20
   

How flawed are your beliefs

 
 
secondusername
 
  0  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2014 09:47 am
@BeHereNow,
BeHereNow. I would love to be there now. Where you are.
0 Replies
 
Smileyrius
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2014 11:03 am
@BeHereNow,
"Convincing" and "evidence" are relative terms that can be applied very differently by different people according to bias. One can be convinced by observation of a singular piece of evidence, while another may dismiss it entirely. I discussed this with Jimmy in another thread, I'll try to fish it out for you
Joe Sixpack
 
  0  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2014 11:18 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo wrote:
There's no evidence at all that would satisfy skeptics, for example if God himself appeared in front of them they'd think he was a hallucination
Well, that kinda figgers
Whut dya think made them Jewish folk do jest what Moses told em before they got outta E Gyp
I meen the blood on the doorposts and that stuff
0 Replies
 
Joe Sixpack
 
  0  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2014 11:24 am
@BeHereNow,
BHN wrote:
In the case of the Bible, the recurring theme on this is of the nature that unbelievers lack faith and want evidence. Thomas did not believe, wanted 'evidence'.
Not th onlee theme, I bet
That phayrow fella wanted proof and got plenty.
Still didnt bleeve.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2014 11:26 am
@Joe Sixpack,
Oh for chrissake, Neo, have you no shame? Knock off this BS, will ya?
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2014 11:33 am
@Setanta,
Just giving the view of the common man, Set. He's been out of touch for a few years.
secondusername
 
  0  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2014 11:43 am
@neologist,
Majority are ignorant.
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  0  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2014 12:11 pm
Quote:
Sixpack said: Whut dya think made them Jewish folk do jest what Moses told em before they got outta E Gyp
I meen the blood on the doorposts and that stuff

Yeah man there was a heavy airstrike comin down on the Ee-jippshuns so the Israelites had to mark their doors with recognition panels to avoid gettin hit by friendly fire-

God said to the Israelites- "take some of the sheep and goats blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the houses.
On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn of both people and animals, and when I see the blood, I will pass over you" (Exodus ch 12)
0 Replies
 
BeHereNow
 
  0  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2014 12:14 pm
@Smileyrius,
Quote:
"Convincing" and "evidence" are relative terms that can be applied very differently by different people according to bias. One can be convinced by observation of a singular piece of evidence, while another may dismiss it entirely. I discussed this with Jimmy in another thread, I'll try to fish it out for you
Here is the thing.
Any discussion such as this across belief systems are problematic, as you state.
So, when two belief systems come together for a discussion, there has to be a middle ground, and 'philosophy' is that middle ground. Not any particular philosophy, such as Christian, Atheist, scientific, but general philosophy.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Evidence, whatever else it is, is the kind of thing which can make a difference to what one is justified in believing or (what is often, but not always, taken to be the same thing) what it is reasonable for one to believe. Some philosophers hold that what one is justified in believing is entirely determined by one's evidence.
~ ~
For a Christian, Faith can be justification for belief, so can be evidence, as strange as that sounds.
Faith lacks evidence, but can be evidence.
Anyone outside the belief system will object, those inside the belief system will understand.
Faith is only evidence to your own kind, not to others.

Evidence gives justification for beliefs.
Great, so what.
For a Christian, NT gives justification for belief, is evidence.
For a Muslim, probably will not work. (might)
Those with a scientific orientations seem to think evidence must be scientific, sorry, not on a philosophy forum, try a science forum.
So evidence must be acceptable to both side, very difficult.

I like this:
‘Not enough evidence God! Not enough evidence!’
—Bertrand Russell, upon being asked what he would reply if, after dying, he were brought into the presence of God and asked why he had not been a believer.

When we say "Faith lacks evidence" in a Christian arena, it is not enough to say 'The bible says all things are possible, so there are green and purple dragons in England.'
If we say 'Christ arose form the dead', well, that is specific, we can show where the Bible says that, and we may find it to be convincing. Some Christians do not, by the way.

If you are trying to make points with someone from a different belief system, it does wonders to use their system of evidence.

This is why Christians often refer to archeological or historical evidence to support their claims, but of course showing historical truth, may not be convincing for spiritual issues.

Philosophy says no convincing evidence for things accepted by faith, and in the case of the Bible, Jesus often advised his followers 'Believe because I tell you, you need no evidence.'

When one looks only at their own beliefs, experience is a mountain of evidence. For others, it isn't worth spit, in most cases.

Since a Christian knows an Atheist will not accept the Bible as evidence, they can say 'Faith is all I need.'
If the Atheist scoffs, I try to explain what Philosopher-scientists say:
This means that no matter how objective science appears to be, there are generally two assumptions which musty be taken entirely on faith.
1) There exists an external objective reality
2) There exists some sort of uniformity through time
a) the universe has structure
b) predictions and generalizations are possible.
http://spaz.ca/aaron/school/science.html

They do not like this, and often disagree.
It defies logic, quite ironic.

There is also the issue of morals and ethics, about which science is silent.


secondusername
 
  0  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2014 04:14 pm
@BeHereNow,
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2014 04:36 pm
@BeHereNow,
Actually, you should pay more attention to smiley's use of the term 'bias'. When it comes to learning the truth about God, many are biased either by hope of reward or desire for license. (perhaps both). No doubt this is why we are told to search for this truth as for treasure. (Proverbs 2:4, Matthew 15:46)
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2014 05:26 pm
mark
secondusername
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2014 05:29 pm
@InfraBlue,
0 Replies
 
Smileyrius
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2014 07:18 pm
@BeHereNow,
If we were to take a philosophical view of philosophy, you are both right and wrong.
0 Replies
 
Razzleg
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2014 11:26 pm
@Calamity Dal,
Calamity Dal wrote:

Everyone champions their beliefs based on what they know. If you acknowledge and subsequently ignore a flaw in your belief system, you are merely ignorant.

To creationists and to evolutionists

What are the flaws in your system of belief, and how do you get around them?


This may have already been said (at this time, i don't have time to read the whole thread), but --while beliefs are often defended on the basis of knowledge, etc. -- they are, in fact, based on imagination. Belief systems are only ever coherent in the abstract...all practical beliefs are subject to uncertainty.

Every belief system contains flaws, knowledge gaps, etc...and it does imply ignorance. "Ignorance" in the sense of "removed from understanding" or "uncertainty".

Perhaps you are implying that certain "belief systems" require their adherents to ignore the flaws therein if such a person is to assume such a belief --luckily, that is not so. Some people do choose to ignore logical leaps in their beliefs, but others are only able to adhere to their beliefs by admitting to the fact that they involve uncertainty and ignorance.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jan, 2014 10:26 am
@Calamity Dal,
I believe in G*d, I accept evolution.
0 Replies
 
Sflower
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2015 08:02 pm
@Calamity Dal,
I can't say I am vigilante to any one religion but I do have static beliefs and within a discernible belief system.

1. Civilization was designed by the super rich to make immorality look cool or become widely acceptable. Civilization causes people not to look at themselves and so indulge in all the vices. This condition is glorified by the success of modern medicine and technological miracles.

2. The super rich and their positions of power were engineered by other worldly entities in order to exact their will over human experience: their will to cause humanity to become amoral.

3. The other worldly entities stand to profit from the deviation of the human mind from its original point of stability-
(Staying in harmonious interactions with the earth, animals, and other humans)

4. The continuous the crescendo of worldly suffering caused by the deviation of humanity from moral biases, generates a dark envelope of negative energy around the planet
this negative energy suffices the entities for whatever purpose they use it.

5. The dark arts, malice religion or black magic : was perfected in 1300s , with the aid of these entities, and has since helped the super rich maintain their lofty status/control over the masses, while performing rites for the destruction of permanent facets of moral compass.

6. The dark arts are a way of short circuiting karma. The super rich are well aware of reincarnation and use black magic to control peoples' destination in the after life. (Since your destination in the after life is being created by your waking experience.)
Through the dark arts, it is known how to manipulate any persons karma, even if that person has never committed any serious crimes against humanity or sentience. This malice religion can be purported to be the best religion because: whether or not the practioner has committed any atrocities of their own, they are exempt from spiritual backlash or bad karma through the protective measures of their dark communions.

7. The sectarian environment of mass media, public education, government and work-life offer plenty of vulnerabilities for non-religious peoples to be influenced by black magic.

9. As a part of their plan to make immorality look "cool",
the super rich standardize a culture for belittling or making fun of, people who herald morality or responsibility over continuos pleasure.
*When evangelists take to the streets to recruit believers, they are openly mocked and written off.
*The beliefs of Catholics are stigmatized by instances of pedophilia in the catholic priesthood.
No one in the free world is allowed to stand among their peers and shout about who among them has committed foul acts against sentience-
(without being labeled as a liar, mentally ill, or just wanting to unnecessarily spoil someone's reputation) -in an attempt to bring radical ethical intervention to their community when law enforcement cannot do it.

Example:
A woman knows that a group of men are involved in gang rape and necrophilia. If she tries to confront them, by shouting and pointing at them, in front who ever might listen, she will be reported to the police, who, might ticket her or send her to a mental hospital. Or she could just be reprimanded by that group of men.

9. The super rich reward people who advertise vice and engage in vice. Through the cultural adoption of modernism or the Tao of western science and aesthetics along with the philosophically complex (sometimes confusing) appearance of feminism, the super rich are able to inject normality or cleche into previously taboo social behaviors.
Example:
A very very rich man is looking for men to help him get revenge on his enemy.. He wants to show his enemy how powerful he is, even though that enemy could poor and unable to inflict major damage upon. He promises drugs, higher status, luxury and a literal quantumn haram to any man who is willing to help him. This man requires his initiates to steal the bodies of his enemy's' deceased relatives for the purposes of raping them, destroying them and placing the powdered remains into processed foods that his unsuspecting enemy may eat. The offer prompts an immediate attack on the sexuality and masculinity of the men he asks. What kind of man does not want drugs or endless sex with beautiful women? Therefore these men secretly commit necrophilia in order to gain preferable status and respect from their otherwise ignorant competitors. On the outside, it looks like their lives are improving substantially, and that they must be very attractive men, who are good at sex, to have so many beautiful women around them. But in reality they are merely participants in a ritual of malice religion. They function by continuously repressing their memory of engaging gruesome acts, and laugh at the idea of the targeted individual, possibly eating the remains of their deceased loved ones. Meanwhile the man who solicited them, told the initiates lies about the nature of his enemy's character, which some how rationalized their assault on a person they've never met. The combined mental energy of so many individuals assaulting that man's enemy, causes that person to become even more vulnerable to attack through black magic.

But I must digress.

10. After the super rich have made successful, a critical mass of initiates, immorality will become widespread among civilized peoples. Female iniates are valued for their sexual attraction. These Women will normalize occupations in pornography, and their acceptance of being gang raped for money, ejaculated in the face, or also taking part in necrophilia, beastiality or even incest. They will also be used for the creation of quantumn harams and are compensated for it. When all is said and done, they are garranteed elevated standard of living and notoriety, in exchange for denouncing any semblance of morality and recruiting others to join in on the fun. After enough time has passed, and their success has plateaued, their involvement in these questionable affairs will become known to the public, and because they have seemingly conquered the hurdles of cultural expectations:
being credited for their intelligence, beauty and financial stability,
Everyone will unsuspectingly jump aboard the immoral band wagon,
in an attempt to be more like these rich beautiful and powerful socialites.

However, for them there will be no reward for these ethically apathetic endeavors, they will have simply done it just to do it, as culture permits them to.(in the same way people go bungee jumping just to say they did it.)

All of the above entails my religious views and critical belief system.

The flaws of the system are immediately apparent to the average reader,

1. You believe in aliens, and there's no such thing as aliens, let alone ones that are controlling civilization.
2. Civilization was created to improve our lives, not make them worse. if bad things happen they are the result of people not the system. People who believe the system is flawed do not believe in science and are irrational.
3. Humans have always managed to over come adversity and whatever troubled years we have, they are only temporary. The future will get better, you are a pessimistic and manic for not believing otherwise.
4. You doubt the sensibilities of the public at large in seeing the significance of moral deviancy, and that is short sighted thinking.
5. There is no one that rich in the world, who can escape reprimandation of the law, (especially in things as serious as necrophilia or gang rape), eventually their actions will catch up to them.
6. Black magic or voodoo is not real and has no power over you unless you let it.

My argument for reconciling these flaws:

