them to be free because you are aware of consciouly making choices..see Honderich on this

The foegoing should convince you that I realize I am in a philosophy forum. You will not find a single thing I have sais that should leave you to believe othrwise. I seem to remember that it was you who brough QM into the debate

To finish, I never claimed to be an expert in QM.I will claim an in-depth understanding of the issues. I still cannot understand why you believe I am behaving illogically. You just seem incapable of following my reasoning, so U shall not attempt anothewr explanation. Put it down to poor communicationon my part if you wish. But try and understand that when people with different background and qualification from one's own ask questions based on what has been read in a " popular" book. It can be difficult to find an answer at the right level. I should have thought of this earlier and asked you to explain your understanding of certain concepts and taken it from there. You could have done the same with me and, if my explanations were not in accord with with what you read or your understanding of what you had read , we could have taken it from there. Another victory for hindsight/

There is an old saying: " Don't talk about what you don't know lest you be suspected when you talk of what you do know"

I said nothing about your particular herbal remedies because I have no knowledge of such things. I might have been cantankerous and dismissive by referring to the placebo effect but I would not do so because clinical trials have shown that about 30 % of people respond to placebos. That aside, I am aware of the uses of cinchona bark and that's the extent of my knowledge. So , if you say you cured yourself of something , I would not dream of contradicting you. I would confine myself to saying that your remedy might not be suitable for everyone.

As to the philosophy, I have taken a number of extra-mural courses.One included LOGIC. The texts we used wsere byNewton-Smith. an introduction and Lehrer , much more demanding.So either you misunderstood or or got it wrong or failed to explain myself clearly, which amounts to the same thing. As they say: " Even Homer nods"

At the risk of offending you, may I say these are not topics one reads about. It's important to engage with the material; make notes, put the book away and think about the issues.Then treat your own ideas to the same rigorous techniques. I have found it helpful to look at the chapter headings, put the book away and make notes of what I would say on a particular topic. Then I returned to the book and compared my notes with what the author had to say. That's what I mean about engaging with the material. Reading is not sufficient when we are dealing with complex topic

.

So let's call it a day. I have come to the belated conclusion that many of the threads on this site are ok for a bit of fun, but not much else. Consider what a waste of time a discussion between an atheist and a born-again Christian is. The chances are that the atheist or deist has used reason to arrive at his beliefs. This does not put him beyond error, but his approach is infinitely better than that of a Christin who confines himself to quoting the Bible like a parrot. When asked to explain himself, he considers he is doing so by coming up with another quotation to support a previousone. Mention reason, and you will soon find you are wasting your time. Mention books other than the Bible and Christian literature and you will be told there is no way they will read anything which contradicts scripture.How many who decry evolutionary theory have read anything about it, granted that there are many non-Christians who have read books on it without having grasped the principles involved.

Jan Ardena

11-14-07, 10:40 AM

Myles,

I do not acept unquestioned authority.

Niether do I.

My reference to those books was, as you well know, an attempt to see whether you have ever taken your nose out of the bible to look at other possibilities.

You seem full of assumptions.

I like your sense of humour. So they are all united ? How about the Muslims who regard Christians as infidels and and some Christians who will say it is the Muslims who are infidels. Lots of accord there.

Institutes tend to be competitive, religious or not, it is a sign of the modern world. Scriptures harbour no such discrimination.

Those who drive to rallys to rant on about atheistic science, conveniently overlooking the fact that their cars are a spin-off "atheistic" science.

How are cars a product of "atheistic science" (whatever that means).

Why don't they walk or ride donkeys as in biblical times ? All a bit confusing for anyone who chooses to think about it.

We live in different times. Donkeys were probably the most comfortable, and fastest way to get from A to B in those times and places, so it made sense to own some. In the future we may purchase flying cars, who knows.

Here endeth the last message; You are totally confused and beyond help. Please read my remarks interspersed with your response above. I am new to this so I do not know how to use colour as you have done.

Myles, in truth, you do not know me or what I am about well enough to make such remarks.

Jan.

Grantywanty

11-14-07, 10:40 AM

Myles,

So if I have read this right you believe in free will, but have knowledge that it is not true. I can't see then the base position of this thread. You live your life based on a belief based on experience. You react to and relate to other people from this belief. Isn't this what some theists also claim and do. Further your belief is contradicted by your knowledge. That sounds remarkably like certain forms of faith.

Is this the only area of your life where you are resigned to believing and acting in one way and knowing that this belief and these actions are not based on knowledge?

Certainly determinism (and randomness) seem to be hard to swallow emotionally. Some clinically depressed believe everything is determined. But then there are mystics who have believed in determinism and seemed not depressed at all.

On what basis do you conclude that your beliefs and knowledge on this issue cannot be reconciled? (I do not have acess to the book you mentioned by H)

Does your knowledge about this issue affect your behavior in any way?

(Some of the above is based my sense that you do not consider randomness and free will the same. I am not 100 % sure of this.)

visceral_instinct

11-14-07, 11:08 AM

Myles

11-14-07, 11:32 AM

I forgot to mention one last thing which you'll love. One of my daughters-in-law is a reader in pharmacology. She is currently researching ways of treating Alzheimers by methods which would reduce dependency on drugs. How about that for a broad mind !

Myles

11-14-07, 02:58 PM

I think people say they have these experiences because they've been taught that certain human qualities are not human qualities, they are evidence of God, or they are God calling you. For example, if you see a child drowning, you will save them, because that's your instinctive human reaction. An atheist would call that what it is, an instinctive reaction to seeing a child in danger, a Christian/Muslim/whatever on the other hand would probably say it was God calling them to save the child. Or if someone has an experience of extreme happiness, people of 'faith' *spits on floor* would be more likely to attribute it to God, where an atheist would just call it happiness.

I think you have a point but consider the following:

The inherent contradiction in believing god is calling on one of his creatures to undo what he, himselslf, allowed to happen in the first place. Remember, believers will tell you he ( I refuse to capitalize the g in god, or in any reference to him ) is omniscent. It follows that he foresaw the satate of the world before he created it but allowed thungs to happen anyway. Some philosophers have tried to make a case that he created the best of all possible worlds but you will not find many agreeing with them.

You will be aware that god cannot lose. Fire, flood, famine and so on. The survivors will thank god for saving them . But do they ever blame him for allowing others to die. Of course not. That was god's holy will which we must not question.

You mention Muslims. Daily we read accounts of innocent people being blown to pieces by fanatics who have been brainwashed that god will reward them with special priveliges in heaven for their ( mis)deeds Think of all the people who were burned at the stake because they could not accept religious dogma.

The saddest instance I ever read was of a man who was put to death by the Inquisition. His great sin ? He believed god's mercy was so great that in the end he would forgive Satan. Compare that man's idea of god's love with that of the bigots who put him to death. A lot of similar stuff that went on was politically motivated rather than based on religious belief.I won't go into that now.
I could go on indefinitely but I think I have said enough for you to get the picture. Howver, if you have not done so already, please read what I have said in an earlier post about a description of gang-rape in the old testament. I have been told my interpretation is wrong but I have been given no satisfactory explanation concerning what the " right interpretation " is.

Just google Judges and you will find what I am talking about from verse 22 onwards. Then, please tell me what you think it means. The trouble with Christians is that they do not think for themselves. This does not mean they are stupid, They were simply brainwashed from an early age into believing that the Bible is the infallible word of god. So they do not question it. I find what is described in Judges disgusting. Believers accept it as being literally true. Read it and make your own mind up.

If you wish to discuss things further, please feel free to question anything I say. I will not try to bamboozle you with dogma. I will answer you to the best of my ability and tell you my reasons for believing what I say. If i cannot answer a question, I will say I do not know. I will not try to mislead you .

Whatever you decide I wish you well. One final thought. You were born with the ability to reason, so why not do so rather than blindly believe what someone tells you, and that includes anything I say. Make a start by googling judges, read what you see and if you are not revolted by what you read from 22 onwards , by the gang-rape and murder that you find there , that's fine. I find it disgusting but its your privelige to disagree with me. Many Christians succeed in bamboozling others who have not read much of the bible. So it then comes down to the Christian at your door telling you what the Bible meams He wants to do to you what was done to him before he was old enough to question what he was told.I don't doubt the sincerity of such people; I just think they are misguided

I wish you well whatever you decide to do. I hope to hear from you again.

Myles

11-14-07, 03:21 PM

Myles,

You seem full of assumptions.

So put me right bytelling me whether you have read anyof the books I mention
A simple yes or no will do, so why avoid the issue with a non-answer, which is what you are doing at presen

How are cars a product of "atheistic science" (whatever that means).

Ask the fundies who drive them . They all talk of atheistic science. If you do not agree with them , tell them so They may run you out of town but, at least you will have your dignity

We live in different times. Donkeys were probably the most comfortable, and fastest way to get from A to B in those times and places, so it made sense to own some. In the future we may purchase flying cars, who knows.

So we live in different times There's a surprise. I have been told that the Bible is for all time. You may not have noticed that i referred to donkeys, it should have been asses, tongue in cheek

Myles, in truth, you do not know me or what I am about well enough to make such remarks.
I agree and as long as you hide behind a smokescreen, there is no chance of anyone getting to know you. Ihave declared myself. Why cannot you do the same ?

Jan.

Where I come from we say : Put up or shut up. I'm sure there must be an American equivalent

Medicine*Woman

11-14-07, 03:35 PM

Where I come from we say : Put up or shut up. I'm sure there must be an American equivalent
*************
M*W: I'm an American, and where I come from (the South), they say that too! I think it's quite universal.

Myles

11-14-07, 03:57 PM

[QUOTE=Grantywanty;1629116]Myles,

So if I have read this right you believe in free will, but have knowledge that it is not true. I can't see then the base position of this thread. You live your life based on a belief based on experience. You react to and relate to other people from this belief. Isn't this what some theists also claim and do. Further your belief is contradicted by your knowledge. That sounds remarkably like certain forms of faith.

Is this the only area of your life where you are resigned to believing and acting in one way and knowing that this belief and these actions are not based on knowledge?

Certainly determinism (and randomness) seem to be hard to swallow emotionally. Some clinically depressed believe everything is determined. But then there are mystics who have believed in determinism and seemed not depressed at all.by H)

Does your knowledge about this issue affect your behavior in any way?

(Some of the above is based my sense that you do not consider randomness and free will the same. I am not 100 % sure of this.)[

/QUOTE]
Again you have totally misunderstood what I said which, in essence was that we have no way of knowing whether we have free will or whether we are determined . It will seem the same to us whichever it is. However, if I were forced to guess, I would opt for determinism because that is how we experience the world. If you can think of an effect that has no cause, you are a better man than I am. Having said that , I would prefer to be free and I feel as if I am. Don't expect any clever answers on this site. Philosophers are still at odds over the question. My belief, for what it is worth is that
neuroscience will come up with some sort of answer long before philosophical discussion will.

The mention of mystics brings us back to where we came in: belief versus knowledge Most of us have had some some sort of mystical experience, epiphany, call it what you will, but we should not believe that we are adding to the sum total of human KNOWLEDGE.

Why not enrol in a few courses, if you have not do so already. You will be in a structered environment so that questions you ask and your understanding of the answers will be on a safer footing.

Talking in broad terms of QM, consciousness, mysticism, herbal remedies and so on will get you nowhere, if you really wish to be exposed to knowledge as opposed to beliefs you acquire bt reading here, there and everywhere. Engage with others in a more direct way

In conclusion either take my advice or,

" Th'art i' th' right. Go sir, rub thy chain with crumbs"

Tewlfth Night: Act II, scene III

Myles

11-14-07, 04:16 PM

*************
M*W: I'm an American, and where I come from (the South), they say that too! I think it's quite universal

.

Thank you kindly. Ma'am. I have driven from DC along the Blue Ridge mountains and the Smokies. Had I only known you then I could have been your gentleman caller and drunk your Mint Julip.I did, however get to see Davy Crocket's hut in Greenville Tennessee. I was in my prime then, about 35 years ago.

Shall we start a war over who first used the above expression ? I have witnessed fights in Dublin pubs over less weighty matters.

I miss your quote of the day.

Myles

11-14-07, 05:29 PM

Where I come from we say : Put up or shut up. I'm sure there must be an American equivalent

Jan Ardena,

Afterthought. If you do decide to post again , please remember I still awaiting your interpretation of the pssage I cited from Judges. I gave you my interpretation. Please give me yours. Are you , perhaps, a moral coward ?

Grantywanty

11-15-07, 01:44 AM

Myles,
You are so fixated on being condescending that you repeat things I obviously understood.

I think it would make things clearer if you stated whether randomness and free will are the same for you. Earlier you said there were two possibilities: determinism or randomness. I don't think either of these fits the experience of free will. (And please, I am not making a case for free will here. The purpose of these last posts is to understand what you, Myles, consider your own beliefs and knowledge to be, given the context in the thread where you are taking theists to task for basing their beliefs on experience. I think it is only fair to see what is different about what you do.)

I read this:

Concerning debates in a determined universe. We believe we have free willand so we behave as if it were true. It may be an illusion but we have no wa of knowing. See " How Free Are you" ( Ted Honderich ) forwhat is probably the most accessible intriduction the this topic

'We believe in free will...' I assumed thiat you included yourself in this 'we'. I also assumed that this free will 'we' believe in is not randomness. However much it may seem like we have free will, it does not seem like a random universe. Yes?

Do you believe this...

...we have no way of knowing whether we have free will or whether we are determined .

or this....

My belief, for what it is worth is that
neuroscience will come up with some sort of answer long before philosophical discussion will.

Having said that , I would prefer to be free and I feel as if I am. Don't expect any clever answers on this site.
I am not seeking an answer to the question of free will versus determinism. I really don't know what made you think I was. I was dealing with the topic of the thread. You are critical of theists because they base their belief in God on experience. You have admitted that you believe in free will- or at least put forward H's assertion that 'we' believe - and behave accordingly. So you prefer to live your life based on a belief based on experience that much evidence indicates is not the case. And since you say

If you can think of an effect that has no cause, you are a better man than I am.
you have seen no evidence for a non-deterministic universe.

My understanding was that your concern when it came to theists was that they based a belief on experience, a belief with no evidence to back it up.

Yet here you are living your life on the basis of a belief that you have no evidence for.

In distinction from the theists you acknowledge that much knowledge - as opposed to belief based merely on experience - points to determinism and none points toward free will.

1) I think that this sets up an interesting compartmentalized psychology in you, which you are not alone in having, of course. And that it is a phenomenon worth pointing out. I realize that H points out this phenomenon also and I have heard it raised and raised it myself in other contexts. I had not thought of it in a discussion in relation to the criticisms athiests make of theists, however.
2) It raises issues, which I clearly pointed out in my previous post, about the categorical complaint you aim at theists, who live and behave according to a belief based on experience AS YOU DO. That you are uncertain, or recognize knowledge contradicting this belief, seems IN PRACTICAL TERMS similar to the role doubt and faith play in the lives of theists. You have a different relationship with this belief in that you, perhaps, see it as a kind of necessay evil or kind of like a soothing habit, wheras the theist might have more respect for their belief. But nevertheless in terms of living in the world the belief rules. I certainly see it at work here in the thread.

I am aware that the content of your beliefs are different from theists. I am aware of the negative effects of some theists' beliefs. But it seemed like your intention was epistomological and in that kind of discussion content is not the issue.

The mention of mystics brings us back to where we came in: belief versus knowledge Most of us have had some some sort of mystical experience, epiphany, call it what you will, but we should not believe that we are adding to the sum total of human KNOWLEDGE.

That was not my point with that section. You are not reading carefully. I was talking about the consequences of actually believing you are not free. I was not making a case for the validity of some belief based on the experiences of mystics. Clean the lenses through which you read everything I write.

You have basically stated that this is the situation: one must live in uncertainty. I was pointing out that actually some people seem to have moved away from that uncertainty in a direction you seem unaware of: towards accepting determnism as a belief - not the way scientists do, but in everyday life and consistantly. Some clinically depressed people, but also mystics, who, for whatever reasons do not seem bothered by having everything worked out in advance and simply unfolding before them. (of course I cannot prove they have this belief, but some have claimed very strongly that they did have this belief, the problem of other minds. And, Myles, read this carefully. I am not making the case for mystics beliefs of the world or that their beliefs are convincing. The irony in this instance is that their belief in some cases HAS FIT with evidence that determinism is correct. I am contrasting this with what your posts imply: that one cannot do anything but compartmentalize the evidence that we live in a determined universe.

Why not enrol in a few courses, if you have not do so already. You will be in a structered environment so that questions you ask and your understanding of the answers will be on a safer footing.

Stop it, Myles.

Talking in broad terms of QM, consciousness, mysticism, herbal remedies and so on will get you nowhere, if you really wish to be exposed to knowledge as opposed to beliefs you acquire bt reading here, there and everywhere. Engage with others in a more direct way

Blah, blah. Grow up. What are you here for Myles? The one thing I appreciate about your posts after I made a fool of myself with QM is that refer to posts of mine from before that and show the real condescension you have felt all along. Your posts feel more honest now.

What is your purpose here? Did you come to edify those you look down on?

Are you capable of introspection, Myles? What is the real motive you had for starting this thread. If the best you can come up with is that you are concerned about theists' false beliefs and their poor epistemology, my suggestion would be to look a bit deeper. You could even keep in mind the structure of your own psyche that I went into above. You prefer the belief in free will and live your life as if that was true, but recognize the knowledge that indicates you probably don't have this. A kind of split. What role are other people, especially theists, supposed to play for you here?

Hamlet:
Suit the action to the word, the word to the action, with this
special observance, that you o'erstep not the modesty of nature:
for any thing so o'erdone is from the purpose of playing, whose
end, both at the first and now, was and is, to hold as 'twere the
mirror up to nature: to show virtue her feature, scorn her own
image, and the very age and body of the time his form and
pressure.
Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 17–24

Who am I directing this quote at, Myles? I'll give you a hint: not at you.

Myles

11-15-07, 07:11 AM

Myles,
You are so fixated on being condescending that you repeat things I obviously understood. I think it would make things clearer if you stated whether randomness and free will are the same for you.

These are my last words to you on the matter:

I have said on an earlier post ...to be honest I can't be bothered to look it up .....that determinism and randomness are mutually exclusive. They are so by definition , not because I say so. So the universe is either determined or it is not.

It follows that randomness and free will are NOT the same to me. How could they be when I have said on this and a previous occasion that they are mutually exclusive ?

My actions are either free or determined. I don't know which. When I act it "feels" , insofar as I choose to think about it , as if I am acting freely. But, I would feel the same way if my act was determined because I regard myselff as the agent of the action .So, I have no way of distinguishing a free action from one that is determined. To repeat myself I DO NOT KNOW, I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE .

So , having said I have no knowledge, what follows is speculation or , if you prefer, what I believe.

On balance, the universe appears to me to be determined. I have no knowledge of an effect which is not preceded by a cause. Please don't muddy the water by talking about a first cause, a Prime Mover, because that horse has been flogged to death. You will be aware that it leads to an infinite regress ,which solves nothing.

I have read of many experiments which suggest that we are determined. As you mentioned neuroscience on a previous ocasion I imagine you are aware of some ofthem. One that comes to mind is where a number of individuals, suitably wired up, are asked to watch moving spots on a screen and raise an arm when the spots come together. The upshot is that the decision to raise an arm can be seen in measured brain activity before the individual is consciously aware of it.

Such experiments do not prove we are detrmined, they show only that decisions can be made unconsciously. Read into that what you will.

As to QM, the current interpretation may be right or wrong; the jury is still out.

I could also discuss systems which are not predictable but not necessarily random.

In conclusion. I have stated my position as clearly as I can and will leave it at that. If given a choice, I would opt for free will because I would feel more comfortable with it. But the debate is not about my likes and dislikes.

You are right to draw attention to my attitude and immoderate use of lamguage. You have my unreserved apology. But please believe that part of me was trying to be helpful in suggesting what I did about courses, etc.

Please let's leave it at that. Best wishes,

Myles

I

In my haste to answer you I messed things up. But I am mentally and physically too tired to start over

Jan Ardena

11-15-07, 07:35 AM

Jan Ardena,

Afterthought. If you do decide to post again , please remember I still awaiting your interpretation of the pssage I cited from Judges. I gave you my interpretation. Please give me yours. Are you , perhaps, a moral coward ?

I will respond to your interpretation, just a bit short on time right now.

Jan.

Grantywanty

11-15-07, 07:47 AM

I have said on an earlier post ...to be honest I can't be bothered to look it up .....that determinism and randomness are mutually exclusive. They are so by definition , not because I say so. So the universe is either determined or it is not.

It follows that randomness and free will are NOT the same to me. How could they be when I have said on this and a previous occasion that they are mutually exclusive ?

Isn't there something confusing in the above? I certainly understood that randomness and determinism were mutually exclusive. I don't quite see how that leads to
It follows that randomness and free will are NOT the same to me

My sense I have had this confusion in reading your posts before when discussing these three 'things'.

My actions are either free or determined. I don't know which. When I act it "feels" , insofar as I choose to think about it , as if I am acting freely. But, I would feel the same way if my act was determined because I regard myselff as the agent of the action .So, I have no way of distinguishing a free action from one that is determined. To repeat myself I DO NOT KNOW, I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE .

So , having said I have no knowledge, what follows is speculation or , if you prefer, what I believe.

So in a sense you have two beliefs - if you agree with H that 'we' believe we have free will - the belief in free will that you live by and the belief that probably you are determined. Given your gracious apology below I feel much milder about what I was pressing you to look at in my post above.

On balance, the universe appears to me to be determined. I have no knowledge of an effect which is not preceded by a cause. Please don't muddy the water by talking about a first cause, a Prime Mover, because that horse has been flogged to death. You will be aware that it leads to an infinite regress ,which solves nothing.

I wouldn't have. I think trying to prove God's existence is a waste of time.

You are right to draw attention to my attitude and immoderate use of lamguage. You have my unreserved apology.

Thank you, accepted.

Myles

11-15-07, 08:22 AM

So in a sense you have two beliefs - if you agree with H that 'we' believe we have free will - the belief in free will that you live by and the belief that probably you are determined. Given your gracious apology below I feel much milder about what I was pressing you to look at in my post above.

I have said on a previous occasion that KNOWLEDGE is always on a firmer foundation than BELIEF is. Can I put it this way: I have no knowledge of whether I am free or determined.No KNOWLEDGE. It follws that I do not agree with H. I have read and thought about what he has to say, without arriving at a conclusion. His argument is plausible, that's all. Read him yourself and make your own mind up.

Whether I live by one belief or another is irrelevant. What I chhose to believe is in the same category as the beliefs of others because I can offe no incotrovertible evidence to support my beliefs. I simply make the point that I " FEEL " that I am a free agent, which proves nothing. I accept that I may be determined, but have no way of knowing how I would be aware that I was so.

So , I have no knowledge or belief either way. I would like to think I was free, and that is my position.

Before acting, I do not have an internal debate as to whether what I have decided is free or determined. I just act.

Interesting that you should offer a quotation from Hamlet He was the decision maker par excellence! Did he believe he was both free and determined ? That could explain his dithering

Can we now draw a line under this, If you choose to believe that I hold two mutually exclusive beliefs, so be it.

If you insist on a label, I'm an empiricist. My beliefs about the world are supported by empirical evidence which, to me, means I have a store of knowledge. I am willing to change my views if evidence comes to light which shows me to be wrong. But it must be empirical evidence, not hearsay or information obtained in a trance and so on which is only available to a chosen few. I don't deny personal experience but I will not accept such experience as a part of my belief system if it is not supported by empirical evidence. And that is my last word on the subject as far as our dialogue is concerned. If you agree, fine; if you disagree, that's also fine.

greenberg

11-15-07, 11:14 AM

I am willing to change my views if evidence comes to light which shows me to be wrong.

But by then, it might be too late.

Myles

11-15-07, 11:33 AM

But by then, it might be too late.

Too late for what ? Please enlighten me.

greenberg

11-15-07, 12:52 PM

Too late for what ? Please enlighten me.

If I first seek to find evidence about what the meaning of life is and only after I have found it, live accordingly, I might waste my life in the meantime.

Myles

11-15-07, 01:52 PM

If I first seek to find evidence about what the meaning of life is and only after I have found it, live accordingly, I might waste my life in the meantime.

So what are you recommending ? That I follow a coursee of action recommended by someone else ? How would I recognize whose word I should accept and whose I shoulds ignore ? How does one make that choice and what guarantee does one have that one has made the correct choice ?

I could waste my life in a monastery, Christan, Buddhist or whatever and come to the conclusion that I had chosen the wrong path.

May you not also be making an assumption that life has a meaning ? Maybe we just happen to be here and that's it. I assume you would not regard that as a tenable position. If not, why not ?

I would like to think there is some meaning to life but I have no evidence that there is any.

greenberg

11-15-07, 02:29 PM

So what are you recommending ?

I'm not recommending anything.

I would like to think there is some meaning to life but I have no evidence that there is any.

And I would say that thinking this way is the surest way to waste a life.

Myles

11-15-07, 02:48 PM

I'm not recommending anything.

And I would say that thinking this way is the surest way to waste a li

I'm glad you would not recommend anything.That chimes with my view that we must stand on our own feet and not rely on others for answers

As to wasting life, we are on a different wavelength. I live what I regard as a great life surrounded as I am by a loving family. I am currently putting the touches to a piece of music which will be performed by my grandauughter's senior school orchestra. It's not great music but at least I am creating something. On a more prosaic note , I grow all our own vegetables and manage to find time for reading.

Life is for living and that is what Iam doing. If I have chosen the wrong path. whatever that might be, I am not aware of having done so. I am as contented as anyone else I know. Does that make any sense to you ?

Myles

11-15-07, 02:51 PM

I will respond to your interpretation, just a bit short on time right now

Jan.

Thank you, I look forward to hearing from you

greenberg

11-15-07, 03:01 PM

Life is for living and that is what Iam doing. If I have chosen the wrong path. whatever that might be, I am not aware of having done so. I am as contented as anyone else I know. Does that make any sense to you ?

Look, but this is what the theists are doing too - just that they have decided on a different path than you. And yet you are criticizing them.

Myles

11-15-07, 05:01 PM

Look, but this is what the theists are doing too - just that they have decided on a different path than you. And yet you are criticizing them.

That's a fair comment. I could write pages about the reasons for my antagonism to theism but I will just mention a few of them.

I am opposed to instiutionalized religion becaus it indoctrinates children at an age when the tend to believe what any adult tells them. No encouragement is given to them to think for themselves or to question "received wisdom"

In my own country, Ireland, I witnessed years of sectarian killings. In the Repuiblic, where I grew up, I was told that Roman Catholicism was the only true religion. Everyone else was bound for eternal damnation. North of the border, which is mainly Protestant., my contemporaries were being taught that the Pope was the anti-Christ.

Anyone who studies history cannot but be aware of the dreadful things done in the name of religion. The Inquisition, the so-called wars of religion, the crusades and, not least , the butchering of innocent Incas . Much of what went on was politically motivated, as you probably know.

I have been told time and again, the the people who did these dreadful things were mot true Christians. That may be so, but it leaves me uncertain as to what it means to be a true Christian. I don't doubt there are decent people of all persuasions but it can be difficult to sort the sheep from the goats. When push comes to shove, most Christians will support their churches right or wrong because to do otherwise would mean losing their prop

Daily we read of innocent people in the Middle East being blown to pieces by suicide bombers who have been brainwashed into believing that they are not murderers but martyrs who are promised a priveliged place in heaven.

