Why Christians' strong beliefs are as pathetic as everyone else's beliefs.

[RickD]

I see it more as the possibility that we could all be wrong. Is it a bad thing to admit that all of what we think could be flawed? Doesnt mean it is, just that its possible.

I am absolutely sure of my faith but I dont see why its self defeating to admit it could all be wrong.

Storyteller,

I'm not saying it's self defeating to admit I could be wrong. What I'm saying, is that for someone to claim our brains are faulty, as the reason why we could be wrong, is self defeating. If the author is correct, and our brains are faulty and cause us to be wrong, why can't his article be the product of his faulty brain? Thereby making his article wrong. See?

Kinda but not really. I swear I am not being obtuse (well, not intentionally anyway!)
Why does the article have to be wrong if its the product of a faulty brain? Isnt it possible its right anyway? Or am I missing the point?

Annette,

It's not that the article has to be wrong. But if all of our brains are faulty, how would we know if the article is wrong? Our brains are too faulty to know one way or the other.

Look at this assertion, and tell me why it's self defeating: "There is no such thing as absolute truth."

[Storyteller]

Please be patient with me....

We don't know, for sure, if the article is wrong.

There is no such thing as absolute truth... I think there is.... God.

(What am I not seeing, not getting?)

[RickD]

Please be patient with me....

We don't know, for sure, if the article is wrong.

There is no such thing as absolute truth... I think there is.... God.

(What am I not seeing, not getting?)

Sorry,

Bear with me. Hopefully I can make sense for you. This statement: "There is no such thing as absolute truth." is a statement claiming absolute truth, while saying there is no absolute truth. The statement is asserting that it is true, that there is no absolute truth.

Or, look at it this way...If I say, "Truth does not exist". My statement has to be true, in order for it to be right. But if my statement is true, then it's also wrong. It's self defeating.

Does that make any more sense?

[Storyteller]

I don't like these kind of statements, they fry my brain
Bit like the if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it does it make a sound. I just dont get it!

Okay, so if our brains are faulty we can't say the article is true because our brains are faulty?

[RickD]

I don't like these kind of statements, they fry my brain
Bit like the if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it does it make a sound. I just dont get it!

Okay, so if our brains are faulty we can't say the article is true because our brains are faulty?

Basically, MBPrata is saying that the article says we can't know if we are right in our arguments, because our faulty brains just don't work well enough for us to know if we are right. But if our brains are faulty enough that we can't know whats right, then how does the author even know what he is saying is right?

It's like saying, "we can't be right, because our brains won't let us be right. But of course I'm right in saying we can't be right, even though I just said we can't be right."

And yes, it's ridiculous enough to fry my brain too!

[Storyteller]

I don't like these kind of statements, they fry my brain
Bit like the if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it does it make a sound. I just dont get it!

Okay, so if our brains are faulty we can't say the article is true because our brains are faulty?

Basically, MBPrata is saying that the article says we can't know if we are right in our arguments, because our faulty brains just don't work well enough for us to know if we are right. But if our brains are faulty enough that we can't know whats right, then how does the author even know what he is saying is right?

It's like saying, "we can't be right, because our brains won't let us be right. But of course I'm right in saying we can't be right, even though I just said we can't be right."

And yes, it's ridiculous enough to fry my brain too!

So.... do you want eggs with our fried brains?

I may have to read the article again now.

To be fair though, I still kinda get where MBPrata is coming from. I think.

[RickD]

I don't like these kind of statements, they fry my brain
Bit like the if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it does it make a sound. I just dont get it!

Okay, so if our brains are faulty we can't say the article is true because our brains are faulty?

Basically, MBPrata is saying that the article says we can't know if we are right in our arguments, because our faulty brains just don't work well enough for us to know if we are right. But if our brains are faulty enough that we can't know whats right, then how does the author even know what he is saying is right?

It's like saying, "we can't be right, because our brains won't let us be right. But of course I'm right in saying we can't be right, even though I just said we can't be right."

And yes, it's ridiculous enough to fry my brain too!

So.... do you want eggs with our fried brains?

I may have to read the article again now.

To be fair though, I still kinda get where MBPrata is coming from. I think.

If he was just making a point about all of us being gracious in our discussions, and understanding that we are not always right, then I'd understand him too.

[RickD]

Annette,

Does this help?

[MBPrata]

For everyone who thinks I'm being contradictory and/or self-defeating, let me tell you: I am aware of that! But, guess what?, everything we say ends up being contradictory! Language is a lame, limited tool and I don't know anyone who doesn't contradict himself/herself if he/she keeps talking. I usually say: "The only way to never contradict yourself is to live youur whole life your mouth shut".
I know I'm self-defeating. I can't help it. But I believe that's our condition as humans.

But if all of our brains are faulty, how would we know if the article is wrong?

I know! Now, pick that sentence and replace "the article" with "the Bible". See what happens. After all, the Bible was written by men, not God himself...

But if our brains are faulty enough that we can't know whats right, then how does the author even know what he is saying is right?

