If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#501
|
|||
|
|||
Question for religious parents
Barbara Bomberger wrote:
But I'm not talking about *knowing*, I'm talking about *believing*. Regardless of how things actually are in reality, people hold beliefs about them. Ideally they'd revise their beliefs in the face of evidence that such beliefs weren't about reality. Ideally for whom? Ideally for someone claiming to know about reality through something resembling scientific method, which seems to be the objection here that Circe is getting at. One's personal faith can be Christian, and one's preferred way of knowing stuff about reality can be scientific method, with no conflict between the two. Faith is a reason for holding a belief, right? Hence the Jesuits, and Chookie, and quite likely you! -- C, mama to three year old nursling |
#502
|
|||
|
|||
Question for religious parents
Circe wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... Circe wrote: wrote in message oups.com... But propositions are really either true, false, or indeterminate. The claim isn't that the proposition, "God exists" is maybe true, but maybe the proposition "God exists" is true. Or maybe there is a third proposition that encompasses both "God exists" and "God doesn't exist". Just because we haven't thought of it yet doesn't mean it isn't possible. All I'm saying is that in some cases, two apparently contradictory propositions may be resolved by a third. Sort of like the way in which string theory *might* encompass both mechanical theories in physics (which currently contradict one another in some basic ways). Sure. That would make the proposition indeterminate, and it would need to be further clarified, possibly by being broken down into multiple propositions. Well, no, the proposition isn't indeterminate. It's just that maybe the answer isn't Boolean. Maybe asking whether or not God exists is like asking whether a coin has a heads side or a tails side. Maybe the answer is "both". Which means that *I* can think God doesn't exist while still believing that it's possible for those who think God does exist may also be right. -- Be well, Barbara --------------------------------- It's more a matter of definition, which no one involved in such ever seems to get around to. WHAT god? WHICH god? WHAT KIND OF god? Is there ANY reasonableness to ANY belief that SOME god exists, and if so WHICH KINDS of god, since god is a catch-all for the UNKNOWN!! I can state unequivocally that NOBODY CAN BE TRUSTED REASONABLY to be truthful if they tell you that SOME god of whatever kind has told THEM and NOT YOU what that god wants of ANYBODY OR EVERYBODY!! This is because ANYONE who makes such a statement is shown instantly to have an ulterior motive to manipulate and acquire control of others illicitly, which invariably denies them credibility. This principle totally destroys the credibility of every religious book on earth!!! In fact, the credulity you give to ANY KIND of god tailored for existing religion is more politeness than belief or even acquiescence, you privately make fun of other people who are religious, unless you were brainwashed as children to believe that particular religion, and then magically you become uncertain, you are unwilling to accept anyone's parents' religion but yours, and in doing so all you express is your victimization by adults before you had good sense of your own, IF you have any now!! Such things as nutty belief based on childhood browbeating or fables are NOT amendable to logic proof, and attempting to do so is ignorant. So saying ANY god exists is looney, WHETHER any god DOES exist OR NOT! In the final analysis, humans are NOT SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW SUCH THINGS, NOR EVEN TO PRETEND THEY KNOW WHAT THEY *SHOULD* KNOW OR WHAT FORM IT WOULD TAKE!! If some god opened the vault of the sky and spoke to ALL of us RIGHT NOW, we STILL could NOT be sure WHETHER what we just heard and saw was some god, or the human race being snookered by a vastly technologically superior alien with enslavement of us its only motive!!! Even if we DIED and saw "Heaven" and the rest of the Xtian garbage associated, we could not be sure we were being snookered by a power beyond our life and ken but NOT by any kind of god we have ever conceived!! We are simply too pitifully insufficient and ignorant to EVEN KNOW OR CORRECTLY RECOGNIZE any "real god" EVEN IF THERE WERE such a thing!! Nor do we know the correct demarcations of this life or any "next" life, or any of the full parameters of existence. Imagining we know where we are right now is as guaranteedly as stupid as thinking the stars are on "celestial spheres" with the sun at the center, and thinking any theism is as ignorant as believing that a ship might sail off the edge of the earth! That said, atheists, while more sensible, can't be sure either! Neither theists nor atheists know or even CAN know. In fact, ANYONE who isn't absolutely AGNOSTIC is simply a LIAR! Steve |
#503
|
|||
|
|||
Question for religious parents
|
#504
|
|||
|
|||
Question for religious parents
In article . com,
" wrote: You are right. I am talking about MOST religious people then. Those who take the bible literally, those who reject evolution, those who believe in a young earth, those who believe that a global flood ever happened, those who believe that a god protects the innocent and good, those who use push thier religion on others, those who want to put religious ideas into school, such as the 10 commandment and Intelligent Design, those who are religious out of habit or to be part of the majority, those who are against homosexuality, those who oppose gay marriage... So, those are the people who I think haven't thought critically, of if the HAVE thought critically they rejected the obvious conclusions. I get 3/11. Dunno what that makes me. BTW, none of these qualify as fundamental doctrines of Christianity, nor of any other religion that I am aware of. -- Chookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) "... if *I* was buying a baby I'd jolly well make sure it was at least a two-tooth!" Mary Grant Bruce, The Houses of the Eagle. |
#505
|
|||
|
|||
Question for religious parents
In article ,
dragonlady wrote: I simply decline to find someone else's beliefs false. The distinction may not matter to you -- but it matters a great deal to me. I attempt to hold my own beliefs with humility, acknowleging that I can't know everything -- and since I might be wrong, someone else might be right. I still think you are missing C's point. Your two paragraphs here suggest you believe that: [declining to call belief ~P false] = humility Is this correct? Because C is not looking at this at all. She is looking entirely at the logic of it. We are not looking at whether P actually IS true. We are not looking at whether your beliefs would change if more information came along. We are not looking at the likelihood of religious beliefs to change over time. We are not looking at whether you are trying to impose your beliefs on others. We are looking at what you believe RIGHT NOW. I (and, I assume, C) find it difficult to believe that you could possibly hold two contradictory points of view at once, but that is what you have been asserting, even though my suspicion is that you really mean that humility forbids you from jumping all over someone who has a different religious belief to your own. -- Chookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) "... if *I* was buying a baby I'd jolly well make sure it was at least a two-tooth!" Mary Grant Bruce, The Houses of the Eagle. |
#506
|
|||
|
|||
Question for religious parents
In article ,
dragonlady wrote: And I'm saying that insisting that if two people hold contradictory beliefs about God, thinking one of them must be wrong is a failure of imagination. Weren't we talking about logic? I am not saying that I hold two contradtory beliefs at the same time -- that's not the paradox -- it is that I attempt to hold my own beliefs both firmly enough to take action based on them, and with the humility of knowing that I could be wrong, and therefore someone else could be right. Do you think this is unusual? Because I believe I am doing that too. But you have spend a great deal of time asserting that you DO hold contradictory beliefs simultaneously. -- Chookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) "... if *I* was buying a baby I'd jolly well make sure it was at least a two-tooth!" Mary Grant Bruce, The Houses of the Eagle. |
#507
|
|||
|
|||
Question for religious parents
"Chookie" wrote in message ... In article , dragonlady wrote: And I'm saying that insisting that if two people hold contradictory beliefs about God, thinking one of them must be wrong is a failure of imagination. Weren't we talking about logic? lol -- no. You and c may have been, but I think you were the only two. Bizby |
#508
|
|||
|
|||
Question for religious parents
In article .com,
" wrote: One's personal faith can be Christian, and one's preferred way of knowing stuff about reality can be scientific method, with no conflict between the two. Faith is a reason for holding a belief, right? No. Faith just means trust. It's the state of believing, not the reasons for it. -- Chookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) "... if *I* was buying a baby I'd jolly well make sure it was at least a two-tooth!" Mary Grant Bruce, The Houses of the Eagle. |
#509
|
|||
|
|||
Question for religious parents
In article . net,
Clisby wrote: That is a most unusual thing for a human, IME! Why aren't you interested in getting others to share your beliefs? Most people I know are very keen to share their ideas/thoughts/experiences, particularly if they believe they could be helpful to others. Aren't you using "share" to mean two different things here? I'm very interested in having people share their beliefs about religion, meaning that I like to hear what they have to say. I have no interest whatsoever in persuading people to adopt my beliefs, which seems to be what you mean by your first use of "share". Sorry -- that was careless. I shall rephrase: That is a most unusual thing for a human, IME! Why aren't you interested in getting others to adopt your beliefs? Most people I know are very keen to talk about their ideas/thoughts/experiences, particularly if they believe they could be helpful to others. THat is: if holding belief P has helped me through experience X, it might also help someone else currently going through experience X. For example, after a short period believing that I was "wasting time" BFing DS1, I came to my senses and realised that providing a meal for someone IS work. Ever since, I've happily taken Bfing time to be Me Time. I think this is a useful belief to pass on! -- Chookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) "... if *I* was buying a baby I'd jolly well make sure it was at least a two-tooth!" Mary Grant Bruce, The Houses of the Eagle. |
#510
|
|||
|
|||
Question for religious parents
Chookie wrote:
In article .com, " wrote: One's personal faith can be Christian, and one's preferred way of knowing stuff about reality can be scientific method, with no conflict between the two. Faith is a reason for holding a belief, right? No. Faith just means trust. It's the state of believing, not the reasons for it. Works for me. -- C, mama to three year old nursling |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How Children REALLY React To Control | Chris | General | 444 | July 20th 04 07:14 PM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Spanking | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Foster Parents | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |