mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
I am not your "we" and I don't treat theists as all the same. But each human to her own.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Bigotry as practice
- Thread starter firedragon
- Start date
I am not your "we" and I don't treat theists as all the same. But each human to her own.
You have a bad habit of going off on irrelevant tangents. I'm not sure if it is intentional to derail debates, or subconscious.
I never know what you are talking about, or why you make the comment you do, and it seems that you also do not understand me. You had commented to another poster, "You claimed that you being an atheist is based on reason, so please explain." I explained how reason gets one to atheism. I can't tell from your comment that you understood what I wrote, much less whether you agree with some or all of it, and if you disagree with any of it, why. You just don't do that. Instead, you go off like you did here, referring to problems that one can only guess what you mean by them or why you think they're relevant to the comment you seem to be ignoring (have I solved epistemological solipsism and removed the reason why we have methodological naturalism?)
Likewise with your continual correction of others regarding subjectivity. I have been reading that from you for years, and still have no idea what your message is, or why you think those ideas are useful. Nor do I understand why you have set yourself up as an authority on subjectivity and objectivity, as if others need your counseling there, as if you have some insight that can be put to good use. Do you have a reason for using the word subjective so often?
The way you think doesn't work for me. Apparently, you consider my thinking flawed in some way as judged by comments like your above. Apparently you imply some error, some boundary I've overstepped, but you never articulate just what that would be, or how it would benefit me or anybody else to take your words into consideration.
And as I've told you, I think you make this all needlessly complicated such that you miss the point of the mind, how it works, and how it can serve the individual. You get bogged down in irrelevant considerations. It really this simple: we have beliefs that inform our actions and result in outcomes that we experience, some of those outcomes being more desirable than others. If belief B informs action A, which results in desired outcome D more often than other actions, then we can call the idea knowledge, or correct. Objectivity and subjectivity need not be considered at all, and there are no warnings needed in these areas.
There is no reason to concern oneself with what is really out there past the mind, what it is the mind is reporting on. It is enough to construct a mental map that allows one to successfully navigate the experience of life. It really doesn't matter what's actually out there if the map works. Worrying about objective reality and absolute truth is a fools errand that distracts one from the only important thing - conscious experience. And ideas that have one dithering while speculating about irrelevancies are not useful ideas, but counterproductive ones. I get the feeling that you believe that knowledge is impossible. If so, that would be because you have missed the fact that knowledge is whatever ideas are useful, and they're all in here, not out there. Look to your own rational mind for knowledge, and don't despair that life is a subjective experience.
Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that I don't understand what you are saying, and although I know that English is not your first language, I don't think the problem is linguistic. You just don't explain yourself. If you have a clear idea of what you mean, you need to use more words to articulate it clearly as I hope I have done here in this post. And if you don't have a clear idea of what you mean, and I don't either, then what's to discuss?
So, I usually don't respond to your replies to me, but I feel badly about that. You're a likeable fellow who seems to mean well, and you have shared that you have some cognitive disorder, so I don't want to be rude to you, but I also don't want to have to write this "What are you talking about" post every time, either, so I will address those comments that you leave that are clear.
But yes, as you can see, I've resolved the issue of epistemological solipsism to my satisfaction, but have not removed the reason why we have methodological naturalism. Nobody can.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yes:
religion | Definition, Types, List of Religions, Symbols, Examples, & Facts
What is Religion? Just the first part.
"Religion is the most intensive and comprehensive method of valuing that is experienced by humankind."
The Definition of Religion
So what is religion? Well, that depends on how you understand it and I do it differently.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
And you are maybe too tribal in your "we".
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
There is no "we" like you use it.
"It really this simple: we have beliefs that inform our actions and result in outcomes that we experience, some of those outcomes being more desirable than others. If belief B informs action A, which results in desired outcome D more often than other actions, then we can call the idea knowledge, or correct. Objectivity and subjectivity need not be considered at all, and there are no warnings needed in these areas."
You use a "we" in sense for all the world, which is not there for all the world. That is it. And since I am not you, what you as you individual do with that, is something you do. But your "we" is not correct or knowledge for all humans for all the world.
A massive subject. Best for another discussion than another tangent.
As it is, bigotry as practice in religion .....
More of the Royal "we". You're reading too much into it.
If I say "We love democracy" that doesn't mean 100% of people, rather the majority.
Yet another distraction.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Depends on what religion is.
There are many of them. Some are more irrational than others. This is why some are bigger problems than others. This is why when we (except maybe not you) debate specific topics about specific religions we can find out something about them that wasn't widely understood or acknowledged.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
So you speak for a "we" that is not all humans, yet you claim to speak for us all as how the world works as such, right? Or do you accept cognitive, moral and cultural relativism?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, I debate other non-religious humans as to try to understand them. At least a few claim a "we" that is not there. That is the same with some religious people.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Sure. And when you hear someone say, "Well, King David turned out to be a real person, so does that give credence...."
you need to remember that 20 years ago people would say quite bluntly, 'There is no evidence there ever was a King David.'
which they mean, 'King David is a myth.'
But this was not scientific - absence of evidence is not evidence for absense. quote.
So now people are going to say, 'Yes, Sodom and Gomorrah were cities on the Jordan Plain which were destroyed in an
air burst. The Abrahamic story was a later retelling of the event.'
So there's that retreat from ridiculing the account.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
I did this for the Bart Erhamn blog
Jacob in Egypt foresaw a Hebrew nation, under theocratic law and governed by a monarchy under the line of Judah, “until” the
Messiah comes. The Gentiles would obey Him.
Let’s apply “Probability Judgment”
Chance of one particular Semite tribe becoming a nation? Difficult, let’s say 1/1000.
Chance of a monarchy? God was against monarchy but monarchies were common – 50%.
Chance of a Judean king? Easy, 1/12 (there being 12 tribes)
Chance of a theocratic law? 50%
Chance of the Messiah who’s coming would end this nation? Impossible to figure. 1/million? More. Let’s be generous – 1/1000.
And the “obedience of the nations” to a Jewish Messiah? Count the gods of the world’s tribes. Be generous and say 1/10,000.
Generous probability = 0.000000000000415%
What’s that? Not even one in a trillion.
You mentioned “shockers” ?
Pious fiction? the accuracy demands explanation.
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
I'm putting you on ignore. You are purposefully distorting the situation, I suspect. If not, you are irrational. I'm coming to my own conclusion about the facts, not having my own facts.
I'm not saying I can prove it to you, either, and 50 years of investigating can't be distilled in any reasonable amount of time.
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
I did use critical thought to get there as best I could. You're assuming that since your thought doesn't end with "therefore God" that all people will conclude that. I don't know, either that you used critical thought. There's no way for me to know that. I don't know, if I'm humble, that my thought has discovered the truth with the help of inspiration. You're being ignored too. You're ridiculous. I wish I never got into this thread, and at times I have not thought it out clearly, but you are too arrogant for me to talk to.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
You said...
"But after 50 years I conclude that the evidence is overwhelming."
Yet you are unable to present that evidence, or even say what it might be.
The fact that you would rather put a sceptic on ignore than explain the "overwhelming evidence" that proves god is rather interesting - given that religionists have been trying (and failing) to prove god for thousands of years. You could go down in history as the person who ended all the debate!
With all due respect, I suspect that despite the confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, there is still the nagging doubt that your "evidence" is little more than wishful thinking.
Of course, you could prove me wrong...
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Okay, you are a skeptic. So am I. I am a global skeptic.
So I am going to doubt this: "Of course, you could prove me wrong...". I doubt that I can prove that you are either right or wrong. To the best of my ability I can't replicate that idea: "I can prove you wrong". So you have to explain to me, what you mean. I accept that I can have overlooked something, so please explain further.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Probably because there wasn't any evidence until that point.
The point though, is that lots of fictional literature mentions places and people that actually existed, without the overall story actually being a true event.
Like, Harry Potter books talks about Harry Potter and his wizard friends travelling to Hogwarts through a portal at the 9 3/4 platform in King's Cross Station in London, England.
King's Cross Station actually exists but that doesn't mean that wizards are real or that the Station has a portal to another dimension within it or that anything else that happens in the story actually happened.
So the King David story could be a myth, even if a guy named King David was found to have existed some time in history.
But again, finding Sodom and Gomorrah doesn't make the story about God destroying it and all that anymore more real than stories about Apollo, just because a place named Troy was found to have existed at some point in history.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
It would seem though that if you've been investigating this stuff for 50 years that demonstrating the veracity of the claim(s) shouldn't be very difficult, right?