In the US bigots are not in short supply. Self-appointed pastors set up their own churches, preach their own brand of Christianity and pocket the profits.
Do you remember when Oral Roberts confined himself to his prayer tower, telling his flock that God had told him to collect six million dollars in pledges. The alternative was that he would die in his prayer tower. Blackmail ? Of course.Have you seen what Phelps and his family get up to ? His poor ,brainwashed kids will produce another generation of bigots.

I will cite no more examples. I'm sure you could write your own list

So, it comes down to this. If only children were taught to think for themselves instead of being indoctrinated, much evil would be avoided because the Priests, Pastors and Mullahs, inter alia, would be closely questioned and seen in their true colours.

That is why I find it difficult to avoid confronting anyone who appears to be proselytizing.

greenberg

11-16-07, 04:10 AM

If only children were taught to think for themselves instead of being indoctrinated

What do you suggest - how is a child to be taught to "think for themselves"?

Myles

11-16-07, 04:58 AM

What do you suggest - how is a child to be taught to "think for themselves

By being exposed to ideas commensurate to their age and being encouraged to see that there are often different ways of looking at things.It is also necessary to avoid spoonfeeding them ready-made answers in response to some of the questions children commonly ask.

It is perfectly possible , in answer to a child's question ,to say that some people believe this, others believe something else . The problem is not with the children; it is with parents. Ask a person why he is a member of church X and 99% of the time it will be because his parents are.

Jan Ardena

11-16-07, 06:07 AM

Myles,

Quick note; to get different colours, highlight the segment then press the big blue 'A'.
Do the same to quote prefered segments and click on the icon which looks like a written document next to the postcard looking thingy.
To get 'quote by so and so', you put = whatever name you choose after the quote at the begining of the segment, within the brackets.

Now then.

Afterthought. If you do decide to post again , please remember I still awaiting your interpretation of the pssage I cited from Judges. I gave you my interpretation. Please give me yours. Are you , perhaps, a moral coward ?

An old atheist trick. You take something which is superficially, morally reprehensible from the bible, then ask a theist to justify the statement in the context of modern secular life. If the theist justifies the statement then he is classed as a pervert, if he denounces it, or chooses not to rise to the challenge, then his belief is a joke.
So predictable.
All this is done under the atheist understanding that you cannot use the same scripture to come to any understanding as to why some actions take place.
Its all atheist, atheist, atheist, isn't it. :rolleyes:
But seeing as you are using "god" as YOU see him to interpret the segments, then so shall i.

How is it that you think "abuse" in the context of that verse means gangrape?
Yet you talk of "thinking for yourself".

But it's even worse than that. I'ts about a man who handed his daughter to a mob inviting them to do what they would with her. I find that revolting. The concubine also deserved to be treated with respect.

If you believe the above is not a description of gang rape and murder then there is nothing anyone can say to you. You are beyond reason. People like you thrive on taking advantage of others, even more ignorant than yourselves.

You say that by modern standards those verses describe "gang-rape", so please provide any evidence from them,
that these men gang-raped the women. It is as simple as that.
Emotional outbursts do not count as evidence.

I have already given my interpretation albeit very short. However there is not much more to add to that, as that is the core.
The women were of less value than the man, otherwise he wouldn't made that choice. To understand why they were of less value, you must look further than your own personal experiences, as you would do to understanding anything that is beyond your scope.
If you are not able to do that, or do not want to do that, then there is no point in this discussion.

If god wants to demonstrate the dominion of men in this way, I want none of it.

The MAN was in a situation, He made a choice.
Why do YOU think he made that choice?

The bottom line is I do not believe a loving god would countenance such behaviour, so either the Bible is wrong or god is a monster.

You're not trying to look at it from "god'" perspective.
In genesis there is an example of what "life" is and what the "body" is.
He ("god") formed man out of the dust then breathed life into the nostril, and man became a 'living' soul. So from "gods" perspective the life-force (soul) never dies. This must be understood if you are serious.
You and I can never understand the concept of "god'" love, by equating it with what we understand to be love, our positions a different.

How do you know, with understanding that the spirit never dies, that that action wasn't the best action to take in order to stop the force of real evil spreading throughout the world (at that time), giving NO soul a chance of salvation.

If you choose to believe such stuff is the revealed word of god, I just cannot understand your mentality. You have clearly been brainwashed.

You've just taken that statement out the scripture, in an attemp to paint a very narrow picture of "god", and concluded then "god" or God is monster.
You judge my mentality, by your own indirectly believing that your mentality is the benchmark. How arrogant.
If you can think for yourself, then step outside of the mind-numbing standard retorts, and discuss the "god" which is DESCRIBED in the scripture, not only the bible. The best scripture IMO to understand the nature of God is the Bhagavad Gita, as it is God who speaks, and describes himself.

If you decide to maintain your lazy position of using standard retorts, then please REALLY make this the last word.

Jan.

Myles

11-16-07, 07:15 AM

Myles,

Quick note; to get different colours, highlight the segment then press the big blue 'A'.
Do the same to quote prefered segments and click on the icon which looks like a written document next to the postcard looking thingy.
To get 'quote by so and so', you put = whatever name you choose after the quote at the begining of the segment, within the brackets.

Now then.

An old atheist trick. You take something which is superficially, morally reprehensible from the bible, then ask a theist to justify the statement in the context of modern secular life. If the theist justifies the statement then he is classed as a pervert, if he denounces it, or chooses not to rise to the challenge, then his belief is a joke.
So predictable.
All this is done under the atheist understanding that you cannot use the same scripture to come to any understanding as to why some actions take place.
Its all atheist, atheist, atheist, isn't it. :rolleyes:
But seeing as you are using "god" as YOU see him to interpret the segments, then so shall i.

You say that by modern standards those verses describe "gang-rape", so please provide any evidence from them,
that these men gang-raped the women. It is as simple as that.
Emotional outbursts do not count as evidence.

I have already given my interpretation albeit very short. However there is not much more to add to that, as that is the core.
The women were of less value than the man, otherwise he wouldn't made that choice. To understand why they were of less value, you must look further than your own personal experiences, as you would do to understanding anything that is beyond your scope.
If you are not able to do that, or do not want to do that, then there is no point in this discussion.

The MAN was in a situation, He made a choice.
Why do YOU think he made that choice?

You're not trying to look at it from "god'" perspective.
In genesis there is an example of what "life" is and what the "body" is.
He ("god") formed man out of the dust then breathed life into the nostril, and man became a 'living' soul. So from "gods" perspective the life-force (soul) never dies. This must be understood if you are serious.
You and I can never understand the concept of "god'" love, by equating it with what we understand to be love, our positions a different.

How do you know, with understanding that the spirit never dies, that that action wasn't the best action to take in order to stop the force of real evil spreading throughout the world (at that time), giving NO soul a chance of salvation.

You've just taken that statement out the scripture, in an attemp to paint a very narrow picture of "god", and concluded then "god" or God is monster.
You judge my mentality, by your own indirectly believing that your mentality is the benchmark. How arrogant.
If you can think for yourself, then step outside of the mind-numbing standard retorts, and discuss the "god" which is DESCRIBED in the scripture, not only the bible. The best scripture IMO to understand the nature of God is the Bhagavad Gita, as it is God who speaks, and describes himself.

If you decide to maintain your lazy position of using standard retorts, then please REALLY make this the last word.

Jan.

I'm not interested in tricks, atheists or otherwise. I understand your message to mean that if I do not accept your view, then I am wrong.

Wel, surprise, surprise I do not believe I am wrong in my interpretation of Judges. You have given me no reason to believe otherwise because you have not explained in what way my interpretation is wrong. You have avoided the issue by talking about Genesis; a typical Christian trick to which I have been exposed on many occasions.

So, for the sake of argument, let's accept Genesis as the literal truth. How does that invalidate my interpretation of Judges. Wanting to " know" a man, do not do such a "vile " thing unto him, her is his concubine, do unto her ....,
they "abused " her all night, she is found dead on the threshold , following which she is cut into 12 pieces. What have I misunderstood ? If you cannot explain what you believe it means, I am entitled to believe that you don't know or don't want to know. You are avoiding the issue.

It all seems to boil down to : It's in scripture, so it must be true. God can do what he pleases and it is his will that men have dominion over women. Rape them, cut them up, feel free to show them who is boss ! Even if you were right that abuse is not rape in the context of Judges, something you have yet to show, is it ok for a gang of men to abuse a woman all night, whatever form the abuse takes ?
I rest my case

I don't doubt your sincerity but I have grounds to believe that you cannot think for yourself. So we come back to , tell me what you think it means. Put up or shut up

nova900

11-16-07, 07:15 AM

But seeing as you are using "god" as YOU see him to interpret the segments, then so shall i.

But we all interpret God differently from each other.Even people who follow the same faith will perceive God somewhat differently from each other.
If you literally interpret the nature of God in the bible then you are simply viweing God thru the eyes of the authors with all their cultural and other biases factored in.

You and I can never understand the concept of "god'" love, by equating it with what we understand to be love, our positions a different.

.

I believe we can by understanding the unconditional love often demonstrated by Jesus. Humans are capable of such. Being selfless and showing unconditional love are far more important to God than so much of the man created dogmatic nonsense present in so many faiths.
This spiritual concept is present in many religions but i think too many focus on literal portrayals of God or specific idealogies that "only" lead to God.

greenberg

11-16-07, 08:11 AM

By being exposed to ideas commensurate to their age

"Commensurate to their age" according to whose standards?

Jan Ardena

11-16-07, 10:33 AM

Myles,

I'm not interested in tricks, atheists or otherwise. I understand your message to mean that if I do not accept your view, then I am wrong.

As I am the author of my posts, I know for a fact (albeit personal) that your understanding is at fault, leading to a faulty conclusion.
Judging from your sentiments of "god", and scripture, I have no reason to believe your understanding of them are any different.
If you are going to use the bible to degrade the concept of "god" then don't be surprised if the bible is used expose your ignorance.

Wel, surprise, surprise I do not believe I am wrong in my interpretation of Judges.

I didn't say you WAS wrong, I asked you to provide evidence which would put the act in a category of modern-day rapists and murderers. I wanted to see how you came to that conclusion based on the scripture.

You have avoided the issue by talking about Genesis; a typical Christian trick to which I have been exposed on many occasions.

Upon what evidence do regard me as "christian"?
What is wrong with countering your understanding of "god" from the bible, with an extract from the same said bible?

So, for the sake of argument, let's accept Genesis as the literal truth.

I wasn't arguing from the point that genesis is literal truth.
Have you not read my responses to you?

How does that invalidate my interpretation of Judges. Wanting to " know" a man, do not do such a "vile " thing unto him, her is his concubine, do unto her ....,
they "abused " her all night, she is found dead on the threshold , following which she is cut into 12 pieces.

The word used for "know" is 'yada' which does not only mean wanting to know someone in the carnal sense. A civilised court would not deem someone guilty on the basis of a word/terminology, that has many meanings.
"Abuse" is not a pre-requisite for rape, or any sexual activity, and what was considered "abuse" thousands of years ago, well be accepted common practice by today standards.
She was found dead, that is what it says, not that she was murdered.
The cutting into 12 peices came after the event.

It all seems to boil down to : It's in scripture, so it must be true.

We are discussing scripture, try and stay focused. You have taken a segment and used that segment to justify your position, and to degrade my position.

God can do what he pleases and it is his will that men have dominion over women.

Men have dominian because they are stronger, that is the natural order.

Rape them, cut them up, feel free to show them who is boss !

There are men like that, I agree, but that's not what it means to have dominian, not for those of sober human intelligence anyway.

Even if you were right that abuse is not rape in the context of Judges, something you have yet to show, is it ok for a gang of men to abuse a woman all night, whatever form the abuse takes ?
I rest my case

What case? Get real man.
Personally I don't believe it is okay to abuse people, but there are those who get a kick out of it.
How exactly have you implicated "god" in the acts of these men?

I don't doubt your sincerity but I have grounds to believe that you cannot think for yourself. So we come back to , tell me what you think it means. Put up or shut up

You misunderstand. I'm not saying that you are wrong, i wanted to know how you came to the conclusion that they were gang-rapists and murderers (by todays standard), on the strength of judges. Whether they did or didn't do it, is besides the point.

Jan.

not sure if you're aware, but to reply to my posts using the tools i mentioned, you first need to click quote in the left hand corner of this message. ignore this if you know this already.

Myles

11-16-07, 10:35 AM

"Commensurate to their age" according to whose standards?

Oh dear, have you no idea what I'm talking about.

We do not mention mathematics when we are teaching young children to do "sums". We have a syllabus. The same goes for other subjects. We do not ask them to accept things on faith. A good teacher or parent can offer an inquisitive child evidence. I can see no problem.

to cut to the chase and talk about what I imagine is of most to you :

"Who made the world? " Well, some people say itwas made by God and show you what is said about it in a holy book called the Bible. But , if we lived in India, a far away country, people would show us a different holy book. You see, there are lots of holy books so it is diofficult to know which one is the right one. Some people will tell you there is no real difference. They will say that all the holy books are talking about the same god in different ways.

But you will find that difficult to understand because people are always arguing over what each of the holy books means That is why we have different religions.

There are other people who do not believe any of the holy books. They say they are just like the fairy tales I tell you.

So I do not know the answer to your question. It's a very difficult question to answer. Be patient and wait till you are old enough to read holy books for yourself Then when you read and talk to other people about their holy books, you may find the answer to the difficult question. I do'nt know the answer but that doesn't mean there isn't one. One day you will find out for yourself what you think the answer is.

Myles

11-16-07, 10:45 AM

I believe we can by understanding the unconditional love often demonstrated by Jesus. Humans are capable of such. Being selfless and showing unconditional love are far more important to God than so much of the man created dogmatic nonsense present in so many faiths.
This spiritual concept is present in many religions but i think too many focus on literal portrayals of God or specific idealogies that "only" lead to God

That is a much better answer than any I have been given in my lifetime. Maybe, just maybe. if I had come under your influence when I was a child , I would have a different view ofthings. The world would be a far better place if more people had your attitude. The only point on which I see us disagreeing is that I am only aware of human love and kindness.

Jan Ardena

11-16-07, 10:50 AM

nova900,

But we all interpret God differently from each other.Even people who follow the same faith will perceive God somewhat differently from each other.

This is correct, but the fact is God is described in all scriptures as the Supreme Cause of causes, the ultimate creator and person. This is also accepted by the sincere follows of subsequent religions that base their understanding on scripture.

If you literally interpret the nature of God in the bible then you are simply viweing God thru the eyes of the authors with all their cultural and other biases factored in.

If the nature of God is that he is pure spirit, the creator of the material manifestation, and he is described as such in all scriptures, then it stands to reason that the authors, although miles and times apart, had the same understanding.

I believe we can by understanding the unconditional love often demonstrated by Jesus.

Jesus could understand that he was going to be murdered because of what he knew, but still thought it necessary to impart knowledge to the ignorant.
Can we really understand that kind of love?

Humans are capable of such. Being selfless and showing unconditional love are far more important to God than so much of the man created dogmatic nonsense present in so many faiths.

I totally agree.

This spiritual concept is present in many religions but i think too many focus on literal portrayals of God or specific idealogies that "only" lead to God.

What do you mean by "spiritual concept"?

Jan.

Myles

11-16-07, 11:14 AM

Myles,

As I am the author of my posts, I know for a fact (albeit personal) that your understanding is at fault, leading to a faulty conclusion.
Judging from your sentiments of "god", and scripture, I have no reason to believe your understanding of them are any different.
If you are going to use the bible to degrade the concept of "god" then don't be surprised if the bible is used expose your ignorance.

I didn't say you WAS wrong, I asked you to provide evidence which would put the act in a category of modern-day rapists and murderers. I wanted to see how you came to that conclusion based on the scripture.

Upon what evidence do regard me as "christian"?
What is wrong with countering your understanding of "god" from the bible, with an extract from the same said bible?

I wasn't arguing from the point that genesis is literal truth.
Have you not read my responses to you?

what was considered "abuse" thousands of years ago, well be accepted common practice by today standards.

Or it may equally well considered worse by today's standards. Have you thought about that ?

She was found dead, that is what it says, not that she was murdered.

Dead after a night of abuse. It seems to me those men had something to do with her death. It may have been pure coincidence. Believe what seemeth right unto you.

We are discussing scripture, try and stay focused. You have taken a segment and used that segment to justify your position, and to degrade my position.

I don't need to degrade your position. You are making a fine job of it all by yourself.

Men have dominian because they are stronger, that is the natural order

You'll be telling me soon that in those far-off days dominion really meant equality. As a male of the species I view my marriage as a partnership of equals

What case? Get real man.

Get real like you ? No thanks

How exactly have you implicated "god" in the acts of these men?

Because the Bible is said to be the revealed word of god, ergo it must be true. ergo god sanctioned the abuse or he would have said a bit in Judges to condemn it

Do you ever THINK about what you believe?You were born with the ability to REASON. Why not give it a try. As you have mentioned the natural order of things, you might benefit from reading about evolutionary theory.You will not be asked to take anything on trust. You will be presented with an account which is REASONABLE

nova900

11-16-07, 11:28 AM

What do you mean by "spiritual concept"?
.

What I mean are the commanalities that many religions share about God/the afterlife without referring to specific personality traits being assigned to God..example: male or female spirit,angry,jealous,wrath-filled,or.... certain passages referring to words spoken directly by God.
The common bond that binds them. Those are the things I consider spiritual.
God being a great eternal spirit, God is love,selflessnish is a quality to strive for,etc.
As demonstrated by Jesus,Krishna ,Aset (Isis) and others.

Jan Ardena

11-16-07, 12:08 PM

Myles,

Do you ever THINK about what you believe?

You are jumpier than a frog on speed, with all these subject changes. Of course I think about what I believe. Why wouldn't I?

You were born with the ability to REASON. Why not give it a try.

Wait a minute there.
What's all this about?
Why do you think I do not use the ability of reason?

As you have mentioned the natural order of things, you might benefit from reading about evolutionary theory.You will not be asked to take anything on trust. You will be presented with an account which is REASONABLE

Uhh!
I have read up on the "evolutionary theory", and have benefited as a result, and yes it is REASONABLE. But what does that have to do with what we are discussing?

Jan.

greenberg

11-16-07, 12:32 PM

Commensurate to their age" according to whose standards?

Oh dear, have you no idea what I'm talking about.

I'm asking you to be exact.

We do not mention mathematics when we are teaching young children to do "sums". We have a syllabus. The same goes for other subjects.

And who compiles that syllabus? By what standards is that syllabus compiled?

to cut to the chase and talk about what I imagine is of most to you :

You imagine, yes, but you have no idea what is of most importance to me.

Myles

11-16-07, 01:49 PM

Myles,

Of course I think about what I believe. Why wouldn't I?

I see little evidence that you do. You take a lopsided view of what the word "abuse " means. You put your own spin on it to trry and bolster your argument. By today's standards the abuse referred to in Judges might be considerd acceptable or unacceptable. You simply chose what suited your argument. That is scarcely the the sign of a thinking man; rather it betokens someone who has scant regard for the truth. On what ground did you choose one view over another ?
Further , is abuse of any kind ever acceptable ? I don't think so .

Why do you think I do not use the ability of reason?

See above for evidence, Reasoning means looking at things from all sides and trying to make a decision with respect for the available facts. You have not done so.

I have read up on the "evolutionary theory", and have benefited as a result, and yes it is REASONABLE. But what does that have to do with what we are discussing?

It might just show that your mind is more open than than your posts suggest

Jan.

Briefly, what is the biggest benefit you feel you have derived from reading about evolutionary theory. What books have you read ? And would you like to discuss with me the merits/ demerits of the theory ?

Ps. Don't forget you still have not told me what your understanding of Judges is. Can you please re-tell the story in your own words; this will allow us to compare my version with yours, and we can take the debate from there. Is that so difficult for you to do ? Never mind frogs on speed, just get on and tell the story , as you would to someone who had not read the passage I cited.

Myles

11-16-07, 01:57 PM

I'm asking you to be exact.

And who compiles that syllabus? By what standards is that syllabus compiled?

You are simply tedious. If you have had any schooling , you would not ask such a stupid question.

YOU ARE SIMPLY SCRAPING THE BOTTOM OF THE BARREL.

Shall I make life simple for you and explain why 2 + 2 = 4. I don't think so.
It might be 5 if god so decrees because he didn't define the terms. Please go away.

Grantywanty

11-16-07, 03:23 PM

Shall I make life simple for you and explain why 2 + 2 = 4. I don't think so.
It might be 5 if god so decrees because he didn't define the terms. Please go away.

You have made repeated assumptions about the beliefs of the person you are talking to here Myles and many of them have been incorrect. Perhaps this does not matter to you, but I thought I would point it out.

Myles

11-16-07, 04:46 PM

You have made repeated assumptions about the beliefs of the person you are talking to here Myles and many of them have been incorrect. Perhaps this does not matter to you, but I thought I would point it out

.

Not true. I'm making a value judgement about a person who wishes , for purposes best knownto himself, to manoeuvre me into what will becom an infinite regress. Want a little help ?

Who set the syllabus ? X
What were his qualifications to do so ? H was a qualified Y
How do you know a qualified Y is suitable to perform such a task ?
He was an accepted authority
But what about those who might not accept his authority ?
They would be regarded as ignoramt
By whom ?
By those who have an expert knowledge of such things.
So, an expert cannot make a mistake ?
Of course he can. But his work is subject to peer review
But can his peers not be in error ?

And so on ad nauseaum.

Wht cannot he tell me whether he thinks it imopossible to teach children to think for themselves, as his line of argument suggests. and save us both a lot of time. From that point on I shall need to make no assumptions/value judgements about that person because I will know where he stands on the issue. So far he has said nothing constructive.

Myles

11-16-07, 05:00 PM

You have made repeated assumptions about the beliefs of the person you are talking to here Myles and many of them have been incorrect. Perhaps this does not matter to you, but I thought I would point it out.

If someone refuses to declare his position one can only make value judgments, assumptions if you will , based on views previously expressed or the questions he poses. Doubtless you know a better way. But we are not all blessed with your insight.

Myles

11-16-07, 07:51 PM

"Commensurate to their age" according to whose standards?

Hi,

It appears I have been making unwarranted assumptions about you, so can we make a fresh start ?

I believe it is possible to bring children up to think critically according to their ability at any given age.There are courses in critical thinking for 16-year olds, so I do not see why wecannot teach younger children according to a syllabus, as in any other subject. In my experience, youngsters are full of curiosity, so w would not have to try very hard to arouse their interest. A typical child'ds question could be thrown open for discussion in class, with a teacher acting as moderator. No definite conclusions need be reached but that is a reflection of what happens in the adult world. The children would develop the habit of questioning and thinking about things.

Now, can I ask you to give me your considered opinion on the matter.

You do not believe it possible or appropriate

You agree , broadly or otherwise with my suggestion

You have a counter-proposal to make

You have no interest in discussing the matter

You have a point of view which I have not covered above/

Do please give me your considered response

greenberg

11-17-07, 01:55 AM

Not true. I'm making a value judgement about a person who wishes , for purposes best knownto himself, to manoeuvre me into what will becom an infinite regress. Want a little help ?

Who set the syllabus ? X
What were his qualifications to do so ? H was a qualified Y
How do you know a qualified Y is suitable to perform such a task ?
He was an accepted authority
But what about those who might not accept his authority ?
They would be regarded as ignoramt
By whom ?
By those who have an expert knowledge of such things.
So, an expert cannot make a mistake ?
Of course he can. But his work is subject to peer review
But can his peers not be in error ?

And so on ad nauseaum.

No, not ad nauseaum, but only so far that you, too, would see the problems inherent to issues of knowledge and evidence.

Because for the time being, you speak like an idealistic 19th century rationalist scientist, blissfully unaware of the findings of 20th and 21st cognitive science and philosophy.

But differences like these are too much to work out within the limitations of this medium.

Grantywanty

11-17-07, 02:06 AM

If someone refuses to declare his position one can only make value judgments, assumptions if you will , based on views previously expressed or the questions he poses. Doubtless you know a better way. But we are not all blessed with your insight.

Sarcasm noted.

I don't see why you had to make a value judgement - have I got that right? - that Greenberg believes in God, for example.

peta9

11-17-07, 02:40 AM

i see nothing incorrect with someone believing or speculating in the possibility of a creator/s, ghosts, ad nauseum. But anything beyond that such as finite character assignations or specific powers or rituals assigned which in turn and in essence the one who is believing is actually "creating" or "making" up their god. It goes beyond speculation or honest openness about a possible creator's true nature or purpose etc. Nothing wrong with that as long as it's understood for what it is, they could be off by a bit or by a longshot, they could be limited in understanding, as a concept can become real in the context as it serves it's believers purpose or it's needs.

No different than creating santa claus, putting him in a red suit, assigning him elves, reindeer, sled and a certain mission you believe he should accomplish

greenberg

11-17-07, 02:54 AM

peta9

11-17-07, 02:59 AM

That is so only if we apriori exclude the possibility that someone could be God's chosen person.

irrevelant. everyone could be God's chosen person.

As a matter of fact, everyone who has had a spiritual insight, epiphany, inspiration, idea, invention is also if there is a creator a chosen person.

doctors, mathemeticians, physicists, spiritualists, and every known form of knowledge sprung forth is also a "god's" chosen person. And still, even amongst these the most humblest can have insight and something to add that others overlooked or do not understand.

if a god created them, then god is a part of them or an extension.

Grantywanty

11-17-07, 03:19 AM

I have said on a previous occasion that KNOWLEDGE is always on a firmer foundation than BELIEF is. Can I put it this way: I have no knowledge of whether I am free or determined.No KNOWLEDGE. It follws that I do not agree with H.
I really do understand your positions on and definitions of belief and knowledge.

Interesting that you should offer a quotation from Hamlet He was the decision maker par excellence! Did he believe he was both free and determined ? That could explain his dithering

My take on Hamlet was that he felt there were two options: to stand outside, to be transcendant and not be sullied by the physical and emotional world; or to participate and be just like everyone else, which some case could be made had to do with sinking into the hard causal chains of our passions. What ate him up was that not participating allows horrible injustice.

When Generation X was a popular term it was noted how many young people had an ironic relationship with pretty much everything. Which always struck me as a means of feeling free when they did not feel free and also to feel superior to the 60s generation who they felt sympathy for, but also saw as silly and, yes, somehow sullied by their earnestness. I think this was similar to Hamlet's attempt to find freedom in irony. To have a transcendant position that neither agrees nor disagrees. Unfortunately no one can hold such a position - it is in a sense an extreme skepticism that is implied rather than asserted.

For Hamlet there was nothing ironic about his father's death and this sucked him towards participation and taking a stand that was not ironic which horrified him.

None of this was my point in using that quote from Hamlet, but I think it is interesting in this discussion, nonetheless.

We deal with other people not as the official position they have in their heads: 'this is what I believe ____________' 1) that official position may or may not have much effect on the way they live, the implicit beliefs of their choices. I hear some guy with great passion and identifying himself as a feminist and talking about the plight of women and how they must be treated as equals and then see him slap his girlfriend. Of course, I can raise the issue of his beliefs, even if I believe he meant what he said. I do not take people as monads when it comes to belief. I certainly do not assume that their official positions are what they really believe in any way that matters. I also find that people can think they believe one thing and find later in life they actually all along believed something else. Or to put it another way, they wanted to be sure, but other parts of them or in other ways they actually believed something else. They wanted to have that official position but they did not.

Can we now draw a line under this,

If you want to stop communicating with me Myles, you can stop any time. I will not assume you felt out argued. Trust me. I think I have a better sense of you. Up until now the impression I get is you believe you could not possibly learn something from me. Given that, I would have very little basis for thinking anything else but that you got fed up.

If you choose to believe that I hold two mutually exclusive beliefs, so be it.

Yes, I do think that. That is the Myles that I will be in contact with, the one with both beliefs.

I think it is interesting that you prefer to live as if there is free will - which yes I would call evidence of a belief.
You have a degree of belief in determinism.
And you think randomness highly unlikelyand incompatible with both free will and determinism.

Three options, even if logic tell you there can only be two.

You have no knowledge of any of these - though recognize, I assume, evidence of determinism.

The above structure is actually not so different from mine.
I certainly prefer to live my life as if there is free will. I am comfortable going one step further and saying I believe in it.
I recognize that I also believe in determinism but to a much lesser degree.
I do not believe in randomness, but it bothers me that such a strong case can be made for this being the only alternative to determinism.

Nevertheless I do not assume that the universe is either determined or random.

My free will does not feel like either. (And I am not assuming this is in any way a proof or evidence.)

When I read your posts in relation to theists I notice you cycle between expressing your bile at thiests to being simply condescending, I wanted to push to look at your own belief system and perhaps from that position you might have more sympathy with theists. You both have a belief that perhaps cannot and certainly has not been verified which you nevertheless choose to live your life from.

To me it matters, even with say Christian fundamentalists, how they live their lives. I am angry at them if they voted for Bush. But I am no more angry at them than I am at some neo-con fatcat who also voted for Bush. If they hate gays and spread anti-gay propaganda. If they advocate policies where women are secondary to men or treat their wives like shit. And so on.

Actions speak louder than words for me.

peta9

11-17-07, 03:26 AM

Maybe we are all gods creating reality or maybe not. It's a limited term with our own understanding unless i think of it in terms of infinity.

Maybe there are many gods and types of gods and many other universes that could be very different including the lifeforms.

Either way, the concept of a god does not resonate with me. Their is an internal universe within everyone and it's different for everyone. It's the creativity and differences that resonate more regarding the truth to me. Pure energy and simple as that.

I see creativity as being infinite and with that limitless possibilities so therefore god/life/energy/creativity or whatever you want to call it and it's outcome cannot be boxed up in any way.

Medicine*Woman

11-17-07, 03:33 AM

Maybe we are all gods creating reality or maybe not. It's a limited term within our own makeup and understanding.

Maybe there are many gods and types of gods and many other universes or not.

Either way, the concept of a god does not resonate with me. Their is an internal universe within everyone and it's different for everyone.

I see creativity as being infinite and with that limitless possibilities so therefore god/life/energy/creativity or whatever you want to call it and it's outcome cannot be boxed up in any way.
*************
M*W: I'd much rather believe that we are all god/gods than to designate one sole entity with that title. That's just not possible. Who plants the fields? Who builds the skyscrapers? Who walks on the moon? We did. Not god.
*************
M*W's Friendly Atheist Quote of the Day:

"Man is, and always has been, a maker of gods." ~ John Burroughs

peta9

11-17-07, 03:35 AM

Grantywanty

11-17-07, 03:40 AM

*************
M*W: I'd much rather believe that we are all god/gods than to designate one sole entity with that title. That's just not possible. Who plants the fields? Who builds the skyscrapers? Who walks on the moon? We did. Not god.
*************

I knew you were a closet pantheist.

greenberg

11-17-07, 03:49 AM

irrevelant. everyone could be God's chosen person.

That is per your criteria, not necessarily by God's.

Have you ever considered that Calvinism might be true?

peta9

11-17-07, 03:51 AM

Heh, i also think there is more than one type of energy so therefore life that we could not or would not be compatible with or even understand, possibly other worlds.

I think we experience part of it here with the dark and the light. They do in my expereince seem quite separate to me no matter how intertwined, like oil and water. Interesting...

i also think this has something to do with the rudimentary longing or concept of heaven and hell and the wish to separate and have final true peace..

but this is my view of course.

peta9

11-17-07, 03:52 AM

That is per your criteria, not necessarily by God's.

Have you ever considered that Calvinism might be true?

of course, it's all everyone's opinion. It's not true to me. Also, i could even question your concept of god as well and so forth...

Myles

11-17-07, 05:11 AM

No, not ad nauseaum, but only so far that you, too, would see the problems inherent to issues of knowledge and evidence.

Because for the time being, you speak like an idealistic 19th century rationalist scientist, blissfully unaware of the findings of 20th and 21st cognitive science and philosophy.

But differences like these are too much to work out within the limitations of this medium.

I am an idelalist in the sense that I hope and believe things will improve for humanity. It simply means I am not a pessimist.

If you are suggesting I am an idealist in the sense that Descartes was, you are totally wrong. I am an empiricist.

I am "blissfully" aware of the work and writings of Patricia Churchland and Susan Greenfield., among others. I was introduced to Susan when I attended her Reith Lectures some years ago.

I am not up to speed with the latest arguments in philosophy because I came to the conclusion some time ago that neuroscience was more likely to come up with some better answers. I still hold that view.

What were you saying about making assumptions ?

So may I repeat my question: Do you believe it possible to teach children to think for themselves ? I am nor asking for a correspondence course . A simple yes ,no or don't know will suffice. I have expressed an opinion. What is yours ?

Myles

11-17-07, 05:23 AM

i think the mistake with regarding the concept of a god tied with religion is it's limiting. the ones who believe may mistake thier concept as being universal or will apply to everyone when it really is coming from a personal point of view whether they realize it or not.

i think what they think is 'god' is different or can be different for anyone. i think everything is as much a creation, even the concept of gods or actual gods, therefore i do not believe any entity is a god in that sense.

Pure energy may not be created, it just may be and to me a closer realization to what the general concept of god is

.

What a refreshing contrast your views make compared with those who would have us believe they have a hotline to some god or other. Your point about others regarding their personal concepts as being universal is right on target,

How many times have we been told about THE ONE TRUE GOD by people who dismiss the views of others who also certain that their ONE TRUE GOD is better than anyone elses. It's all a bit childish. " My daddy has a bigger car than your daddy " sort of stuff

Myles

11-17-07, 05:41 AM

Sarcasm noted.

I don't see why you had to make a value judgement - have I got that right? - that Greenberg believes in God, for example.

If you wish to know whether Greenberg believes in God, try asking him. But be prepared to tell him what sort of God you are talking about , why you belief your definition is correct and so on.

Something tells me you already know what he believes , from posts I have seen on other threads.

One thing I do know about Greenberg; He ( assumption ) is perfectly capable of speaking up for himself. So let him do so. If you have an opinion on the topic, by all means express it. But don't waste your time or mine asking what I think he thinks, or even what I think you think I think he thinks.

Myles

11-17-07, 06:36 AM

.

I shall try and sum up as best I can:

I am quite happy that others should live their lives as they see fit, subject to the constraints of society.
I have no particular quarrel with theists. I don't share their beliefs but it is not for me to tell them what to believe. I do have a quarrel/urge to argue with those, of whatever persuasion, who proselytize ads I feel they need to be answered.

I have argued that the universe is either determined or it is not. If you are not disposed to accept either view, then it is surely up to you to suggest what other possibilities there might be. You are entitled to say you accept neither view but you cannot expect to be taken seriously unless you can say why.

At the risk of repeating myself can I say that a comonsense view suggestes determinism. To deny this is fine, but if such a denial is to have any creditability evidence must be adduced to show that there are events which have no antecedent causes. I know of none so ,within the limits of my experience, the universe seems to me to be determined. I would like to believe that I had freedom of choice ( I cannot imagine anyone choosing to be a robot)

I have said that I have no way of knowing. When I act I feel my actions are free but that is no guarantee that they are so. I have no way of knowing. Free or determined I will feel free when I act, insofar as I happen to think about it.

And now I come to the crux of the matter. I live my life without regard to whether I am free or determined, as I imagine most people do. I would never get out of bed in the morning if I lay there trying to decide whether the act of getting up was free or determined. I have no choice but to act.

Finally. I may be wrong. But so may those who disagree with me. I can say no more than that.

Myles

11-17-07, 06:56 AM

I
To Grantywanty

I don't see why you had to make a value judgement - have I got that right? - that Greenberg believes in God, for example.

[/QUOTE]

If you read post 197 on this thread you will find the answer.

Greenberg says: " That is per your criteria, not necessarily by God's "

I may be mistaken but, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....

Myles

11-17-07, 07:06 AM

I knew you were a closet pantheist

What grounds have you for making such a statement ? The word god is being used metaphorically. See the reference to Burroughs.

As I read it , that message could have been posted by a deist or an atheist.

And why mention "closet" which suggests a degree of insincerity ?

Grantywanty

11-17-07, 07:25 AM

What grounds have you for making such a statement ? The word god is being used metaphorically. See the reference to Burroughs.

As I read it , that message could have been posted by a deist or an atheist.

And why mention "closet" which suggests a degree of insincerity ?

I meant it as a joke. I make no claims to the quality of that joke. There is very little I have seen her post that would lead me to believe she is actually a pantheist so in that context I did not think she would take it seriously. If she does I will certainly clarify and apolagize if I upset her.

Grantywanty

11-17-07, 07:52 AM

I shall try and sum up as best I can:

[QUOTE]I have no particular quarrel with theists. I don't share their beliefs but it is not for me to tell them what to believe. I do have a quarrel/urge to argue with those, of whatever persuasion, who proselytize ads I feel they need to be answered.

I'm not quite sure about the 'proselytize ads' part. Maybe a typo. If I seem not to respond correctly to what you are saying here it may be because I don't understand that point.

