Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-12-2020, 09:43 PM
 
9,345 posts, read 4,294,595 times
Reputation: 3022

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ukrkoz View Post
It's simple indeed.
They convince themselves by trying to convince others.

Basic reverse psychology. That's how they maintain self conviction that their truth is truthier than others' truths.
Intuition can be handy for some things however I think it's like common sense, built upon experience and success and failures. Which path or road should I take to find neat images to photograph is intuition or even guess work however does it matter if one is wrong?

Isn't it religious folks who speak about truths or the Truth? I am not a believer because I don't see reasons to do so. Can I be wrong? Yes I could be totally mistaken. How many believers will confess that they too could be wrong about a God? If you cannot or will not maybe you should rethink your whole post.

Do can you be wrong in believing in your God? If God exists can it be a different God? Is it possible that thete is no God? Is your truth the Truth?

I feel comfortable in my atheism, if I am wrong I will need to reexamine many things . I don't think it will fundamentally change my life and certainly not shake me up. Surprise yes, upheaval no.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-12-2020, 10:31 PM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,082 posts, read 20,548,531 times
Reputation: 5927
I learned any years (decades even) ago on the Plantinga/Matrix thread that human instinctive thinking was evolved as a survival - mechanisms and not primarily to tell us the truth (which we often can't tell by just looking, anyway).

It is an admirable aspect of humanity that it has evolved a mental mechanism for eliminating errors of perception and interpretation and arriving at the model that (on the evidence) is the best model of whatever the reality is. It is called 'the scientific method'. It is not perfect; it is - as the theists often say - 'always getting things wrong'. But correcting the error and moving on is a positive thing, not a fault.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2020, 03:46 AM
 
9,673 posts, read 9,959,456 times
Reputation: 1918
The Science problem is the inability to study the spirit realms without God, so the two are separate even though there are many biblical scientists who sound strange in their teaching of their discoveries .............. Then there is the demonic spirit interference with the health of people and animals which would contradict the physical knowledge of atheistic science of medicines and health, still both of these do affect the health of people and animals .... Where the demonic tries to harm health, and the medical tries to help the health of people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2020, 04:22 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,082 posts, read 20,548,531 times
Reputation: 5927
Anyone else want to take that one?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2020, 05:51 AM
 
7,582 posts, read 4,128,040 times
Reputation: 6935
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008 View Post
Can you expand on that, elyn? An expert birder can identify a bird, its gender and age, merely by its call, the location and season. That is his evidence. Can another person who cannot id a chickadee if it sits on his head “see†the evidence the birder lâ€seesâ€?
You may say birding is a scientific method, but my point is no two people see the evidence the same way without training.
Spirituality requires training, and that training helps you see the evidence. Part of it is intuition.
Yes. Thank you for asking. Referring to the literal sense and meaning of the word can "even the playing field" when two people want to understand each other. The example you gave is using the word in a figurative sense. This requires training but it is also dependent on a person's ability to perceive the difference between one bird call to the next. If a person cannot perceive it through hearing then that person cannot use it as evidence to support their conclusion. They don't figuratively "see" it. However, the person who can perceive it can use that ability to their advantage if they wanted to.

Even so, if both people were capable of using sight, incorrect conclusions can be drawn.

Here is a video by Jack Horner who is a paleontologist. It is called "Where are the baby dinosaurs?". This video is about how in the early 1900s, museums were in a competition to get the biggest dinosaurs. So everyone was out looking for big dinosaurs. When one was discovered, especially a big one, they would give it a different name if it looked a little different.

So somebody in the 1950s asked where are all the baby dinosaurs. What Jack Horner discovered was that the dinosaurs discovered were not all different species. Some were juveniles and so, therefore, part of the same species of another identified dinosaur.

https://www.ted.com/talks/jack_horne...ce=tedcomshare

So scientists were able "to see" the different dinosaurs, but they did not account for the juveniles until Mr. Horner was able to cut into the dinosaur bone and "see".


Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
Intuition is pretty pathetic evidence.
The orthographic denotation of intuition is "to look at, watch over." This literal sense and meaning changed my life. ETA: I am not sure it is meant to be used as evidence. It behaves more like a conclusion.

Last edited by elyn02; 12-13-2020 at 06:13 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2020, 06:03 AM
 
7,582 posts, read 4,128,040 times
Reputation: 6935
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
Anyone else want to take that one?
I think some people need a defined source of good and bad in the world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2020, 06:55 AM
 
Location: Elsewhere
88,228 posts, read 84,159,421 times
Reputation: 114535
Quote:
Originally Posted by elyn02 View Post
I think some people need a defined source of good and bad in the world.
It is not always a need. It is sometimes the default that was taught, and it has not occurred to them that there is another way to look at things because the good/evil mindset is so deeply ingrained.

Someone close to me, a lifelong Christian, was having difficulties with depression, etc., in her fifties. She decided to go see a counselor/therapist, at a mental health center that was part of a Christian-owned health facility where she felt comfortable talking to someone.

The therapist worked through some of the things she was dealing with at this particular turning point in her life, but near the end, the therapist said "I see something in your way of thinking that needs addressing, how you seem to see things in terms of good and evil." The woman said, "Yes, that's how it is. There is good, and there is evil, and everything fits into one category or another." That was what she knew, what she had been taught all her life through her Calvinist form of the Christian religion.

This Christian therapist helped her to see that everything did not have to be viewed through that prism and that life could be less challenging if you looked at things from other points of view as well, that there were grey areas and things that could not be necessarily so categorized, and she kept it all within the tenets of the Christian faith. It made a huge difference in this woman's life.

It can be a burden to think that way. You are constantly on eggshells wanting to stay on the side of "good" and watching out for "evil" and wondering if you're keeping your feet on the right side of the line at all times.
__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
City-Data Terms of Service: //www.city-data.com/terms.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2020, 07:23 AM
 
15,845 posts, read 6,916,141 times
Reputation: 8500
Quote:
Originally Posted by K12144 View Post
But the second person could not argue that the chickadee is a cardinal (well, they could try, but they would be wrong). That's why it's a fact. They could truthfully say they don't know, but that doesn't alter the fact that there's a chickadee sitting on their head, whether they know what it is or not.
To whom is it a fact? Only when the form and name of cardinal is in his universe, his mind, would he know it as a truth, never mind what fact is.
To extend the metaphor of birding further, when he finally has that bird that was calling in his scope, he finds it has unexpected makings, and an unusual bill. It is a rarity, or some hybrid, or a loner that should never be in the location in that season. So all his expertise failed, truth remains.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2020, 07:37 AM
 
15,845 posts, read 6,916,141 times
Reputation: 8500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
Some very good posts here.

First, this 'no science' thing is constantly misunderstood (not to say misrepresented) by some.

Science (as a database of factual info. for drawing conclusions about what is knows and what isn't) is not up for re-evaluation or debunking (to make room for faith -claims) here. Let those who want to deny science argue it on the science forum (I bet that's a fun place to be ) and very good luck to them.

Here, the science is the basis of evidence and both theists and atheists should use it as it is, not as they would prefer it to be.

Which leads to 'evidence'. Faith is indeed the beginning and the end of the theist argument, but in between they would very much like scientific evidence to support their Faith -claims, because they know the credit -clout that science has, and they are both envious and resentful (a trait that I have also seen in Cult -apologetics) of how science just has to make a statement and it gets accepted. If only people would do that with Faith -claims

So Fiddlement. I won't go into the method and results of quotemining, misrepresentation and downright denial, but bear in mind that faddling of evidence to fit the Faith is the beginning and end of the Method, and you'll not go far wrong.

And bear in mind that if and when the faddled facts, appeal to Woo and using pre -Darwin scientists to prove that God is real, are shown without merit as evidence for a god, Faith is where they revert as a final denial. But they would much prefer evidence to back them up, if only it would.
So how does the edict of no science in the R&S be applied? Does it have any meaning at all?
I appreciate the desire to call it out in cases where science is being used the way you describe. It is a valid point. But You have a choice to obey the rule and be silent and not start quarreling and get the topic closed. Unless that IS the intention, and if it is, shame on you. You ate then merely a disrupter and dont add pne thing of value.
For someone like me the science does not impress me when the sum of what, say Mystic, says does not hold together. So the statements he makes can be debated, and is, on its own merit and still stay within the spirit of the forum. You as an atheist cannot do it because your belief prohibits you from debating on the level in which it is stated. Go back then to your atheis forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2020, 07:42 AM
 
15,845 posts, read 6,916,141 times
Reputation: 8500
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander View Post
Intuition can be handy for some things however I think it's like common sense, built upon experience and success and failures. Which path or road should I take to find neat images to photograph is intuition or even guess work however does it matter if one is wrong?

Isn't it religious folks who speak about truths or the Truth? I am not a believer because I don't see reasons to do so. Can I be wrong? Yes I could be totally mistaken. How many believers will confess that they too could be wrong about a God? If you cannot or will not maybe you should rethink your whole post.

Do can you be wrong in believing in your God? If God exists can it be a different God? Is it possible that thete is no God? Is your truth the Truth?

I feel comfortable in my atheism, if I am wrong I will need to reexamine many things . I don't think it will fundamentally change my life and certainly not shake me up. Surprise yes, upheaval no.
Why are you so sure believers too may examine their beliefs? Why do you think atheists too become believers?
Belief and non belief are not absolute, they are on a spectrum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top