ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Tolerant of Different Faiths

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Sep. 26 2011, 7:57 am

Quote: OtakuJo @ Sep. 25 2011, 9:50 pm

>

>PS. In answer to an earlier comment, I can certainly choose what to believe. That's called "free will".

>


The Mormons call it "free agency."  Same thing, I believe, just a different term.


 


KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!

Invader_Wishfire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27518

Report this Sep. 26 2011, 3:03 pm

Quote: CroBob_502578986 @ Sep. 26 2011, 7:21 am

Quote: OtakuJo @ Sep. 25 2011, 9:50 pm

>

>

>PS. In answer to an earlier comment, I can certainly choose what to believe. That's called "free will".

>

Really? You choose what to believe? It's a power you have which I do notmy friend. When I see a cup on the table, I believe there is one. It's not an option to me. When you choose not to believe, do you stop seeing the cup?


It becomes a deformed bowl.


 photo spok_zps253ab564.gif

PeepsMcJuggs

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 409

Report this Sep. 26 2011, 3:26 pm

Quote: CroBob_502578986 @ Sep. 26 2011, 7:21 am

Really? You choose what to believe? It's a power you have which I do notmy friend. When I see a cup on the table, I believe there is one. It's not an option to me. When you choose not to believe, do you stop seeing the cup?



You choose to believe that what your senses are telling you is correct. Plato would have argued that all observation is subjective because the external is being interpreted by the internal. Hell, most scientists will argue that mere observation changes the outcome of an experiment.

An individual with synesthesia might tell you your name has a brownish-orange tinge to it. You, being a rational individual, would probably counter that they suffer from a genetic anomaly, and that sounds don't have color. Yet in so doing, you would have to argue that they shouldn't believe their own senses because it falls outside what you consider to be the observed standard. But to THEM, seeing sounds IS the standard. Who's correct? Can you define their beliefs by your expectations, or would you concede that you cannot provide an objective basis for something by which you have no personal experience?

I Borg'd yo mama last night. She found it very assimilating.

CroBob_502578986

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 104

Report this Sep. 26 2011, 7:34 pm

Quote: PeepsMcJuggs @ Sep. 26 2011, 3:26 pm

Quote: CroBob_502578986 @ Sep. 26 2011, 7:21 am

>

>Really? You choose what to believe? It's a power you have which I do notmy friend. When I see a cup on the table, I believe there is one. It's not an option to me. When you choose not to believe, do you stop seeing the cup?

>
You choose to believe that what your senses are telling you is correct. Plato would have argued that all observation is subjective because the external is being interpreted by the internal. Hell, most scientists will argue that mere observation changes the outcome of an experiment. An individual with synesthesia might tell you your name has a brownish-orange tinge to it. You, being a rational individual, would probably counter that they suffer from a genetic anomaly, and that sounds don't have color. Yet in so doing, you would have to argue that they shouldn't believe their own senses because it falls outside what you consider to be the observed standard. But to THEM, seeing sounds IS the standard. Who's correct? Can you define their beliefs by your expectations, or would you concede that you cannot provide an objective basis for something by which you have no personal experience?


Yes, people's perception CAN be wrong, which is why nobody can possibly know something "absolutely". However, I have no reason to suspect that my perception is fooling me when I see a cup on the table. My perception is exceptionally reliable. When I see a cup on a table, I don't "assume" it's correct", I realize that it probably is, for it's the only input on the matter which I have (until I touch it, smell what's in it, etc), and I have no reason to presume that perception is incorrect. I "know" that cup is on the table, but I'm willing to be corrected if it winds up my perception has somehow been fooled.


Incidentally, how do we discover when our perceptions have faults? We discover it through our perceptions! Yes, I might be in the matrix, I might have some chemical imbalance or or something rendering my perception incorrect... but I have no reason to suppose that's the case, so I don't. Giving such an idea any serious weight without a reason to suppose it's actually the case is just as irrational as anything else you believe without reason.


Your mind is like a sword; It's easier to kill people when it's sharp.

humanityresurrected

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 196

Report this Sep. 26 2011, 7:50 pm

America has faith in the dollar, it says so right on their currency. Brazil convieced millions their currency had value. It was all about faith. 

