Ever notice how atheists are virtually always on the opposite side from God on many issues?

[F1fan]

Then you agree that truth is relative to the believer, no?

No, truth is both observed (which isn't a matter of judgment) and determined by following evidence using the rules of logic. By following the rules the human thinker can come to valid conclusions. They can both conclude a proposition is true or false. If there is a lack of evidence the thinker realizes there isn't adequate evidence to form a valid conclusion, and so the default is deferred to, which is rejection of the claim/proposition. It is evidence that moves a conclusion by using logic.

Because each uses the same logic and reasoning processes to reach conclusions that fit within their system of reality.

But many people don't. They confuse their casual thinking as sound reasoning. Sloppy thinking can only be useful to an extent, but it isn't reliable nor trustworthy. They can make assumptions, and misinterpret evidence and/or experiences as being adequate to make a conclusion. Notice there are fallacies in logic and these are often pointed out when people make mistakes of judgment in these debates. So many believe they are using logic but in fact they are using flawed thinking. This is the advantage of being a skilled thinker.

 

[F1fan]

What you call "facts" are in actuality "factual illusions".

So it's not a fact that sodium and choloride are elements? It's not a fact that they are poisonous to humans? It's not a fact that mixed together they make table salt?

For facts you should refer to Quantum Mechanics and its sister theories on Metaphysics, thus freeing your pitiful soul from delusion.

Why do I need these when facts still work in reality? And metaphysics isn't science nor offers true information about how things are.

Perhaps that was a bit harsh. But it is what you get when you show nothing but ignorance and disgrace.

You are upset. Instead of explaining how you are correct you insult me.

Once again, the Ontological Paradox of existence is all you need consider.

Not metaphysics?

Consider that reality contains all and only that which exists. A refinement on the tautology that reality contains all and only that which is real. The initial tautology.

And thus far no gods.

Now, what is the relevance of perception as an isolated process in all this?

Notice that as of this morning my intelligence has elevated from mere gifted to genius and counting.

I know there is a God.

A genius would prove it.

Do you?

I have no idea what you think God is. With thousands of different gods, and no believers agreeing on what God is, including you, how can I make any judgment? You believers are so confused that the word "God" is rather meaningless. Why don't you believers get together a decide what God is, then get back to us critical thinkers.

 

[Ostronomos]

So it's not a fact that sodium and choloride are elements? It's not a fact that they are poisonous to humans? It's not a fact that mixed together they make table salt?

Why do I need these when facts still work in reality? And metaphysics isn't science nor offers true information about how things are.

You are upset. Instead of explaining how you are correct you insult me.

Not metaphysics?

And thus far no gods.

A genius would prove it.

And I did. Please.... refer to my thread in Philosophy.

See ya.

With thousands of different gods, and no believers agreeing on what God is, inclusing you, how can I make any judgment? You believers are so confused that the word "God" is rather meaningless. Why don't you believers get together a decide what God is, then get back to us critical thinkers.

 

[F1fan]

And I did. Please.... refer to my thread in Philosophy.

See ya.

Apparently it wasn't so groundbreaking that it made world news. Given many of your other posts I suspect you have created a flawed argument for god existing, and use liberal heaps of assumptions.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And I did. Please.... refer to my thread in Philosophy.

See ya.

What thread? It helps to include that rather than leave us hanging.

 

[Windwalker]

If they have no better evidence than any other gods, you are likely correct.

No. You simply do not understand what the function and role the mythologies play in actual human evolution. It's not "bad science". It's for another purpose, which is what I and others are trying to explain. They have validity in other words, but you have to let go of this silly notion that only a scientific view of life and reality is where truth and growth may be found.

I didn't see any reference that states Theravada Buddhism includes deities.

I offered it the same post, but maybe I didn't provide the link to the article on Theravada which lists its cosmology. You can see they believe in gods: Theravada - Wikipedia

The Pāli Tipiṭaka outlines a hierarchical cosmological system with various planes existence (bhava) into which sentient beings may be reborn depending on their past actions. Good actions lead one to the higher realms, bad actions lead to the lower realms.[110][111] However, even for the gods (devas) in the higher realms like Indra and Vishnu, there is still death, loss and suffering.[112]​

​

So are you going to now say that Theravada Buddhism is woo woo too? It really isn't an "Atheist religion" as you can clearly see. They just don't have a "creator god", and reject practices of offering sacrifices to the gods. But their cosmology certainly if full of what you as a modern atheist might call "woo woo". Which point I completely reject as valid, BTW.

Most all religions, including Buddhism, were created because they will appeal to human psychology.

Sure, so does atheism. Psychology and spirituality go hand in hand, which is why I find Integral Metatheory, which I didn't invent, to be so powerful in its explanatory models. It embraces psychology and spirituality and a wide net of all the sciences and spiritual practices of the world over in its highly researched and support maps and models.

It appears to be something you created? Is that correct?

Oh goodness no. It is the work of those far more intelligent and well-read, with scores of academics and researchers contributing. All of which I provided a link to in that post. Didn't you see it there?

If so I notice you make a lot of claims that to my rational mind suspects it is not really describing reality as it is setting the stage for a "woo-woo" advocate to claim an understanding that isn't fact-based, nor confirmable via reason.

Well, your rational mind is failing you miserably here. It is all well-researched, documented, with zero "woo woo" crapola in it. I provided one link of many possible links in that thread, which I'll provide again here for you and a brief very high-level explanatory excerpt from it to ensure it doesn't get skipped. The New Integral Theory Essentials Page

What is Integral Theory?​

WILBER BOOKS​

The word integral comes from Integral Theory, a contemporary leading edge approach from the field of consciousness studies, psychology, research supported spirituality, and social sciences. As a prime understanding framework for human behavior integral theory is also applied to organizations, leadership, business, ecology, and other areas of life. The founder of Integral Theory is contemporary American thinker and writer Ken Wilber who is often regarded as “the Einstein of consciousness” and some think his work is as much a game changer for the 21st century as Freud was for the 20th century in psychology or Einstein in physics.​

​

What is so special about Wilber’s integral approach, and what makes many people be interested in it in all continents is that it is a metatheory. That means that it is not merely a subjective theory of one person, but it integrates 100+ well established and time tested theories in the field of consciousness, psychology, meditative traditions, philosophy and sociology. Due to this wide integrative nature, it is the most inclusive, encompassing theory that we know of today, in other words the one that brings together the most number of players from the field and integrates it into a new, holistic and rationally based model of reality.​

​

Integral theory has five major topics:​

​

• Evolution and the 4 Quadrants of reality
• The Stages of Development also called levels.
• The Lines of Development
• The States of Consciousness
• And Types of Personality, and other types

Now while this talks about Wibler's works, this is far more than Wilber himself. Wilber's Integral Theory draws from those like Clare Graves' Spiral Dynamics, Jean Gebser, Developmental psychologists, etc, who all have been looking into these areas integrating Western Enlightenment sciences, with Eastern Enlightenment philosophies in maps that are cross-cultural. These are anything but New Age woo-woo nonsense. They are highly sophisticated models based on well-researched and supported studies using modern scientific methodologies.

Integral is a stage of development that follows postmodernism, which follows Modernity, which follows Mythic traditionalism, which follows Magic tribalism, etc, in human evolution. They all show clear common structures, and clear stage developmental shifts throughout history, and in the very lifetimes of individuals living today shown in multiple developmental models of multiple different lines of development, which can be read about in the work of Developmental Psychologist Howard Gardner.

And so on and so forth. Far too much to cover in a few short posts. Suffice it to say, this is not 'woo woo', and anyone who calls it that clearly is struggling with what that actually means. I don't consider that really supportable at all, and is itself irrational and not critical thinking in the least.

BTW, here's a great little primer to the AQAL model of Wilber which is a work of genius. This Metamodernist person who creates a lot of highly informative philosophy posts talks about it here. Should you wish to wet your feet in the incredible rich fertile soil of Integral philosophy. I draw from Integral extensively in my own thought and experiences I talk about.

It strikes me as a way to create beliefs that are presumably above reason ONLY because you say so.

That's only because you didn't read what I posted, or the supporting links. Hopefully this time you'll roll up your sleeves a little and dig deeper. I really recommend that video I posted just now about the 4 Quadrants.

If that is the case how could you form this explanation? Where is your test in reality?

The tons of researchers all of this is based upon. That's where.

Where does he say that Theravada includes gods in its tradition? This was supposed to rebut my statement.

Theravada is included in that, as provided in the description of their cosmology above, with supporting link to their scriptures.

How can Christianity exist without dogma?

As a philosophy of love for living, rather that a set of uniform doctrinal statements one must swear allegiance to.

The ideal form is non-theistic. I say this meaning an ideal form of any religion, or point of view, or theory in science, etc. would be only based on facts.

Facts, schmaks. First off, non-theism is no more "facts-based" than theism is. It's still a faith view. A religion should be heart-based, not "head-based", regardless of if they have gods or not. Certainly Buddhism is all about Compassion, as is supposed to be Christianity. But being heart-based doesn't mean you throw out reason. You simply don't do love through reason, any more than you do science through love. These are complementary to each other, not competitors! Science is about reason. Religion is about love (or supposed to be).

The ideal from a believer's persepctive is a Christianity with tens of thousands of sects, because that is the buffet Christians want, anything goes, take what looks tasty and self-satisfying to you as "truth", and leave the rest.

The ideal is all serving the ideal of "love your neighbor as yourself", which embracing the diversity of our myriad expressions of unique individuality, rather than try to force comforty of our ideas about God through doctrinal force.

I haven't had time yet.

Hopefully as you do, you'll find it as intellectually compelling as I do.

 

[Windwalker]

No, truth is both observed (which isn't a matter of judgment) and determined by following evidence using the rules of logic.

And you're missing the 3rd variable. Truth which is observed and reasoned and filtered through the lens or framework of our systems of language and current developmental stages. Now you're talking truth. Reality is a meditated affair. We don't go straight from observation to understanding.

By following the rules the human thinker can come to valid conclusions.

Correct. And those valid conclusions vary depending upon the frameworks of reality you are filtering them through.

Do you believe that the understanding of the world seen through the eyes of a 5 year old is invalid, because it's not the world seen through the eyes of a 50 year old? Is a 5 year old a broked 50 year old? No. We simply understand it as the world seen through the eyes of a 5 year old. They aren't defective.

They can both conclude a proposition is true or false.

Correct. But if you were to go back in time to before the invention of the telescope and told everyone the earth orbits the sun, you would be speaking a falsehood to them. Then you would have been wrong, but today you are right. And then tomorrow, who knows, truth to you know may become and untruth to you then as the interpretative lenses we use change.

Now you may try to say, but we all know it's true! But don't forget, it was true them too. Our ideas of what is truth, is not so fixed as we all like to imagine it to be.

But many people don't. They confuse their casual thinking as sound reasoning. Sloppy thinking can only be useful to an extent, but it isn't reliable nor trustworthy.

No doubt, even in prescientific days you had sloppy thinkers. God knows we have our share of them today. Just tune in to Fox News, and you'll have more than ample examples.

 

[F1fan]

And you're missing the 3rd variable. Truth which is observed and reasoned and filtered through the lens or framework of our systems of language and current developmental stages. Now you're talking truth. Reality is a meditated affair. We don't go straight from observation to understanding.

Your third variable is a basic necessity, because the alternative is a person in a coma. To learn reasoning skill requires a verson having acquired a language, and of course the level of sophistication requires a certain intelligence and maturity. We are usually referring to adults here. But even mature adults with a learned framework and language may not have critical thinking skills. Their reality will be compromized, and to a critical thinker their framework is more likely fantasy than real.

Correct. And those valid conclusions vary depending upon the frameworks of reality you are filtering them through.

False. Valid conclusions follow evidence regardless of an individuals framework. The reason a person might distort their reasoning could be due to them having a framework that facts threaten, and their thinking will be biased, and not valid. Reasoning requires thinkers set aside bias and preference if they want valid conclusions. An example is prosecutors who are convinced an arrested person is guilty of a crime, and despite growing evidence that they didn't do it they remain defiant. Falsely accused and convicted people are in many prisons and some have been released due to work by the Innocence project.

Do you believe that the understanding of the world seen through the eyes of a 5 year old is invalid, because it's not the world seen through the eyes of a 50 year old?

Yes, if the aim is to understand what is true about how things are. You might be 50 and still believe in Santa, but I don't. We know the 5 year old has flawed beliefs, so we don't have to compare the two.

Is a 5 year old a broked 50 year old? No. We simply understand it as the world seen through the eyes of a 5 year old. They aren't defective.

Who says it is?

Correct. But if you were to go back in time to before the invention of the telescope and told everyone the earth orbits the sun, you would be speaking a falsehood to them.

Irrelevant to us in the 21st century. Will you go back in time and make fun of them with your superior knowledge, pointing out how little they know?

Then you would have been wrong, but today you are right. And then tomorrow, who knows, truth to you know may become and untruth to you then as the interpretative lenses we use change.

That's why we have exverts in the many fields of science doing work. I will defer to their expertise and their reporting as authoritative on the matters.

Now you may try to say, but we all know it's true! But don't forget, it was true them too. Our ideas of what is truth, is not so fixed as we all like to imagine it to be.

Sure, we are all living in the moment we are. No need to judge the past, or ourselves to the future.

No doubt, even in prescientific days you had sloppy thinkers. God knows we have our share of them today. Just tune in to Fox News, and you'll have more than ample examples.

I suggest that in the 70's and 80's the American citizen was fairly well informed with reliable reporting. Today there is a buffet of garbage options, and many lack the skills to recognize bad sources, and it's doubly bad since the media satifies basic emotional needs. Almost like Adam and Eve being tempted by the Serpent to consume ideas that lead to very negative results. I wish schools required critical thinking skills, but oddly there is little motivation to do it.

 

[Windwalker]

Your third variable is a basic necessity, because the alternative is a person in a coma. To learn reasoning skill requires a verson having acquired a language, and of course the level of sophistication requires a certain intelligence and maturity. We are usually referring to adults here. But even mature adults with a learned framework and language may not have critical thinking skills. Their reality will be compromized, and to a critical thinker their framework is more likely fantasy than real.

I'm still talking about something you're not quite hearing yet. Coming back to these different levels, or structures of consciousness as Gebser first defined them, which are recognized by other developmentalist in multiple areas of human growth. Think of these like different floors in a tall building. The 2nd floor is the magic stage floor. The 3rd floor, the mythic or traditionalist stage; the 4th the rational or the modernist stage floor; the 5th the pluralistic or postmodernist stage floor; the 6th the integral or post-postmodernist stage floor, etc.

On each of those floors, you have various objects of furniture that you can arrange and re-arrange in whatever way suits the needs of those living and functioning on that floor. Each floor has different types of furniture to suit the needs of those living on those floors as they are doing new and more advanced operations on those higher floors. And the view from the windows on those higher floors, sees further out over the landscape, taking in more view than what those on the lower-level floor can see.

Now bearing this analogy in mind, I'll try to explain this more clearly. Critical thinking skills, using the human mind to reason and deduce better uses of the furniture and rearranging them is something that each person on each floor has to learn how to do. Being a critical thinker, being logical, is clearly happening on each of the floors, applied to the tools or furniture they have available to them on that floor. You can have idiots and geniuses on each of the floors.

The language I was speaking about is different on each floor. They have different vocabularies and uses of syntax and meanings. They see the world differently because of their language. It creates different ideas and frameworks through which they see and experience the world. It is literally living in a different world in how the world is experienced and seen by them.

Pay attention to what I just changed my signature lines to my posts to say now, quoting from the philosopher Wittgenstein. "The limits of my language means the limits of my world".

That is very true. A person whose language of the world is all gods and goddesses, sees the world as a mythic reality, rules and controlled by external supernatural beings. They cannot conceive of a scientific reality, because that reality as seen through the language of science and reason, does not fit easily or comfortably with a view of the world seen through the lens, or language systems of of a mythic-stage reality.

Rather than continue to my next thought here, I want to check in and see if what I said is beginning to make sense to you?

False. Valid conclusions follow evidence regardless of an individuals framework.

Not true. They are considered to be valid conclusion, if they comport within the framework the person is using. A valid move in checkers however, is not a valid move in playing chess.

You are taking what are considered a valid move in a game of checkers, and applying the rules of chess (the framework or language of science and reason), to it and saying "You can't jump a piece and simply remove it from that board like that!". While true for chess, it's not true for checkers.

The reason a person might distort their reasoning could be due to them having a framework that facts threaten, and their thinking will be biased, and not valid.

Close. What it is is the system of science and modernity, with its language, doesn't fit well in the mythic stage reality or language system. It's not their particular beliefs that are at issue, but their entire stage itself is not the next stage, and that creates a conflict.

Think of that like a 13 year old yelling at a 9 year old for acting like a child. Duh!! They are a child! It's actually the 13 year old that is in the wrong there. And that is my issue with neo-atheist/anti-theists talking about how stupid and dumb mythic beliefs in God are.

To me, they are both still children in their thinking, but the difference is, I see that those are both stages of growth. Each are right, and each are wrong in thinking they alone see reality as it really is. They are mistaking their views of the world, with the world itself. And this is where that other quote from Wittgenstein fits in:

"Our intelligence has fallen under the bewitchment of language and we have deceived ourselves into thinking we know what we are talking about."​

Reasoning requires thinkers set aside bias and preference if they want valid conclusions.

Yes, but are you really doing that? From my perspective I don't see that. Eveyone is by default biased by the shape of the lens of reality they are looking though. That lens is the glasses of language itself. Words define reality, and become reality to us. And if ideas don't fit into those definitions provided by the words we see as the world itself, then we exclude it.

OUr eyes are biased, unconsciously by language to the point we simply don't recognize it is even there. We forget we are looking through glasses the whole time. "The limits of my language means the limits of my world"

 

[F1fan]

I'm still talking about something you're not quite hearing yet. Coming back to these different levels, or structures of consciousness as Gebser first defined them, which are recognized by other developmentalist in multiple areas of human growth. Think of these like different floors in a tall building. The 2nd floor is the magic stage floor. The 3rd floor, the mythic or traditionalist stage; the 4th the rational or the modernist stage floor; the 5th the pluralistic or postmodernist stage floor; the 6th the integral or post-postmodernist stage floor, etc.

On each of those floors, you have various objects of furniture that you can arrange and re-arrange in whatever way suits the needs of those living and functioning on that floor. Each floor has different types of furniture to suit the needs of those living on those floors as they are doing new and more advanced operations on those higher floors. And the view from the windows on those higher floors, sees further out over the landscape, taking in more view than what those on the lower-level floor can see.

Now bearing this analogy in mind, I'll try to explain this more clearly. Critical thinking skills, using the human mind to reason and deduce better uses of the furniture and rearranging them is something that each person on each floor has to learn how to do. Being a critical thinker, being logical, is clearly happening on each of the floors, applied to the tools or furniture they have available to them on that floor. You can have idiots and geniuses on each of the floors.

The language I was speaking about is different on each floor. They have different vocabularies and uses of syntax and meanings. They see the world differently because of their language. It creates different ideas and frameworks through which they see and experience the world. It is literally living in a different world in how the world is experienced and seen by them.

Pay attention to what I just changed my signature lines to my posts to say now, quoting from the philosopher Wittgenstein. "The limits of my language means the limits of my world".

That is very true. A person whose language of the world is all gods and goddesses, sees the world as a mythic reality, rules and controlled by external supernatural beings. They cannot conceive of a scientific reality, because that reality as seen through the language of science and reason, does not fit easily or comfortably with a view of the world seen through the lens, or language systems of of a mythic-stage reality.

Rather than continue to my next thought here, I want to check in and see if what I said is beginning to make sense to you?

Nothing you write here is new to me. I don’t know why you assume I don’t understand these things. This is all elementary understanding of how our world works. Of course different people will have different experiences and beliefs due to social learning. And there is individual nature that differs.

More this eve

 

[Windwalker]

Nothing you write here is new to me. I don’t know why you assume I don’t understand these things. This is all elementary understanding of how our world works. Of course different people will have different experiences and beliefs due to social learning. And there is individual nature that differs.

More this eve

Based upon your responses and the things you say in regards to those who see the world through a different interpretive framework, it gives that impression. Now that you state you understand this, then communication should prove easier.

Do you accept the relative nature of truth then, based upon this understanding? That how truth is seen and valued is shaped not just by their culture, but by their individual stage of development as well? Do you find truth in this statement, "The limits of my language means the limits of my world"? And do you find that statement applies to yourself and your own views of truth and reality as well?

 

[F1fan]

Based upon your responses and the things you say in regards to those who see the world through a different interpretive framework, it gives that impression. Now that you state you understand this, then communication should prove easier.

Im not sure what statements i made that you interpret that way, but anyone can understand that those who hold irrational beliefs are wrong about many things. It’s their truth, but it is a “truth” built on falsehoods. This includes Christians who interpret Genesis literally while Jews don’t. This Interpretation is not based on facts or reasoning, yet otherwise fully functional adults believe it. So this tells us to be careful in our interpretations of any source or experience.

Do you accept the relative nature of truth then, based upon this understanding? That how truth is seen and valued is shaped not just by their culture, but by their individual stage of development as well?

Are you being serious? Who doesn’t accept this? Even creationists do, only they think science is dogma and irrational instead of their “truth”. The point isn’t that there are many individuals who have personal “truths”, it’s a matter of how close go being TRUE they are. As we observe there are a great many folks who believe in sets of ideas that are far from being true. And that is what I question: why believe ideas that can’t be supported by evidence?

Do you find truth in this statement, "The limits of my language means the limits of my world"? And do you find that statement applies to yourself and your own views of truth and reality as well?

Partially. This would apply to knowledge, and for some who seek a conceptual identity, who they think they are. As an artist language plays some part but it isn’t what limits where i want to go. So the context of Witgenstein (was that who you cited?) i’d have to know more. My world is rational and creative so not totally bound by language. And as far as language goes I am able to expand my vocabulary as needed. So no limitations, except time.

 

[Windwalker]

Im not sure what statements i made that you interpret that way, but anyone can understand that those who hold irrational beliefs are wrong about many things. It’s their truth, but it is a “truth” built on falsehoods.

That's the kind of statement that makes me see that you don't understand what I'm talking about. You say it's their truth, but it's based on falsehoods. My argument is that if it is consistent with available truths as they understand them to be, given that particular framework or stage through which they see reality, it is not based on falsehoods to them.

They aren't necessarily being sloppy with facts. Their reasoning may in fact be perfectly sound, yet their conclusions may be error to those who understand larger contexts, through larger frameworks. My point is that their reasoning isn't irrationaol, wrong, or based on falsehoods. You claim because you see it differently from a larger context, they are being irrational when they are not. So far, nothing you are saying is showing me you recognize this.

This includes Christians who interpret Genesis literally while Jews don’t. This Interpretation is not based on facts or reasoning, yet otherwise fully functional adults believe it. So this tells us to be careful in our interpretations of any source or experience.

Again, you are looking at this through a higher stage of development. Do you believe children are irrational idiots because they don't see what you as a mature adult can given your stage of development?

I think what you may struggle with here, is that one's biological age, is not an indication of their maturity and sophistication in certain areas. We are all children in our thinking, limited in what we are able to recognize or comprehend, not based upon our biological ages, but based upon our developmental stages in that particular area of life.

When it comes to the line of spiritual intelligence for instance, a great many people still think within that mythic-literal stage. I wonder if this might be why you keep assuming they are functioning at the same level as you are, or that they should be and their only issue is they aren't being rational critical thinkers like you, that they are not looking at the evidence clearly as you are?

Are you being serious? Who doesn’t accept this?

Of course I am serious. I believe that most people assume that there thoughts about reality are what reality actually is. That's the general rule, not the exception.

Even creationists do, only they think science is dogma and irrational instead of their “truth”.

They absolutely do not accept relativism or recognize its validity in the least bit. They see themselves as right and everyone else as lost. They assume all religions are lost, because they see themselves as right. And the reason that see science as irrational, is because to them, given their framework of reality, it cannot and does not fit, and therefore it's crazy or a lie.

You on the other hand recognize that they are not thinking at your level, because you can recognize in your own history how you used to think in those terms, at some point in live anyway, at some age, and see the difference between an earlier stage mythic/magic thinking level, and your own newer more sophisticated or advanced rationalist critical thinker level. Why they see what you are doing as irrational, is because it is quite literally beyond them, or over their heads. But you see them as irrational because you expect that should be able to think in the same terms as you because the evidence makes all this perfectly clear to you.

That's recognizing relativism. Truth is relative to the stage of development they are at. They are playing checkers, and you are playing chess. But you see the same black and white squares board, so you assume they are playing the same game as you, and should know better. Right?

The point isn’t that there are many individuals who have personal “truths”, it’s a matter of how close go being TRUE they are.

No, it's not personal truths, I'm talking about. I'm talking about collective realities, shared languages, levels of development that makes them have common modes of thinking, seeing, translating, and experiencing reality. These are "collective consciousness" matters. "Consensus realities", is another great term to see these as. Truth to us is largely filtered through our collective cultural frameworks, "Mythic" is one mode. "Rational" is another. And so forth.

As we observe there are a great many folks who believe in sets of ideas that are far from being true. And that is what I question: why believe ideas that can’t be supported by evidence?

I've argued to no avail, that to them, they believe they have the evidence. Otherwise, they wouldn't believe it. But evidence to them, is not sufficient evidence to those at your stage. They are on floors 2 and 3, you are on floor 4. They aren't on the same floor. They are living in different realities, created by their language and modes of perception and translation. It's not just a different language for the same thing, but a different kind of reality altogether.

Partially. This would apply to knowledge, and for some who seek a conceptual identity, who they think they are. As an artist language plays some part but it isn’t what limits where i want to go. So the context of Witgenstein (was that who you cited?) i’d have to know more. My world is rational and creative so not totally bound by language. And as far as language goes I am able to expand my vocabulary as needed. So no limitations, except time.

This is complex to convey what is meant. For now, let's see if what is said above is understood first, which so far I'm not hearing it yet.

 

[Ostronomos]

Im not sure what statements i made that you interpret that way, but anyone can understand that those who hold irrational beliefs are wrong about many things.

Your statement is devoid of logic. As an exclusively rational worldview does not lead to truth and light. But neither does irrationality. Sometimes they are but two sides of the same coin. For truth, you need only God. Consider the following logical fact that highlights the importance of seeing the logic of God:

The atheist falls prey to a type of logic that resides in the illusory trap correctly defined as "the matrix" and are blinded by materialist delusion.

So now considering this perfectly logical statement, I invite you to look beyond the matrix and towards God. Even if your tiny brain cannot fathom the depths of God, good and love.

It’s their truth, but it is a “truth” built on falsehoods.

See above.

This includes Christians who interpret Genesis literally while Jews don’t. This Interpretation is not based on facts or reasoning, yet otherwise fully functional adults believe it. So this tells us to be careful in our interpretations of any source or experience.

Who is this "group of adults" to which you righteously (OOPS! I mean disgracefully) exclude yourself from? Are any of them smarter than you?

Are you being serious? Who doesn’t accept this? Even creationists do, only they think science is dogma and irrational instead of their “truth”.

Incorrect. I, for one, use science as a tool to shed light of the fact of God's existence.

The point isn’t that there are many individuals who have personal “truths”, it’s a matter of how close go being TRUE they are. As we observe

It's interesting that you use the word "observe". Did you know that reality is observing itself through us? That makes it self-observational.

OOPS. There I go again being "irrational".

there are a great many folks who believe in sets of ideas that are far from being true. And that is what I question: why believe ideas that can’t be supported by evidence?

Simply because they are supported by not only evidence, but logic as well.

Pity you don't see that. But then again, what do you see?

Partially. This would apply to knowledge, and for some who seek a conceptual identity, who they think they are. As an artist language plays some part but it isn’t what limits where i want to go. So the context of Witgenstein (was that who you cited?) i’d have to know more. My world is rational and creative so not totally bound by language. And as far as language goes I am able to expand my vocabulary as needed. So no limitations, except time.

Your art probably sucks.

Even Witgenstein's theories on language are incomparable to Langan's Metaformal System. Go read it. It scientifically provides logic for God.

Oops. There I go again being "irrational".

 

[F1fan]

Your statement is devoid of logic.

Why would it? It wasn't anything that required logic. But it is ironic that you accuse me of statements devoid of logic.

As an exclusively rational worldview does not lead to truth and light.

I disagree. Using reason and being rooted in what is real allows a human mind to exist in a real and authentic state, not some ideological or overly conceptual framework that is little more than an illusion. What cognitive method do you use that is more reliable and truthful than one that is objective and follows facts? That brings a person into the light, not some illusion that suffocates a mind in darkness.

But neither does irrationality.

You can't have it both ways, you are a thinking being.

Sometimes they are but two sides of the same coin. For truth, you need only God.

There are no gods known to exist. That is the dqrk illusion I was referring to.

Consider the following logical fact that highlights the importance of seeing the logic of God:

The atheist falls prey to a type of logic that resides in the illusory trap correctly defined as "the matrix" and are blinded by materialist delusion.

This isn't a factual statement, it's a claim. You offer no evidence that it's true. You don't explain how any gods exist, nor that there is any logic in the idea.

So now considering this perfectly logical statement, I invite you to look beyond the matrix and towards God. Even if your tiny brain cannot fathom the depths of God, good and love.

There is nothing to respond to because the statement isn't logical or true, it's a baseless claim.

Who is this "group of adults" to which you righteously (OOPS! I mean disgracefully) exclude yourself from? Are any of them smarter than you?

I wrote this:

This includes Christians who interpret Genesis literally while Jews don’t. This Interpretation is not based on facts or reasoning, yet otherwise fully functional adults believe it. So this tells us to be careful in our interpretations of any source or experience.​

Why are confused about who I was referring to? And why did you not a offer a rebuttal if I am incorrect?

Incorrect. I, for one, use science as a tool to shed light of the fact of God's existence.

Yet you can't articulate any of this in your posts. It's almost as if you are bluffing.

It's interesting that you use the word "observe". Did you know that reality is observing itself through us? That makes it self-observational.

Again you are avoiding my point, so I guess you agree that many people have personal "truths" that aren't true.

Simply because they are supported by not only evidence, but logic as well.

Not in a way believers articulate. Believers in irrational ideas might believe they have evidence and use logic, but there is no defense against critical thinkers who expose that they don't, including your claims.

Pity you don't see that. But then again, what do you see?

That believers in implausible ideas lack evidence.

Your art probably sucks.

Ah, a little insult to make yourself feel better. Is this how you show the forum that you found light? I suggest you slow down and introspect on why you are upset.

Even Witgenstein's theories on language are incomparable to Langan's Metaformal System. Go read it. It scientifically provides logic for God.

Well, that is your framework to sort out.

Oops. There I go again being "irrational".

Yet not a single word on showing the forum how you are correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What you call "facts" are in actuality "factual illusions". For facts you should refer to Quantum Mechanics and its sister theories on Metaphysics, thus freeing your pitiful soul from delusion.

Perhaps that was a bit harsh. But it is what you get when you show nothing but ignorance and disgrace.

Once again, the Ontological Paradox of existence is all you need consider.

Consider that reality contains all and only that which exists. A refinement on the tautology that reality contains all and only that which is real. The initial tautology.

Now, what is the relevance of perception as an isolated process in all this?

Notice that as of this morning my intelligence has elevated from mere gifted to genius and counting.

I know there is a God.

Do you?

No, you have only demonstrated that you have a belief in a god. When it comes to the sciences you only show that all you have is word salad and a woo woo "understanding" of Quantum Mechanics. You also regularly use an appeal to false authority with your personal hero who only spews more of the same.

 

[muhammad_isa]

OK, you've never heard about compartmentalism.

You seem to be missing the point. A person can be a skilled thinker, but not apply this skill to ideas that have significant social and familial motives.

They can .. but assuming that most intelligent people actually do that, implies
that the majority are not sincere.
I have not found that to be the case.

..I have heard some very smart people claim to be devout believers, but I have never seen any explanation about why they believe.

You wouldn't understand it if they tried to explain it to you.
There is clearly some underlying psychological reason for assuming the worst of people..
i.e. assuming faith is based on nothing but what might suit them, and not on sincerely seeking

 

[muhammad_isa]

. And yes, believers can use their intelligence. Only you are claiming that a person with irrational beliefs cannot use their intelligence.

I never said that..
In any case, who are you to say what is rational or irrational?

Now sometimes their beliefs are a huge handicap. For example you can see believers have problems with science quite frequently.

Right .. not everybody has a good academic background..

And the evidence shows that beliefs are cultural.

There are many creeds .. yes, they have tribal/cultural origin.
..but belief in God itself, is not about creed.

The problem is that they are probably all wrong..

NO! They are not all wrong.
The Abrahamic God exists, and He has caused some of among us to be messengers
to guide us.
The Christian Bible is a collection of scrolls .. it is based on truth, but rewritten by
scribes, who are not necessarily prophets.
The OT is less reliable than the NT, in that regard.
etc.

 

[muhammad_isa]

What's relevant is not my native intelligence, but having acquired skill at critical thought, a gift I prize highly.

You couldn't possess any such skill, without a basic skill for logic.
..maybe that is where you are going wrong..

I also value the sense that God Almighty has given me..

You're arguing that the large number of theists suggests that their god belief is reasoned. It's not, even if a majority of the world still believes in gods..

I would agree that most people follow the norms of their society.
We are not all "leading professors" .. and so?

People who give advice or make clinical decisions need to compartmentalize any magical thinking they do when on the job, which is common enough. But none of that makes their god belief justified.

No they don't!
You are implying that when they are doing their rounds, and treating patients, they are being rational..
..and when they have 10 minutes off to go and pray to God [5 times a day worship],
they are being irrational.

What???
They have a flip-switch in their head?

 

[muhammad_isa]

@It Aint Necessarily So just happens to be one of those people who can't accept magical, untestable and unevidenced premises as the right place to start..

..but we do NOT "start" from such premises..

We start from "why am I alive"?
"Why can I acknowledge existence, and feel"?
etc.