Personal experience as a basis for god belief

Jan Ardena

11-09-07, 08:23 AM

Myles,

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.

Why not?

Knowledge;

1. information in mind: general awareness or possession of information, facts, ideas, truths, or principles
Her knowledge and interests are extensive.

2. specific information: clear awareness or explicit information, e.g. of a situation or fact
I believe they have knowledge of the circumstances.

If a mentally ill patient believes that he is Napoleon , do we believe him ?

Why would anyone (sober) want to believe him?

We can believe anything but to know something means that we can support our belief with objectively verifiable evidence.

In the main, I agree, but some beliefs can't be supported in such a way due to its nature, so it is foolish, IMO, to stick purely to that criterea, especially in the case of belief in God. There is no "objectively verifiable evidence" to show that God exists or not, that is not without personal interpretation. The description of God is that he is not a physical being, so waiting for physical evidence, is a somewhat pointless endeavor.

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.

Why do you think they are mistaken?

Jan.

Grantywanty

11-09-07, 08:26 AM

[QUOTE=Grantywanty;1621471]

How would you know you were correct ? You would believe you were but knowing that you were is a different matter. To know you were correct you would need to have evidence with which you could convince others. Belief alone guarantees nothing. All you are entitled to say is that what you experienced was true for you.

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?

Myles

11-09-07, 09:01 AM

Jan Ardena

11-09-07, 09:25 AM

Myles,

Your dictionary definition of knowledge has not mentioned that knowledge is someting we share with others

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

...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?

If I say I have a headache you will know what I am talking about and believe I know what a headache is. 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. If I fail to provide a satisfactory explanation, you are entitled to doubt me.

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.

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

Why?

Jan.

Grantywanty

11-09-07, 09:28 AM

[QUOTE=Jan Ardena;1621661]

Your dictionary definition of knowledge has not mentioned that knowledge is someting we share with others and this is precisely why we require evidence ,if we wish claims we make to be taken seriously. If I say I have a headache you will know what I am talking about and believe I know what a headache is. 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. If I fail to provide a satisfactory explanation, you are entitled to doubt me.

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

There are of course many believers of a variety of religions who can share with others and know what the others are talking about. I do not think this will or should prove their beliefs are correct to someone who has not experienced God, but your criteria can be me by them.

Headaches are actually a good counter example. There are a wide variety of symptoms and not doctor could prove you did or did not have a headache, especially the latter. There is no way to prove I have a headache, though of course in some cases a medical examination would find strong evidence, but other headaches would not show up on any measuring device WE CURRENTLY HAVE.

greenberg

11-09-07, 09:53 AM

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?

Replying this way is very bold, you know. Not that I disagree, I actually admire it. I'm just saying it is bold.

I think many of us are downright obsessed with proving things to others, and believing that if we fail to convince others, we're wrong, guilty or insane.
At the same time, we're highly suspicious of anything presented as "proof" or "evidence".

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

Evidence couldn't convince me of that, because the path of evidence is necessarily insufficient.
So even if, at some point, all evidence would suggest that God exists, because this has been established based on evidence, it would reasonably have to be expected that counterevidence can be found as well, which would then suggest that God doesn't exist.

I don't know any alternative to seeking evidence; and revelation would still be subject to analysis of evidence, even if only within the person's mind.

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 knowledg