PeepsMcJuggs

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 409

Report this Sep. 27 2011, 4:06 pm

Quote: CroBob_502578986 @ Sep. 26 2011, 7:34 pm

>

>Yes, people's perception CAN be wrong, which is why nobody can possibly know something "absolutely". However, I have no reason to suspect that my perception is fooling me when I see a cup on the table. My perception is exceptionally reliable. When I see a cup on a table, I don't "assume" it's correct", I realize that it probably is, for it's the only input on the matter which I have (until I touch it, smell what's in it, etc), and I have no reason to presume that perception is incorrect. I "know" that cup is on the table, but I'm willing to be corrected if it winds up my perception has somehow been fooled.

>Incidentally, how do we discover when our perceptions have faults? We discover it through our perceptions! Yes, I might be in the matrix, I might have some chemical imbalance or or something rendering my perception incorrect... but I have no reason to suppose that's the case, so I don't. Giving such an idea any serious weight without a reason to suppose it's actually the case is just as irrational as anything else you believe without reason.

>


Exactly. And in my perceptions, I have witnessed a higher power at work in my life, and I have no reason to assume my perception is incorrect, for it's the only input on the matter which I have.  I "know" that God exists, but I'm willing to be corrected if my perception has somehow been fooled.  Sure, I might have some chemical imbalance or something rendering my perception of the existence of God incorrect...but I have no reason to suppose that's the case, so I don't.  Giving such an idea any serious weight without a reason to suppose it's actually the case is just as irrational as anything else you believe without reason.


I Borg'd yo mama last night. She found it very assimilating.

CroBob_502578986

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 104

Report this Sep. 27 2011, 8:18 pm

Your sensory input leads you to the rational conclusion that God exists, then? You don't actually have any faith? I could write a huge post explaining why I don't believe you, but it'd be really long and it'd probably be boring to read, and you haven't actually shared a reason with me yet anyhow. Well, the coincidences thing, but I fail to see why a coincidence would be anything other than a coincidence. That may have been someone else, anyhow.


Ultimately, other people see my cup. My cup can be scientifically verified to exist via mutual observation. Yet, when someone tells me that they witnessed the presence of God in a certain location, then why doesn't everyone else? Why can we not use tools to measure that he is, in fact, present? If it's your sensory input that makes you believe, why doesn't the same thing lead everyone to believe? Why would it appear to be a severe form of freudian justifying? If it's your senses that lead to your belief, why is it not science, and why do you not attempt to convince others? My cup isn't important, the potential salvation of immortal souls, on the other hand, might be something people would be interested in.


Your mind is like a sword; It's easier to kill people when it's sharp.

PeepsMcJuggs

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 409

Report this Sep. 27 2011, 10:04 pm

Quote: CroBob_502578986 @ Sep. 27 2011, 8:18 pm

>

>Your sensory input leads you to the rational conclusion that God exists, then? You don't actually have any faith? I could write a huge post explaining why I don't believe you, but it'd be really long and it'd probably be boring to read, and you haven't actually shared a reason with me yet anyhow. Well, the coincidences thing, but I fail to see why a coincidence would be anything other than a coincidence. That may have been someone else, anyhow.

>Ultimately, other people see my cup. My cup can be scientifically verified to exist via mutual observation. Yet, when someone tells me that they witnessed the presence of God in a certain location, then why doesn't everyone else? Why can we not use tools to measure that he is, in fact, present? If it's your sensory input that makes you believe, why doesn't the same thing lead everyone to believe? Why would it appear to be a severe form of freudian justifying? If it's your senses that lead to your belief, why is it not science, and why do you not attempt to convince others? My cup isn't important, the potential salvation of immortal souls, on the other hand, might be something people would be interested in.

>


Oh no, I have faith.  What I'm saying is that faith has been reinforced by what I have personally witnessed in my life.  It's not a locational thing.  I'm not talking about God appearing in my sandwich or talking to me from a cloud.  I'm talking about moments where circumstances provided absolute clarity and certainty that I simply cannot convey in words.  And I'm not asking or expecting you to believe me.  Otherwise I would share my reasons.  But they are my own, they regard very personal moments in my life, and are not something I care to discuss in an online conversation.


