Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
O man like 15 people wrote me asking what happened to Plerro when I wrote that, we had all sorts of visitors asking,'' what did you do?'' ya know in that tone where they know that I will KNOW they were really the ones.
But really, I did hear that Plerro is some kind of insect scientist um, like she is some kind of wanna be insect and she is in East Asia studying some kind of bug that a certain color is derived from through the application of heat. Bug freaks, go figure.
lol, we love pel. she is awesome.
to funny, My wife hates how much I love bugs. I try and tell her we are just a bunch of "celling bugs". to know them is to get a macroscopic view of what's going on in us.
she's like "ooooh gross."
Losts of , what I call, back boor PM's go on. private message direct message, whatever. I keep everything out in the open. If one can't stand on ones own logic, one lost. It would be cool to get a look at how many dm's peeps have and when they go off. and when one shun's ... that's flat cowardice.
Yes, I am betting that some aspects of religion are true, and to the extent that these true beliefs are based on subjective resonance with non-temporal/universal aspects of Reality as conscious or unconscious/proto-conscious, then I would agree that some religious people have known these things for thousands of years. ("Knowledge" in this case, being true beliefs justified by subjective personal experience.) The concept of knowledge gets tricky, however, when dealing with writing based on personal subjective experiences. Accidental true belief, or unjustified true belief is generally not considered "knowledge." I might believe with all of my heart that I am going flip 10 heads in a row on a coin and, by golly, I flip 10 heads. Assuming that it is a fair coin and there is no psychic phenomena involved, most philosophers would say that I didn't really "know" that I was going to flip 10 heads. I simply believed that I would flip 10 heads, and I got lucky.
If I employ my critical thinking skills and conclude, based on the best evidence available to me, that a certain claim, X, in a book is true, then it is fair to say that I came to know X because I read it in a book that, by any reasonable measure, was a reliable source of information insofar as it fits comfortably into the vast web of historical and scientific knowledge. But suppose, on the other hand, that I believe in Bigfoot because the National Enquirer had an article about a guy who says he saw Bigfoot and I have full faith in the National Enquirer as a source of information. Then suppose that next year some well-documented evidence turns up that is verified by numerous respected scientists. Some people would say that I "knew" about Bigfoot before the scientists did, but most philosophers would disagree. They'd say I didn't actually "know" anything. I just got lucky and had a true belief because I just happened to put my faith in a claim that happened to turn out true (sorta like my faith in the claim that I was going to flip 10 heads in a row).
I say there may be some good reasons to believe in certain conceptions of God. If these reasons are based on either personal mystical experience and/or some combination of evidence and rational arguments, and if it does, in fact, turn out that some of these conceptions or aspects are true, then I (and perhaps some ancient religious folks) can claim knowledge. But if I believe these things because I had faith in a book that, overall, does not appear to be a good source of accurate historical or scientific insights - if my beliefs really end up boiling down to peer pressure, or wishful thinking, or gullibility, or ignorance of science, etc. - then I don't really know much at all. If I get it right, it is primarily luck at work, not knowledge.
Even if some ancient sages had mystical insights and wrote down some ideas about God that turn out to be true, I don't really know much of anything if I accept their claim uncritically. Again and again I come back to this: Faith in some conceptions of God can be perfectly rational, but faith in holy books as sources of scientific and/or historically accurate information is simply not rational.
yup again.
It is irrational to to accuse religion of being wrong on everything they claim. Love, compassion, and understanding is good stuff. Some of them knew long before we were born that we all are connected. The self help portions are often as good as any atheist self help stuff.
I am intrigued at the attempt to address the holy text. Anybody taking holy texted as literally true is not the book fault. anybody that takes what some else says, blindly, is also at fault.
My brother is an example of commonsense and living. he says openly "I only follow the religion because of where I am born and it fits. I have no interest in your science stuff." But of course, he openly challenges stupid rules like "no gay marriages". he does not side solely based on a statement of belief like "anti-religion" or "my god only".
wouldn't it be better to address the people? or am I seeing it right that you really kind of mean the people?