We can not! That's one of the points of the article! But even so, let's see...how do we "know" (please notice the inverted commas) X thing is right? With faith! Now we get to your area: the faith that you claim to be so important. Blind faith, to be precise. My faith on the article is blind...just like everyone else's faith! Why? Because we may think we have "evidence" for our faith, but in the end we may have zero evidence because our brain tricks us! That guy thinks God is likely because of the Earth's design? Who told him the details of that design? How does he know that person isn't lying? He doesn't, he just has faith that what that person said is true! That guy who thinks evolution is likely because of this study (http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/05/ ... dentified/)? Who told him the study is real? How does he know that person isn't lying? He doesn't, he just has faith that what that person said is true!

And considering all of this, I think we, humans, should drop our arrogance and always debating saying "I believe" or "I think" instead of "I know". Yeah, I've grown up to be a person who thinks the most arrogant attitude possible is for one to think he/she knows something rather than to think he/she believes something.

If he was just making a point about all of us being gracious in our discussions, and understanding that we are not always right, then I'd understand him too.

Well, that was one of the ideas I had in mind, yeah... Maybe if failed on that. But I tried. In general, my point with the article was something like "Stop thinking you know better, you know as much as an atheist. Not more, not less: as much as. Which is...well...nothing! So, please, try to be humble."

[Kurieuo]

Truth exists. If anyone doesn't believe that, then there's no point to their saying anything further.

One issue is whether we can know the truth.
I believe we can and do know truth.
Others (MBPrata) believe we can never know the truth. That includes never knowing that we can never know the truth... and that others can never really know the truth of whatever truth claim it is they make.

But, I disagree what others like MBPrata believe here. Such is actually not a logically sane position, and certainly by no means practical. No one can live their life by it. So it seems much better to embrace what everyone intuitively all tends to believe, and that is truth can be known.

This allows us to function in life. It allows us to know we ought to eat of we'll die. We better fill our car up with petrol or we'll be stranded somewhere. Oh, and sex can produce children. Etc, etc. Therefore, it seems to me, either someone intellectually dishonest would pull the card no one has the truth. OR, someone inconsistently living and functioning in their life who can't even grasp their own existence is saying such -- and really, should anyone with some sanity believe such a person? This is where extreme skepticism leads one, and it is actually illogical by praxis rather than reason.


Now MBPrata, given I and many others here do not hold to your belief that truth cannot be known, then there's really no more to be said. It's only an argument if we accept your premise that truth cannot be known, but as you wrote in your own words, not even you are sure on that one. So why should we move from our position that truth can be known? (as it indeed must be in order for us to live rather than let our lives dwindle away)

On the other hand, if you really wish to claim as truth, that truth cannot be known...
Well now you've just sawed off the branch on which you are sitting as RickD pointed out.


A final issue is then how can we be 100% certain that know the truth?
While we might feel 100% confident in our knowledge of truth, objectively seeing truth with 100% clarity that this and that is true, is really only a position that a super being such as God (a maximally conceived being) could have. However, that doesn't mean we can't know truth. It doesn't mean we can't have assurances of truth. And most certainly does not mean truth itself doesn't exist.

[abelcainsbrother]

I too believe we can know the truth and this is why I stress going by evidence to discern what is truth and what is not.The problem is most people don't take the time to examine evidence and are often just going along with popular opinion,etc.But if you learn how to focus on evidence you can tell the truth from a lie theory,opinion,belief,etc.It is very important that we go by evidence especially today when we have so much information with just a few clicks of a mouse.Not everything you read is truth and the sooner people learn how to examine evidence the sooner less people will be indoctrinated or believe things they can't prove and have absolutely no evidence to back it up like atheism,even false religions have more evidence behind them than atheism yet the most famous atheists out there claim to be sceptics and claim to go by evidence when nothing could be further from the truth.

[Storyteller]

For everyone who thinks I'm being contradictory and/or self-defeating, let me tell you: I am aware of that! But, guess what?, everything we say ends up being contradictory! Language is a lame, limited tool and I don't know anyone who doesn't contradict himself/herself if he/she keeps talking. I usually say: "The only way to never contradict yourself is to live youur whole life your mouth shut".
I know I'm self-defeating. I can't help it. But I believe that's our condition as humans.

But if all of our brains are faulty, how would we know if the article is wrong?

I know! Now, pick that sentence and replace "the article" with "the Bible". See what happens. After all, the Bible was written by men, not God himself...

Thing is though, there`s an if in there. If our brains are faulty. What if they`re not?
True, the Bible was written by men but it was inspired by God. What if it`s all true? What then? I do get where you`re coming from but it takes as much faith to believe that the Bible isn`t true or God doesn`t exist as it does to believe that it is true and He does exist. I suppose it comes down to experience and belief. I know that if I put my hand on something hot, it will hurt. I also know, that for me personally, God exists. I found God before I found the Bible, I have looked and looked for proof that God doesn`t exist, that this is all just wishful thinking but I haven`t found anything yet. Sure, I want to believe in God so perhaps I am biased but even so, the odds of all of this being some cosmic accident are just too huge for me. Was it Holmes that said once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth?

But if our brains are faulty enough that we can't know whats right, then how does the author even know what he is saying is right?

We can not! That's one of the points of the article! But even so, let's see...how do we "know" (please notice the inverted commas) X thing is right? With faith! Now we get to your area: the faith that you claim to be so important. Blind faith, to be precise. My faith on the article is blind...just like everyone else's faith! Why? Because we may think we have "evidence" for our faith, but in the end we may have zero evidence because our brain tricks us! That guy thinks God is likely because of the Earth's design? Who told him the details of that design? How does he know that person isn't lying? He doesn't, he just has faith that what that person said is true! That guy who thinks evolution is likely because of this study (http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/05/ ... dentified/)? Who told him the study is real? How does he know that person isn't lying? He doesn't, he just has faith that what that person said is true!

Not sure I agree it`s blind faith. Sure, I agree our brain may be tricking us to a certain extent but you can take that argument anywhere. Maybe we don`t really exist at all? My faith comes from reading, questioning, and talking and praying to God. I suppose you could argue that it`s still just faith but that`s the point. I place my faith in God because, to me, that seems the most likely scenario.

And considering all of this, I think we, humans, should drop our arrogance and always debating saying "I believe" or "I think" instead of "I know". Yeah, I've grown up to be a person who thinks the most arrogant attitude possible is for one to think he/she knows something rather than to think he/she believes something.

This I relate to! I can only ever tell you what I believe. Apart from the obvious things like fire is hot, that kind of thing. My faith and belief in God is personal to me, your faith and belief in God will be different, who am I to say that I`m right and you`re wrong?

If he was just making a point about all of us being gracious in our discussions, and understanding that we are not always right, then I'd understand him too.

Well, that was one of the ideas I had in mind, yeah... Maybe if failed on that. But I tried. In general, my point with the article was something like "Stop thinking you know better, you know as much as an atheist. Not more, not less: as much as. Which is...well...nothing! So, please, try to be humble."[/quote]

Just because we may have different ideas doesn`t mean that it can`t be discussed in a friendly, non judgemental way. We are all, in our way, trying to figure out this beautiful mystery called life.

[windywherever]

I know! Now, pick that sentence and replace "the article" with "the Bible". See what happens. After all, the Bible was written by men, not God himself...

I liked what abelcainsbrother said about evidence. I think there's some good evidence we can test in the Bible, to know if there is any truth. The "golden rule" is a good one. It is a perfect rule, because the foundation of the rule is based on each individual's personal experience. Do to others what you'd have them do to you. This is a testable teaching. We can know the truth of it through experience.

If someone insults you, you will feel bad. Applying the golden rule we can understand that if we insult others they will also feel bad. If we do not want to feel bad then we should not cause others to feel bad so we should not insult them.

[MBPrata]

One issue is whether we can know the truth.
I believe we can and do know truth.

I too believe we can know the truth

Ok, then, I get it and I respect. But I don't believe in that.

Such is actually not a logically sane position, and certainly by no means practical. No one can live their life by it. So it seems much better to embrace what everyone intuitively all tends to believe, and that is truth can be known.This allows us to function in life. It allows us to know we ought to eat of we'll die. We better fill our car up with petrol or we'll be stranded somewhere. Oh, and sex can produce children. Etc, etc.

I presume that "of" is actually "or". Other than that, I didn't say my vision was pratical. Sane...well,I think it is. Now, if you ask me something like hey-why-don't-you-eat-poison-since-you-don't-really-know-whether-it-kills-you-or-not?, you may think you got me with my life philosophy, but not necessarily. Yes, I don't eat poison. But that's not because I know it will kill me; it's because I BELIEVE it will kill me. That's the blind faith I'm talking about. I never tested poison myself, but I believe it will kill me. The thing is: I believe we can't know the truth, so I live like anybody else can live: having my faiths. And some of my faiths will be wrong, that's for sure. But so will some of your faiths. This is we, humans: hopeless creatures which sometimes think they know better but, in the end, are as lost as everyone around them.

In my opinion, of course...

[B. W.]

I presume that "of" is actually "or". Other than that, I didn't say my vision was pratical. Sane...well,I think it is. Now, if you ask me something like hey-why-don't-you-eat-poison-since-you-don't-really-know-whether-it-kills-you-or-not?, you may think you got me with my life philosophy, but not necessarily. Yes, I don't eat poison. But that's not because I know it will kill me; it's because I BELIEVE it will kill me. That's the blind faith I'm talking about. I never tested poison myself, but I believe it will kill me. The thing is: I believe we can't know the truth, so I live like anybody else can live: having my faiths. And some of my faiths will be wrong, that's for sure. But so will some of your faiths. This is we, humans: hopeless creatures which sometimes think they know better but, in the end, are as lost as everyone around them.

In my opinion, of course...

Do you enjoy Soda Pop? Pepsi or Coke? Mountain Dew or Dr Pepper?

Hmmm hmmm Monsanto's is sooo goood for us all!
-
-
-