If you believe in science, the advancement of technology and improved conditions of well being for humanity, don't you think it's possible that very very rich people have secretly pooled their money and resources together to advance technology much further than the public is aware of. In these circumstances, don't you think the contact of alien life has been made possible, let alone has been going on for a very long time? I encourage you to google search the video "the antichrist version 666, The Uniplanetary theory."
This video details how the super rich are using advanced technology to control the development of human history. Because the topic is already taboo, the author of this theory is motivated to suggest only the exist of time traveling technology. If he mentioned anything on aliens, no one would take the time to look at it.
I do believe in the practicleness, the profitability and universal ease of utility of science. However I believe that because our eagerness to advance science by means of discarding ethical literacy causes immense planetary suffering, and there are individuals who are directly responsible for that suffering. Animals worldwide are being subjected to experimentation, year after year, their deaths number in the trillions. Industrial farming and their corresponding food monopolies are forcing new diets and new slaughtering techniques on developing nations. People who once revered the cow, reject their religious traditions in search of higher pay or cheaper meals. They know nothing on the dubious practice of concentrating rivers of livestock feces, that breed super potent micro-organisms, capeable of killing people in very small quantities. Ethnically or geologically specific methods of agriculture are being replaced for faster, higher yielding genetically modified monoculture. When these new crops fail, the people are left with depleted soils and empty stomachs. Is it so irrational to believe that countries torn apart by genocide, religious wars, dilemmas of scarcity or tyrannical governments can all trace the budding of their country's conflict from the rise of the Sectarian first world nations and their advertising of science technology. Science made possible incredible feats in human salvation as much as it did cruelty. I am not suggesting we abandoned science and live as hunter gatherers. I am merely suggesting that an ethical intervention is necessary for further developments in science, technology and industrial collusions. Without it, we will all likely suffer immensely.
Yes, I seriously doubt the ability of the first world nations to dynamically respond the crisis of moral deviancy. It is very ignorant and short sighted to believe no person is so rich they can escape the government. Social engineering and bribery are both effective methods used by people who commit serious crimes. The conditions of the correctional system itself are dismaying to people who would otherwise cooperate with law enforcement. Is it not true that the country of Ireland refused to extradite america's bad apples upon hearing of the horrendous conditions of our prisons? Is not true that a globally influential Mexican king pin was able to thwart the Mexican government, when his comrades dug a tunnel beneath his cell and allowed him his freedom?
My belief system offers a kind of salvation through advocacy of the urgent need of mass ethical literacy. By this I mean, under no circumstance should necrophilia ever be considered okay or cool. By this I mean, why are there people who intentionally and unnecessarily commit acts of violence on animals?
By this I mean, why do women feel honored by being immortalized in pornography, even if they are being gang raped in the footage? By this I mean, why do so many people need anonymity on the deep web if all they are doing is purchasing recreational drugs, and not paying for access to live camera feeds featuring murder, torture, or cannabalism?
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  3  
Reply Mon 26 Oct, 2015 07:29 am
@Calamity Dal,
Calamity Dal wrote:

Everyone champions their beliefs based on what they know. If you acknowledge and subsequently ignore a flaw in your belief system, you are merely ignorant.

To creationists and to evolutionists

What are the flaws in your system of belief, and how do you get around them?


Most people I see around the forums are willing to take a stance while being aware of a flaw in their belief system. Not my case. If I am shown clearly I am wrong I immediately am willing to change my stance. There is nothing more important to me then true knowledge. I am not here to impress people or to win debates on the web. Unfortunately many many souls around settle for winning a debate by skipping or bluntly ignoring central arguments and misleading general opinion through manipulation. It baffles me how that sort of minor victory makes them happy. They have no personal interest in getting to the bottom of anything, just looking good on the picture. I am in the opposite end of that. Rather look like a raving lunatic and achieve something worth grasping ! I don't care for group thinking or fashion talk..
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Oct, 2015 08:00 am
@Calamity Dal,
Quote:
@Setanta,
What the hell is a god-botherer? you sound like one of those evolutionists.

It is interesting that he inadvertently admits to being bothered by it.

I think the obsession/'belief' in spectator sports and the various UFO cults are nuts, but their practice of it never bothers me.
0 Replies
 
AugustineBrother
 
  0  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2016 11:53 am
@Calamity Dal,
No, that is not true at all.

You can know something firmly but not understand it.

Let us take the most relevant example I've ever found, namely the view of the Eucharist by John Henry Newman after he -- -a once energetic anti-Catholic --- became a Catholic despite the loss of friends and great suffering :

People say that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is difficult to believe; I did not believe the doctrine till I was a Catholic. I had no difficulty in believing it, as soon as I believed that the Catholic Roman Church was the oracle of God, and that she had declared this doctrine to be part of the original revelation. It is difficult, impossible, to imagine, I grant;—but how is it difficult to believe? ... But for myself, I cannot indeed prove it, I cannot tell how it is; but I say, "Why should it not be? What's to hinder it? What do I know of substance or matter? just as much as the greatest philosophers, and {240} that is nothing at all;"—so much is this the case, that there is a rising school of philosophy now, which considers phenomena to constitute the whole of our knowledge in physics. The Catholic doctrine leaves phenomena alone. It does not say that the phenomena go; on the contrary, it says that they remain; nor does it say that the same phenomena are in several places at once. It deals with what no one on earth knows any thing about, the material substances themselves.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/23/2021 at 08:15:10