I think you missed the core point. The ancients might very well have known some key things relating to God. It's not "luck" if you acquire belief via first-hand personal experience, and the belief turns out to be true. But if you have faith in the scientific/historical/moral proclamations of a book that, all things considered, shows no signs of being a reliable source of information about science, history, or morality, then, yeah, any true beliefs that you happen to acquire are more like accidental true beliefs rather than knowledge.
....when it comes to claims about natural history, human history, or morality, then I think it is not a reliable source of knowledge. It's more "hit & miss" and it is up to the reader to acknowledge what makes sense from a modern point of view, and what doesn't.
Yes, exactly. And my point is that, with reference to science, history, and moral guidance, people who have faith in the Bible (or other holy books) are clearly demonstrating that they are not good at gauging whether a source is reliable. .....
Honestly Gaylen this is hilarious.
So a person reads a cook book, and it doesn't tell him how to repair a car, therefore he claims it is an unreliable source and any useful information it has on any topic whatsoever is a "lucky guess" or "accidental beliefs and not actual knowledge."
I laugh every time I read this! The obvious question is why would he read a cook book for car repair? And if he didn't understand most of the book how can he say it is not a reliable source? And if he doesn't know the purpose of a book how can he possibly make sense of it or understand it?
Wirh regards to missing the core point, in your own words Gaylen what is the purpose of a holy book?
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-05-2017 at 05:57 PM..
I think you missed the core point. The ancients might very well have known some key things relating to God. It's not "luck" if you acquire belief via first-hand personal experience, and the belief turns out to be true. But if you have faith in the scientific/historical/moral proclamations of a book that, all things considered, shows no signs of being a reliable source of information about science, history, or morality, then, yeah, any true beliefs that you happen to acquire are more like accidental true beliefs rather than knowledge.
It's more "hit & miss" and it is up to the reader to acknowledge what makes sense from a modern point of view, and what doesn't.
Yes, exactly. And my point is that, with reference to science, history, and moral guidance, people who have faith in the Bible (or other holy books) are clearly demonstrating that they are not good at gauging whether a source is reliable. ....
What makes sense is for any reasonable rational person to simply be able to say "I don't understand this" or "i don't get it" or "this is not my cup of tea." Or even "you know more about this than I do what is this about, what are they saying here."
It is mind boggling to hear people on here who by their own admission can't make heads nor tails of understanding a book or a chapter or a passage decry it as "unreliable" "hallucination" "LSD drug trip" "nonsense" "hit and miss" "decoder club" "symbolic nonsense" and the latest entry in the hit parade "accidental true beliefs rather than knowledge" while at the same time all the while proclaiming and touting their own genius, intellect, and superiority.
My observation Gaylen is that it is excruciating for you and Mystic and others who have a mindset steeped in snobbery, and an identity inflated to the point of bursting built not just on "look how smart I am" but its corollary "we are waaaaaaaay smarter than you are" and the condescending "since we are waaaaaaaay smarter than those people, they could not possibly know and understand something that we do not" and the inevitable contorted conclusion "therefore if they perhaps know something that turns out to be valid it is accidental beliefs and not actual knowledge."
My observation is that is a lot of contortions built desperately around an elaborate yet flawed premise, when it is faced with the realization that sources you deem inferior and unreliable actually know and understand a bunch of complex stuff that you do not.
Like a while back on another thread your criticism of an article on DNA included you don't like the authors name. The article discussed investigating magnetic properties of DNA. You said even if it turned out to be true it means nothing because it was just a lucky guess.
Whereas a rational reasonable person might seek to explore the source further with "Hmmmm what else might this source have, I'm intrigued lemme check it out"
Which goes to show that people steeped in snobbery who wallow in their own intellectual superiority are clearly demonstrating that they are not good at gauging whether a source is reliable.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-05-2017 at 08:32 PM..
What makes sense is for any reasonable rational person to simply be able to say "I don't understand this" or "i don't get it" or "this is not my cup of tea." Or even "you know more about this than I do what is this about, what are they saying here."
It is mind boggling to hear people on here who by their own admission can't make heads nor tails of understanding a book or a chapter or a passage decry it as "unreliable" "hallucination" "LSD drug trip" "nonsense" "hit and miss" "decoder club" "symbolic nonsense" and the latest entry in the hit parade "accidental true beliefs rather than knowledge" while at the same time all the while proclaiming and touting their own genius, intellect, and superiority.
My observation Gaylen is that it is excruciating for you and Mystic and others who have a mindset steeped in snobbery, and an identity inflated to the point of bursting built not just on "look how smart I am" but its corollary "we are waaaaaaaay smarter than you are" and the condescending "since we are waaaaaaaay smarter than those people, they could not possibly know and understand something that we do not" and the inevitable contorted conclusion "therefore if they perhaps know something that turns out to be valid it is accidental beliefs and not actual knowledge."
My observation is that is a lot of contortions built desperately around an elaborate yet flawed premise, when it is faced with the realization that sources you deem inferior and unreliable actually know and understand a bunch of complex stuff that you do not.
Like the other thread awhile back we were discussing 12 strand DNA with a magnetic component, and your criticism of the material included you didn't like the authors name. The validation of the material relies on measurements, equipment, and experiments not yet performed. You said even if it turned out to be true and proven it means nothing to you. Because you said it was just a lucky guess.
Whereas a rational reasonable person might seek to explore the source further with "Hmmmm what else might this source have, I'm intrigued lemme check it out"
Which goes to show that people steeped in snobbery who wallow in their own intellectual superiority are clearly demonstrating that they are not good at gauging whether a source is reliable.
my "holy books" were chemistry, physics, and many electrical and mechanical books in mechanical engineering. and I questioned them at every turn of the page.
what are the traits of the god you believe in? and how did you determine them?
So a person reads a cook book, and it doesn't tell him how to repair a car, therefore he claims it is an unreliable source and any useful information it has on any topic whatsoever is a "lucky guess" or "accidental beliefs and not actual knowledge."
I laugh every time I read this! The obvious question is why would he read a cook book for car repair? And if he didn't understand most of the book how can he say it is not a reliable source? And if he doesn't know the purpose of a book how can he possibly make sense of it or understand it?
Wirh regards to missing the core point, in your own words Gaylen what is the purpose of a holy book?
The traits I assign to my "biosphere as life and that's what theist are misunderstanding and misrepresenting as "god"" came from putting together chemistry, physics, and mechanical engineering. i saw a cell as a bunch of non living machines in a larger.
I question them at every turn of the page. I experimented until it was proven true, false, or unknown. Unknown, means we just say "we don't know".
Trap, all grey is saying is that holy books need to be questioned as rigorously as we can. That a claim in a holy book must hold up a true or plausible under more conditions than it fails. Just like any other claims.
...I question them at every turn of the page. I experimented until it was proven true, false, or unknown. Unknown, means we just say "we don't know".
Trap, all grey is saying is that holy books need to be questioned as rigorously as we can. That a claim in a holy book must hold up a true or plausible under more conditions than it fails. Just like any other claims.
So do i.
And it does.
And they do.
But if a person doesn't know what they are reading, or how to read it, or what the book is about or what the book is for, then they are not going to understand it. When a person does, then it makes sense.
Which is why it continues to be seen and valued as a source of great wisdom.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-06-2017 at 06:11 AM..
But if a person doesn't know what they are reading, or how to read it, or what the book is for, then they are not going to understand it. When a person does, then it makes sense.
Which is why holy books are seen as a great source of wisdom. Which is why they continue to be valued and used for thousands of years.
Start with the premise that the book is FROM God and then figure out how to make it work in spite of what it actually says.....
Ummmm, nope.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
