Who are the wisest members?

[KelseyR]

How does one prove objectively something that can be explained subjectively? I'm sure all of us can exhibit experience, knowledge and good judgement (all elements of wisdom) but even history has shown evil leaders have those same qualities as well.

It boils down to proper methodology- with regard for evidence and argument.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I'm not talking about 'Notable members'. This only means that they've posted a lot over a long period. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're knowledgeable, let alone wise.

I want to know who can perfectly reason that their belief is singularly true. Please contact me if you're serious.

Their belief about reality: what happens when we die. I'd think this would be obvious on a religious site.

I'm getting almost nothing but joking and committed to ignorance responses on this thread. Private seems the way to go.

What I can offer is, that it could be some members have access to wisdom not of their own. A wisdom that will resonate with a soul that is searching for all truth.

If you would like to explore that wisdom and see if it does answer some of, or all of your questions. Please ask and we will help source that wisdom for you. It would be answers from Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Writings.

Regards Tony

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I'm getting almost nothing but joking and committed to ignorance responses on this thread. Private seems the way to go.

Eh we probably went too far. The thread drew some good conversation and created friendships. These forums can be tense sometimes in the Debates, so it's good to unwind. Having a thread take off is the stuff dreams are made of - mine never do.

I am learning who the members are, so I'll maybe drop you a list if you're still interested.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Their belief about reality: what happens when we die. I'd think this would be obvious on a religious site.

As an example. We are told by Baha'u'llah that our reality is that of the Spirit. Death is a transition between this material state into our spiritual state. As to what happens in the Spiritual world, Baha'u'llah has said that this is not possible for us to understand while in the Matrix of this world.

Much like a yet to be fully formed fetus in the womb of the mother. We are not yet ready to transfer from this matrix to our spiritual existence.

Thus this life is about free will and choosing virtue and service to each other over selfish motives, they become our spiritual limbs and let us attain unto our true potential as a spiritual being.

Regards Tony

 

[Enoch07]

I'm getting almost nothing but joking and committed to ignorance responses on this thread. Private seems the way to go.

Apologies, we have taken our homoerotic conversations to another thread.

Sometimes these things just happen.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

It boils down to proper methodology- with regard for evidence and argument.

But why would I need methodology to prove something that is not universally true?

 

[wizanda]

I want to know who can perfectly reason that their belief is singularly true.

Since a be'lie've always contains a lie, generally it is best to deal with data we can show.

Belief has a lie, knowing is subjective, showing is objective.

In my opinion.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Their belief about reality: what happens when we die. I'd think this would be obvious on a religious site.

Really? You haven't been here long then?

 

[Father Heathen]

I'm getting almost nothing but joking and committed to ignorance responses on this thread. Private seems the way to go.

The solution? Post something that's worth taking seriously. Glad I could help.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Absolutely. It is a lesson I was taut in some ology.

Hee hee...

 

[Revoltingest]

On wisdom....
From one of my all time favorite movies,
Benny & Lou always come to mind.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm getting almost nothing but joking and committed to ignorance responses on this thread. Private seems the way to go.

Partly it has to do with your approach. You come on like a fundamentalist version of some modern secular belief system, but for all I know, you are a soft science grad student mining this forum for your PhD dissertation.

You come here to lead people to the correct path? Is that correct? Many of us have seen these claims so frequently, they are practically without meaning anymore. Without revealing personal information, tell us something about yourself, your positions and beliefs. Give us something to work with and build trust on.

Clearly you feel that a belief can be presented in some logical argument to show that it is true. What belief? Who made the argument. What was it?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm getting almost nothing but joking and committed to ignorance responses on this thread. Private seems the way to go.

Are you field testing ideas? Are you reviewing groups of people that frequent internet forums discussing religion? What do you want?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Partly it has to do with your approach. You come on like a fundamentalist version of some modern secular belief system, but for all I know, you are a soft science grad student mining this forum for your PhD dissertation.

You come here to lead people to the correct path? Is that correct? Many of us have seen these claims so frequently, they are practically without meaning anymore. Without revealing personal information, tell us something about yourself, your positions and beliefs. Give us something to work with and build trust on.

Clearly you feel that a belief can be presented in some logical argument to show that it is true. What belief? Who made the argument. What was it?

Sometimes one has to accept that we're volunteers in a certain sense as well, not paid to debate with people. I could spend a week writing a post, studying science and learning about it, and someone could mention make-up and it might turn into that. I try to make the reason I joined the forum pretty broad, so I would actually make the most of it and ask people if I would look good in make-up as a man.

I also don't think it's wrong for one to step up as the OP and say "Can we get back on-topic?" This isn't me projecting the responsibilities onto someone else, it's just you telling them you really don't have the interest in branching conversation.

I hope I don't really get interpreted as being insincere to the OP. I didn't feel like using my time and energy to go out of my way to provide a long list to be evaluated, I provided 3 suggestions only, after I got burnt out trying to help other people who have often rejected my help and left me feeling sad and lifeless. I will still help people, but I also have to evaluate to what extent they deserve my best time and energy.

We also have to respect the fact that even the wise members may not wish to be labelled wise or wish for too much extra attention.

So I do hope the OP can accept my apology. I don't really view this thread as ruined, it's been bumped enough for a lot of people to see the opening post.

 

[oldbadger]

I want to know who can perfectly reason that their belief is singularly true. Please contact me if you're serious.

I'm really really wise........... about where to find the mostest and bestest worms.

Badgers like worms.

Nobody else on this forum (apart from the other member called just 'Badger', clearly not as wise as me 'cos I'm older), is wise......... about worms.

 

[siti]

We don't allow wise people here. Makes the rest of us look bad.

Hey - is that you boss? I didn't know you were on here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sometimes one has to accept that we're volunteers in a certain sense as well, not paid to debate with people. I could spend a week writing a post, studying science and learning about it, and someone could mention make-up and it might turn into that. I try to make the reason I joined the forum pretty broad, so I would actually make the most of it and ask people if I would look good in make-up as a man.

I doubt that any thread that draws much attention or lasts longer than an afternoon, will not have some meandering in it. But I am curious about the OP and the intentions of that person. Some of that meandering is in response to the tenor and nature of the posts and that may be cut away by a little more information.

Clown makeup or women's makeup?

I also don't think it's wrong for one to step up as the OP and say "Can we get back on-topic?" This isn't me projecting the responsibilities onto someone else, it's just you telling them you really don't have the interest in branching conversation.

I agree. I have seen it done.

I hope I don't really get interpreted as being insincere to the OP. I didn't feel like using my time and energy to go out of my way to provide a long list to be evaluated, I provided 3 suggestions only, after I got burnt out trying to help other people who have often rejected my help and left me feeling sad and lifeless. I will still help people, but I also have to evaluate to what extent they deserve my best time and energy.

I think some of it is just catching the wave and some of it is directly in response to the OP for the reasons I have been trying to articulate.

We also have to respect the fact that even the wise members may not wish to be labelled wise or wish for too much extra attention.

That had occurred to me as well. I had some immediate ideas, but I do not think it is my place to put those people on the spot without asking them first. Not unless I wanted to have some fun with them and knew them well enough to know they would take it well.

So I do hope the OP can accept my apology. I don't really view this thread as ruined, it's been bumped enough for a lot of people to see the opening post.

I do not think it was ruined. I rather enjoyed talking about Alyssa Milano. I do not know how wise she is, but I enjoy her many attributes.

I hope you do not think my response was admonishing others for what I was equally engaged in, but rather my take on some of the reason behind those responses.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

II want to know who can perfectly reason that their belief is singularly true. Please contact me if you're serious.

Okay, let me try to go to your original theme, and you can judge whether I have any "wisdom."

Here's my take on the question of "who can perfectly reason that their belief is singularly true?" Nobody, because then it would no longer be a belief, but an established, incontrovertible fact. "Perfect" reasoning allows for the admission of no errors, nor the omission of contrary evidence, but most importantly, "perfect" reasoning does not permit foundational axioms to be potentially false. One can take, for example, the axiom "God is maximally good," but there is nothing in the world that gives the slightest hint that is true, and a great deal in the world that suggests it is not. Therefore, your "perfect reasoning" would have to omit that axiom. Along with, I'm sure you can see, a great many others.

However, I contend it is very often possible, for those who are willing to make the effort, to reason when a belief is in direct contradiction of reality, and having done so, come to the conclusion that that belief, at least, cannot be true, as held. Over my time here, I have given, many, many examples of beliefs that members have professed, where cold-hearted reasoning, based on the evidence before us, have shown those beliefs to be untenable. I'm not going to list them again, but will respond to anyone who asks, so long as the belief in question is clearly stated.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

My cognitive abilities are like a computer with a fast CPU but little RAM.

Actually, in many ways it can be shown that you have lots and lots of RAM, but a rather lopsided search mechanism. Here's a little experiment: have you ever heard or seen the word "strugence?" and what was the name of the supply teacher you had when your grade 6 teacher was ill?

The first is easy for you: you know instantly that you have not seen that word. No computer can do that trick without doing an exhaustive search of all its storage. The second is much harder, and yet any computer could manage it very quickly indeed. And this says something about how our brains store, and retrieve, memories. (And by the way, if somebody told you your supply teacher's name, you would very likely recognize it right away.)

Recognition and retrieval, apparently, are two very different things, in both the human brain and the silicon one.

(Edited to add: recognition in humans evolved so that we could instantly recognize threats and opportunities...this being a matter of survival. Computers, on the other hand, were designed by us to organize data in useful ways that could be manipulated for specific purposes, generally having nothing to do with survival.)

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Okay, let me try to go to your original theme, and you can judge whether I have any "wisdom."

Here's my take on the question of "who can perfectly reason that their belief is singularly true?" Nobody, because then it would no longer be a belief, but an established, incontrovertible fact. "Perfect" reasoning allows for the admission of no errors, nor the omission of contrary evidence, but most importantly, "perfect" reasoning does not permit foundational axioms to be potentially false. One can take, for example, the axiom "God is maximally good," but there is nothing in the world that gives the slightest hint that is true, and a great deal in the world that suggests it is not. Therefore, your "perfect reasoning" would have to omit that axiom. Along with, I'm sure you can see, a great many others.

However, I contend it is very often possible, for those who are willing to make the effort, to reason when a belief is in direct contradiction of reality, and having done so, come to the conclusion that that belief, at least, cannot be true, as held. Over my time here, I have given, many, many examples of beliefs that members have professed, where cold-hearted reasoning, based on the evidence before us, have shown those beliefs to be untenable. I'm not going to list them again, but will respond to anyone who asks, so long as the belief in question is clearly stated.

I've read some of your posts in the past and you seem to have a great conceptualization of things and subjects.