You started this thread asking if I believe if my faith is correct, not asking me to convince you that my faith is correct.  I have done so.  You asked why I don't objectively seek to determine if my beliefs are the only correct beliefs.  I have tried to explain to you that faith is, by its nature, subjective.  When it comes to faith, you will never have all the answers.  I pursue science in part because it helps to answer as much as we can, but being passionate about science, I know for a fact that there are limitations on what humans can learn within my lifetime.


I don't shy away from scientific explanations for things; I embrace them.  But there have been moments in my life where the rational explanation has been found to be lacking, and I'm not the only one that thinks that.


As for your last question, as I have explained to you repeatedly, I'm a realist: attempting to convince others only drives them away.  Even I get skeeved out when others try to pressure me into accepting that their beliefs are the only correct beliefs.  I have seen more people driven away by those trying to convince them than are drawn to it.  So, as I've said, my convincing is in the form of action.  I seek to help others, I try to remain humble, and when asked, I convey that my drive to care for, forgive and treat with kindness stems from my faith.


The thing about immortal salvation, like any salvation, is you can't save everybody, especially those that don't want to be saved.  The best anyone can hope for is to give them the message, and let them decide for themselves whether they wish to follow it.


I Borg'd yo mama last night. She found it very assimilating.

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Sep. 27 2011, 11:41 pm

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Sep. 26 2011, 3:03 pm

Quote: CroBob_502578986 @ Sep. 26 2011, 7:21 am

Quote: OtakuJo @ Sep. 25 2011, 9:50 pm

>

>

>

>PS. In answer to an earlier comment, I can certainly choose what to believe. That's called "free will".

>

Really? You choose what to believe? It's a power you have which I do notmy friend. When I see a cup on the table, I believe there is one. It's not an option to me. When you choose not to believe, do you stop seeing the cup?

It becomes a deformed bowl.


Or alternatively, a bowl that is merely shaped differently from someone else's defined standard. Or perhaps it is a mug. Or a flowerpot. But if I closed my eyes on entering the room, and someone merely told me that there was a cup on the table, (or told you under the same conditions) I could certainly choose to believe them or not.


As another example: My Mythology teacher at uni once asked us how many in our class had been to New York. No-one put up their hands. Then how, he asked, do we know for certain that New York exists? Answer: We were told thus. I could very well choose to believe that New York is not real, since to me it only "exists" in other people's accounts and hearsay.


You might say perhaps that not to believe in New York is pretty dumb, but it is still a choice that my mind has made at some point in life.


In the case of whether to believe in god(s) or not, we are far more like blindfolded witnesses to the distant cup on the table than we are to those who see it for real. All we have is the hearsay of others, and no conclusive evidence in either respect. Therefore we certainly have the choice about whether to believe in them or not.


Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?

CroBob_502578986

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 104

Report this Sep. 28 2011, 12:31 am

Quote: PeepsMcJuggs @ Sep. 27 2011, 10:04 pm

Quote: CroBob_502578986 @ Sep. 27 2011, 8:18 pm

>

>

>Your sensory input leads you to the rational conclusion that God exists, then? You don't actually have any faith? I could write a huge post explaining why I don't believe you, but it'd be really long and it'd probably be boring to read, and you haven't actually shared a reason with me yet anyhow. Well, the coincidences thing, but I fail to see why a coincidence would be anything other than a coincidence. That may have been someone else, anyhow.

>Ultimately, other people see my cup. My cup can be scientifically verified to exist via mutual observation. Yet, when someone tells me that they witnessed the presence of God in a certain location, then why doesn't everyone else? Why can we not use tools to measure that he is, in fact, present? If it's your sensory input that makes you believe, why doesn't the same thing lead everyone to believe? Why would it appear to be a severe form of freudian justifying? If it's your senses that lead to your belief, why is it not science, and why do you not attempt to convince others? My cup isn't important, the potential salvation of immortal souls, on the other hand, might be something people would be interested in.

>

Oh no, I have faith.  What I'm saying is that faith has been reinforced by what I have personally witnessed in my life.  It's not a locational thing.  I'm not talking about God appearing in my sandwich or talking to me from a cloud.  I'm talking about moments where circumstances provided absolute clarity and certainty that I simply cannot convey in words.  And I'm not asking or expecting you to believe me.  Otherwise I would share my reasons.  But they are my own, they regard very personal moments in my life, and are not something I care to discuss in an online conversation.

You started this thread asking if I believe if my faith is correct, not asking me to convince you that my faith is correct.  I have done so.  You asked why I don't objectively seek to determine if my beliefs are the only correct beliefs.  I have tried to explain to you that faith is, by its nature, subjective.  When it comes to faith, you will never have all the answers.  I pursue science in part because it helps to answer as much as we can, but being passionate about science, I know for a fact that there are limitations on what humans can learn within my lifetime.

I don't shy away from scientific explanations for things; I embrace them.  But there have been moments in my life where the rational explanation has been found to be lacking, and I'm not the only one that thinks that.

As for your last question, as I have explained to you repeatedly, I'm a realist: attempting to convince others only drives them away.  Even I get skeeved out when others try to pressure me into accepting that their beliefs are the only correct beliefs.  I have seen more people driven away by those trying to convince them than are drawn to it.  So, as I've said, my convincing is in the form of action.  I seek to help others, I try to remain humble, and when asked, I convey that my drive to care for, forgive and treat with kindness stems from my faith.

The thing about immortal salvation, like any salvation, is you can't save everybody, especially those that don't want to be saved.  The best anyone can hope for is to give them the message, and let them decide for themselves whether they wish to follow it.


I think about now would be the appropriate time to cut the conversation, then, before I just keep digging and digging for reasons to the point I offend you. I don't like offending people. I still have this thorn of bafflement and curiosity, but it doesn't seem I'm going to get an answer that satifies me. And it's difficult not to continue, because it doesn't make any sense to me, and how it's alright to you doesn't make any sense to me, and this intellectually masochistic drive in me seeks to further question you, but I should probably leave it here before I upset you. End rambling. I've enjoyed this conversation, even if it ends unsatisfactorily. Thank you for putting up with my generally irritating and offensive curiosity.


To Rocketscientist; I'm sorry for when I didn't know when to quit with you, for all it's worth. I don't remember exactly what I did that was offensive, and I'm sure my view hasn't changed, whatever it was, but I did not mean to offend.


As an aside, feel free to ignore it, if you're ever curious about critically considering religion, I would suggest watching The Atheist Experience. Matt Dillihunty in particular, as I very rarely disagree with him. I have zero problem with you not watching, it's only a recommendation. It's a pretty popular show, so you may have caught some of it already anyhow. Anyhow, have a good day.


Your mind is like a sword; It's easier to kill people when it's sharp.

PeepsMcJuggs

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 409

Report this Sep. 28 2011, 12:46 am

Don't misunderstand, CroBob; you haven't offended me.  More annoyance than anything.  I felt like you went from a fact-finding mission on why people believe what they believe into asking a series of leading questions tangential to the original query. But yes, I agree this is probably a good place to stop, because at this point we're probably just going to go around in circles.


I Borg'd yo mama last night. She found it very assimilating.

Tureaz'47

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2605

Report this Oct. 01 2011, 1:30 am

Quote: PeepsMcJuggs @ Sep. 28 2011, 12:46 am

>

>Don't misunderstand, CroBob; you haven't offended me.  More annoyance than anything.  I felt like you went from a fact-finding mission on why people believe what they believe into asking a series of leading questions tangential to the original query. But yes, I agree this is probably a good place to stop, because at this point we're probably just going to go around in circles.

>


Then you don't know what the catalyst was for his journey, that CB must alone travel.  CB asks because he is waiting, and those who 'keep asking, will indeed get the answer if they continue in 'all honesty.' It's a journey for "self," regardless of the belief. We all, have experiences, that can alter and determine what path that we can go down. Our internal instinct is so important, The world can block it out by 'distraction and self importance.'


 


 


It's strange, being a catalyst for things that move outside.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: FleetAdmiral_BamBam

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum