02 May 15
Originally posted by CalJustI think it could if they were willing to discuss them. They are not.
Let me turn the question around.
Do you think that the question whether dasa or RJH is "right" can be resolved by them discussing their beliefs (like it's never been tried!)
So is that what you are saying? That sometimes those that disagree with you simply do not want an honest discussion?
Do you think that the question of who has the "right" religion can be solved by "reasoning" between an orthodox Jew and a Sunni militant?
Yes. Again, if they are willing to have the discussion.
At the simplest level, yes, objective truth seems to exist (like your example of height of Mt E and whether 2 + 2 = 4). But at the level of religious faith (which seems to be the topic of your question, otherwise why this Forum?) the answers are far more complex.
Not to me they aren't. So are you saying that they cease to be objective truths, or are they simply so complex that it is difficult to understand/discuss them?
Originally posted by Dasa
Sir.............are you referring to the Bible when you complain.(rightly so)
You clearly have not read one word of true spirituality found in the Vedas (have you)
True religion has no comparison to false religion..............and you have been contaminated by false religion haven't you?
Tell me wise man............................what is the difference between true religion and false religion.
You have no idea do you?
Tell me wise man............................what is the difference between true religion and false religion.Certainly, grasshopper.
In some remote corner of the universe, poured out and glittering in innumerable solar systems, there once was a star on which clever animals invented knowledge. That was the highest and most mendacious minute of "world history"—yet only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths the star grew cold, and the clever animals had to die.
One might invent such a fable and still not have illustrated sufficiently how wretched, how shadowy and flighty, how aimless and arbitrary, the human intellect appears in nature. There have been eternities when it did not exist; and when it is done for again, nothing will have happened. For this intellect has no further mission that would lead beyond human life. It is human, rather, and only its owner and producer gives it such importance, as if the world pivoted around it. But if we could communicate with the mosquito, then we would learn that he floats through the air with the same self-importance, feeling within itself the flying center of the world. There is nothing in nature so despicable or insignificant that it cannot immediately be blown up like a bag by a slight breath of this power of knowledge; and just as every porter wants an admirer, the proudest human being, the philosopher, thinks that he sees on the eyes of the universe telescopically focused from all sides on his actions and thoughts.
It is strange that this should be the effect of the intellect, for after all it was given only as an aid to the most unfortunate, most delicate, most evanescent beings in order to hold them for a minute in existence, from which otherwise, without this gift, they would have every reason to flee as quickly as Lessing's son. [In a famous letter to Johann Joachim Eschenburg (December 31, 1778), Lessing relates the death of his infant son, who "understood the world so well that he left it at the first opportunity."] That haughtiness which goes with knowledge and feeling, which shrouds the eyes and senses of man in a blinding fog, therefore deceives him about the value of existence by carrying in itself the most flattering evaluation of knowledge itself. Its most universal effect is deception; but even its most particular effects have something of the same character.
The intellect, as a means for the preservation of the individual, unfolds its chief powers in simulation; for this is the means by which the weaker, less robust individuals preserve themselves, since they are denied the chance of waging the struggle for existence with horns or the fangs of beasts of prey. In man this art of simulation reaches its peak: here deception, flattering, lying and cheating, talking behind the back, posing, living in borrowed splendor, being masked, the disguise of convention, acting a role before others and before oneself—in short, the constant fluttering around the single flame of vanity is so much the rule and the law that almost nothing is more incomprehensible than how an honest and pure urge for truth could make its appearance among men.
....etc
From: On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense
Frederich Nietzsche
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Nietzsche/Truth_and_Lie_in_an_Extra-Moral_Sense.htm
Oddly enough I disagree with a lot of this Nietzsche essay but this section is relevant and appropriate imho.
02 May 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou will definitelybe an asset to the ME negotiations - how can they have forgotten about you? I will inform Obama immediately!
Do you think that the question of who has the "right" religion can be solved by "reasoning" between an orthodox Jew and a Sunni militant?
Yes. Again, if they are willing to have the discussion.
02 May 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadBeautifully sidestepped!
The problems in the ME have very little to do with beliefs and a lot to do with money, power and politics.
I predict that with the rise of China and emergence of green energy, the middle east will slowly fade from importance.
The issue under discussion is whether convinced followers of competing "faiths" can resolve their beliefs by discussion, or whether one or both of them are delusional. You proposed that such discussions are possible, and I maintain that history has shown that they are highly unlikely, if not impossible.
Originally posted by twhiteheadOriginally posted by twhitehead
If that was a joke, then yes, I have no sense of humour. Please include a smiley face next time.
(oh, and by the way, which one was the joke? the one where you called me delusional, or the one where you claimed Dawkins called you mentally ill?)
My own test is as follows:
1. Do I have good reasons for my own beliefs?
2. Does the other guy appear to actually believe his claims?
3. Does he have good reasons for his beliefs (supposing he passed 2.)?
4. Double check his reasons, double check my reasons, and see if they stand up.
I didn't look closely at your test, but then you said something about my failing # 2.
2. Does the other guy appear to actually believe his claims?
I'm assuming the purpose of # 2. is to see if the other guy sincerely believes what he says he believes (his claims). Past experience in seeing what the other guy has said would be enough to answer that question... but if you're not familiar with the other guys pov then it's probably best not to jump to conclusions.
I would do both... first consider what is being said, and then consider the source. But before I can consider the source I would necessarily need some background information. I would need to focus on what the other guy is saying rather than focusing on him.
Once you've become familiar with the other guys pov you're in a better position to consider the source. But even then it's better to focus on what is being said rather than on who is doing the saying.
Originally posted by CalJustNo, you just didn't read very carefully.
Beautifully sidestepped! .
You proposed that such discussions are possible, and I maintain that history has shown that they are highly unlikely, if not impossible.
And I agree with you. I included the clause that they must be willing to have such a discussion. As can be seen time and time again in this forum, theists in general are not willing to have such discussions. So my conclusion is that they do not want to know which of us is deluded, or they have a different mechanism for determining which of us is deluded, or they have not really thought about it, or, as you have indicated, they do not think any such mechanism exists.
Hence this thread to see what peoples views are. It seems that not one single theist so far uses my mechanism, so an open honest discussion relying on reason and evidence doesn't seem likely.
02 May 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have provided to your list that one should also consult the Holy Bible. So there is no need to enter into a discussion with those that do not acknowledge this. It is useless to attempt to reason with them for they are obviously deluded. 😏
No, you just didn't read very carefully.
[b]You proposed that such discussions are possible, and I maintain that history has shown that they are highly unlikely, if not impossible.
And I agree with you. I included the clause that they must be willing to have such a discussion. As can be seen time and time again in this forum, theists in general ar ...[text shortened]... s my mechanism, so an open honest discussion relying on reason and evidence doesn't seem likely.[/b]
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt seems that not one single theist so far uses my mechanism, so an open honest discussion relying on reason and evidence doesn't seem likely.
No, you just didn't read very carefully.
[b]You proposed that such discussions are possible, and I maintain that history has shown that they are highly unlikely, if not impossible.
And I agree with you. I included the clause that they must be willing to have such a discussion. As can be seen time and time again in this forum, theists in general ar ...[text shortened]... s my mechanism, so an open honest discussion relying on reason and evidence doesn't seem likely.[/b]
Your mechanism is the only way of having an open honest discussion relying on reason and evidence.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt seems to me that you are putting the full onus on the theist (i.e. the "other" side) to prove their belief/s. (Just count how many times you have said "they" in this quote!).
As can be seen time and time again in this forum, theists in general are not willing to have such discussions. So my conclusion is that they do not want to know which of us is deluded, or they have a different mechanism for determining which of us is deluded, or they have not really thought about it, or, as you have indicated, they do not think any such mechanism exists.
Scout's honour: are YOU willing to admit that YOUR beliefs may be wrong? That YOU may be deluded? Have you thought through the possibility that THEY may be right, and that you maybe, just maybe, may have missed something that the "other" has found?
In other words, in your stated precondition for a useful discussion, do YOU come to the table with an open mind, willing to learn, perhaps?
Even if you were to respond now: "of course I am! " all your previous posts show that you are as entrenched in your own convictions as dasa and RJH.
03 May 15
Originally posted by CalJustNo, not at all. And how does counting the 'they's' demonstrate that I am?
It seems to me that you are putting the full onus on the theist (i.e. the "other" side) to prove their belief/s. (Just count how many times you have said "they" in this quote!).
Scout's honour: are YOU willing to admit that YOUR beliefs may be wrong? That YOU may be deluded? Have you thought through the possibility that THEY may be right, and that you maybe, just maybe, may have missed something that the "other" has found?
Yes, that is why I have the technique described in the OP.
In other words, in your stated precondition for a useful discussion, do YOU come to the table with an open mind, willing to learn, perhaps?
Yes.
Even if you were to respond now: "of course I am! " all your previous posts show that you are as entrenched in your own convictions as dasa and RJH.
What did I say that made you draw that conclusion?
Further, this in not about how entrenched in our convictions we are, this is about how, if at all, we can determine whether or not our entrenched positions are the correct ones. Dasa and RJH do not even attempt to determine whether their positions are the correct ones. It so bad they they don't even understand the question. (see RJs post above where he essentially says 'my method is to see whether you already hold my position, if you don't, you are the deluded one - clearly he has missed the point) .
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have now read your OP again, and will, for the sake of this discussion, accept your bona fides
So my question is how do they know they are not the ones deluded? I guess its even possible that we are all deluded and nobody sees the truth.
This possibility is a very real one. As wise men (and women) through the ages have shown, to figure out reasons for our existence, and an answer to life's questions, is a challenging task.
My own test is as follows:
1. Do I have good reasons for my own beliefs?
2. Does the other guy appear to actually believe his claims?
3. Does he have good reasons for his beliefs (supposing he passed 2.)?
4. Double check his reasons, double check my reasons, and see if they stand up.
If we examine this "test", I would be very surprised if even a tiny minority of "believers", of any doctrine or religion, (including atheism), have followed this path. By far the most common reason for anybody's belief (and of course I am postulating this, not having tested it) is that people believe what the culture believes into which they were born.
The key exceptions would be those that have actually changed their beliefs, such as FMF, but they would be a small minority. Even in his case I don't think that he consciously chose the "other" on the basis of the system that you suggest, but merely for the negative aspects of the system in which he found himself.
Another example that I could mention would be my own son who became a Buddhist. His answer to the question of why he changed, was a combination of the hypocrisy of the Christians around him (such as our own dear Smugface) but also the attraction of the lives of Buddhists that he met. Only much later did he get into actual doctrine.
So this is why I said earlier that people (in my experience, at least) do not take a faith on the basis of rational inspection and argument, but for many different reasons, the most common one being ancestry.
In fact, I would be very surprised if you could show that you yourself actually practiced, or applied, the steps that you have outlined.
Can you truly claim to have done 2,3 and 4 for EVERY alternative religion?
How about even for one, such as Islam or Buddhism? How much of their own material have you read, not only ABOUT them? To how many adherents have you talked seriously? (to apply tests 2 and 3)
One well-known writer who may actually have followed your system was Huston Smith. In his book Tales of Wonder: Adventures chasing the divine he describes how he, having been born to Christian missionaries in China, became, in turn, a practicing Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, and two or three others. His book "The Religions of the World" is still a text book in many schools of Theology. Google him!