I have noticed only a couple of people who seem to come from a real proselytizing position here at science forums. The majority of those seem to be more Buddhist/Hindu in outlook. There was one Christian guy but I don't see him around much.

If we look at the title of this thread it goes well beyond concerns about proselyzing. Personal experience is a poor basis for belief, seemed to be the main point of the title and OP. Not simply: your personal experiences mean very little to me and you should know that I will not be convinced by them. But rather: you are making a poor choice to base your beliefs on experience, yourself, even if you never try to convince anyone of your beliefs.

I do think the whole discussion has merit. But sometimes I see you saying things rather condescendingly to people who aren't particularly proselytizing but rather are expressing their own beliefs - and yes, I have noticed how you graciously responded to a couple of people who expressed their beliefs in a way you found appropriate.

Just because someone sounds illogical to you or bases their beliefs in ways you consider epistomologically unsound does not mean that they are trying to get you to be a ______________.

I have argued that the universe is either determined or it is not. If you are not disposed to accept either view, then it is surely up to you to suggest what other possibilities there might be. You are entitled to say you accept neither view but you cannot expect to be taken seriously unless you can say why.

You have already told me you DO take the third possiblity seriously. I don't know why you can't see that. You prefer to see and live you life as if you have free will.

You have stated that you do not know if you are free or not.
You have stated that freedom is incompatible with both determinism and randomness.
Is it so wrong for me to conclude that you do not assume there is no third alternative?
Otherwise, wouldn't you know that you are not free?

Perhaps I am unfairly boiling this down. I hope at the very least you can see it as not frivolous.

You believe:
1) If determinism, no free will.
2) If randomness, no free will.
3) You are not sure there is no free will.

Am I really being unreasonable to deduce that you are not sure there cannot be a third thing.

And now finally I feel like I am done.
I do feel I learned from you and our interchanges. Perhaps they will start up in some other context but I am done with this particular discussion. It was good I got embarrassed around the QM. And having to work toward what I felt like was implicit in some of your positions was also good for me, even if you do not think these things are implicit in your positions.
Good luck to you.

Grantywanty

11-17-07, 08:00 AM

But don't waste your time or mine asking what I think he thinks, or even what I think you think I think he thinks.
I haven't and I won't. I wouldn't even have considered it.

Myles

11-17-07, 08:18 AM

Grantywanty

I have given you no grounds to believe there is a third possibility as far as determinism and freedom are concerned. Give me a little credit. How many times do I have to repeat that the universe is either random or determined. that is is subject to cause and effect or it is not.

If you disagree, tell me what your take on the issue is. You may, however care to join me in saying there are ONLY 2 possibilities but WE DO NOT KNOW which is true. I certainly do not claim to know. If I were forced to make a choice I would GUESS the answer was DETERMINISM because I have no knowledge of an effect without a cause. If you know otherwise, tell me.

You have noticed that I responded favourably. to some rather than others. Well, there's a surprise. Don't we all respond favourably to those who appear to share our views.

As to the existence of god, transcendental wisdom . etc. , It comes down to personal opinion which I may or may not share. We can believe anything we like but others may disagree. There are no adjudicators who can decide who is right in matters of this kind, as you very well know.

Myles

11-17-07, 09:43 AM

[QUOTE

Perhaps I am unfairly boiling this down. I hope at the very least you can see it as not frivolous.

You believe:
1) If determinism, no free will.
2) If randomness, no free will.
3) You are not sure there is no free will.

Am I really being unreasonable to deduce that you are not sure there cannot be a third thing
Good luck to you.

I see how the confusion arose, so I shall tyr and clarify my views based on the points you have enumerated above. Here goes

1 Yes, determinism and free will are diametrically opposed o each other

2. No. Random behaviour would suport free will because it would be unpredictable which, by definition . means it is not determined. At the risk of muddying the water can I add that there are systems which are not predictable but which may still be determined.

The weather provides an example. You must have heard the one about the butterfly flapping it wings and, in so doing, affecting the weather. In theory the weather is predictable but,

a) there are too many variables. We can build better and better computer models but still be unable to predict more than a day or so ahead/

b) The initial conditions are not known to us or we cannot measure them with sufficient accuracy. This is often illustrated by a pendulum swinging between two magnets. It will end up on one side or another but we cannot say which. If we try to repeat an experiment we cannot arrange the initial conditios with sufficient accuracy to predict the outcome. So, the outcome is determined byt unpredictable. If this is of interest to you, you may care to consult " Chaos", by Gleich. There are other books but, to the best of my knowledge. Gleich is as good as it gets

3. Yes,. I do not know the answer. My day-to-day experience suggests determinism because, as I have previously said, I know of no effect without an antecedent cause. I may be wrong.

Llife can get difficut when we are asked to accept counter-intuitive ideas. That's why some physicists are workin on QM to find, they hope, an underlying determinism. Others are not interested in the philosophical implications; they are content to apply QM to practical problems.

I don't regard you as unreasonable, far from it. We have one thing in common, tenacity, but I regard that as a virtue. We are not asking to be spoonfed by others.

All the best,

Myles

Ps My index finger is worn to the bone with all this typing, so makes allowances for spelling errors.

greenberg

11-17-07, 11:04 AM

So may I repeat my question: Do you believe it possible to teach children to think for themselves ? I am nor asking for a correspondence course . A simple yes ,no or don't know will suffice. I have expressed an opinion. What is yours ?

No, I do not think it is possible to teach children to "think for themselves". That would be a contradiction in terms. It is only possible to teach them use certain reasoning paradigms for themselves.

And what is more, as our correspondence exemplifies really well, is that what "thinking for oneself" is, depends on who's assessing the thinking.
One person's thinking for himself is another one's indoctrination..

greenberg

11-17-07, 11:12 AM

I
If you read post 197 on this thread you will find the answer.

Greenberg says: " That is per your criteria, not necessarily by God's "

I may be mistaken but, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....

I stated in post nr. 88 that I am not a theist. It seems you understood then, but forgot by now.

I believe it is possible to bring children up to think critically according to their ability at any given age.There are courses in critical thinking for 16-year olds, so I do not see why wecannot teach younger children according to a syllabus, as in any other subject. In my experience, youngsters are full of curiosity, so w would not have to try very hard to arouse their interest. A typical child'ds question could be thrown open for discussion in class, with a teacher acting as moderator. No definite conclusions need be reached but that is a reflection of what happens in the adult world. The children would develop the habit of questioning and thinking about things.

This sort of relativism is exactly what I've given you here - but you're displeased with my input.

You want people to think for themselves, but you want them to think for themselves according to your standards.

peta9

11-17-07, 11:41 AM

Myles

11-17-07, 12:11 PM

I stated in post nr. 88 that I am not a theist. It seems you understood then, but forgot by now.

This sort of relativism is exactly what I've given you here - but you're displeased with my input.

You want people to think for themselves, but you want them to think for themselves according to your standards.

I don't think I misunderstood You were not a theist then but in a later post you appear to have changed your mind. Believe what you want because it's of no real consequence to anyone except you. That goes for all of us.

I asked you a simple question but you refuse to answer. You talk about relativism instead.

So , for the last time I pose the question yet again:

Do you believe children can be taught to think for themselves ?
Yes, no, not sure or whatever. What is your problem in giving a straight answer ? I am asking your opinion. I will settle for "no comment" but at least answer the question.

If you wish to discuss the pros and cons of relativism I will discuss that issue with you. So it's up to you. What is your response ?

greenberg

11-17-07, 12:22 PM

I don't think I misunderstood You were not a theist then but in a later post you appear to have changed your mind. Believe what you want because it's of no real consequence to anyone except you. That goes for all of us.

I asked you a simple question but you refuse to answer. You talk about relativism instead.

So , for the last time I pose the question yet again:

Do you believe children can be taught to think for themselves ?
Yes, no, not sure or whatever. What is your problem in giving a straight answer ? I am asking your opinion. I will settle for "no comment" but at least answer the question.

If you wish to discuss the pros and cons of relativism I will discuss that issue with you. So it's up to you. What is your response ?

Read again - post no. 209.

Myles

11-17-07, 12:27 PM

i find that a stretch considering it's theists who try to indoctrinate and not encourage freedom of thought in thier children. As a matter of fact, their is a distinct lack of respect for it and the other person's autonomy.

I was raised in a christian household and I never resonated with this religion no matter how much it was around me. It just didn't appeal to me or was untrue.

I found it quite distasteful, sometimes downright bizarre or elicited indifference in me.

Even when i have children, i want them to be aware of all religions, philosophies as well as have the benefit of critical unbiased reasoning.

In the end, i want it to be a personal informed choice or even thier choice not to choose anything but come to thier own conclusions.

You have just defined education in the best possible sense from my point of view. So there you have it.It's a pity Greenberg, whose posts you may have read cannot or will not give a straight answer. As you go through life you will find that most rhings are a matter of opinion. Facts are a bit hard to come by. The plain fact of the matter is that we are all trying to make some sense of existence and we do it in our individual way.

I would argue that you should beware of anyone who offers you "certainty" based on their understanding. You know the type; Iy says in the Bible , etc. Ask them why you should believe in the Bible and you'll get some interesting answers. The same goes for the Book of Mormon, the Koran and any other texts ofthe kind. All you can do is look at them objectively and draw your own conclusions. The so-callled experts are doing just that but many would deny you the right to think for yourself.

It takes courage but you must find your own answers if you want to be free.