Jump to content

Lost_more_then_Once

Authentic Christian Believer
  • Content Count

    65
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About Lost_more_then_Once

  • Rank
    Doubter

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Story telling, faith, hope, inspiration
  • More About Me
    I am a Christian. Grew up with parents of different religions and looked for God on my own in my teens. Mid thirties, so I'm somewhat opinionated, just in the fact that I've formed them over the years, but I still try to be respectful, and open to at least listen.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    The Christian God. Our Father in Heaven

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Then this is a false hypothetical and why I said it would be better to have an actual case study and real situation to consider. I gave my answers, you didn't like them. Tough beans.
  2. And that stance is the one I will stand by. Consider it along the lines of "buyer beware" when someone is out shopping. If it's important enough for that person to know the product does what it claims to do, then they should look into it on their own. It's great if the sales person is honest and shows evidance that the product is actually good. However there are conmen and there are charlatans out there. If you really want to know if something is true or not it'll have to come down yo your own investigation anyways. If it doesn't matter enough though to investigate it that's also your call. Why investigate whether a blender can really help your health if you aren't going to buy it anyways (too expensive or just don't care).
  3. I assure you I do question my conclusions and the claims that are in them. It is from several observations in my life that I have have reached the conclusions that I have regarding God being real. The question of what counts as coming from God and what doesn't, I take seriously. Some people say they can hear God, and I hope they really can. But I don't believe them without more information. At best I usually let their claim fall on the conclusion that it might be possible, and leave it there. Sometimes I go farther then that because I have reason to doubt them, or what they say I can tell are off in some way or another. that said though, I think that with somethings the only way to tell if they are correct is if you give them a chance. Regardless of doubt or otherwise, suspend the doubt long enough to give it a chance. For example, look at a person who is trying a new food, that they think they won't like. If they never try it they could be right that they won't like it. But if they want yo really find out, they have to give it a chance anyways and actually try it. This concept I think is true in both mundane things like trying new foods, and extraordinary things like an expensive piece of equipment that hasn't been tested in real life (outside of a lab setting).
  4. How would you test my claims? What measure would you use? As far as I can tell the experiences I've observed are one time events. You can't reproduce them to test them. Or if you can reproduce them to text them I'm unaware how. In that aspect my claims must be rejected outright, or the must be considered as possible. If there's no way to test it then these are your alternatives. Again my observations are not subjective, they are observations. They either happened or they didn't. My conclusions based on my observations that can be argued and debated, but whether I have the facilities to know what's real and what isn't when I observe anything in life, that goes to the next level of suspecusion. That has been my constant point.
  5. Sorry if I missed the intent of the question or phrased it incorrectly. my practical advice for Josh would be to suspend both doubt and belief until more information is available. If both myself and a Muslim say the same claim concerning what God's done I. Our life, then it's quite possible that there is merit in that claim. After all this claim comes from two different perspectives. Neither one agrees with the other when it comes to religion. So if they both agree to an identical claim, that bolsters the merit of that claim. Again what Josh should to is suspend both doubt and belief until he has more information to assess it with. Think of it on the grounds that it's possible without committing to a stance of believing the claim or disbelieving the claim.
  6. @LogicalFallacy also directed me to this discussion. It looks interesting. I don't know if I can add anything to it without my bring a Christian becoming an issue to derail the topic. It's a point from seeing the replies of @TEG leads to the issue that my presence , regardless of my intentions, will be assumed as a negitive with negitive intentions. So perhaps I should leave on my own terms before the sentiment grows and people are reaching for their torchs and pitchforks. Nonetheless, while I haven't finished reading it, I have one thing to add to it. In my opinion there are around three tiers of measuring what is true and what isn't. The first tier is the lowest authority on measuring what's true from what isn't and that is our own ability to reason. Throughout history there have been some great thinkers that just through thinking hard on a matter (such as using a shadow measured twice in two locations as the means to use trigonometry and estimate the circumference of the earth), as well as in modern days with inductive and deductive logic used as a tool for solving crimes. What we are able to solve through logic and reasoning is a big aspect in measuring what's true and what's not. To give logic the best case it can, I will say our combined and collective reasoning makes this an awesome tool for finding the truth. Nonetheless, people don't always agree; and sometimes we can still be wrong, even if we agree and use the collective wisdom of great thinkers in the past and the present. So the next tier abou even our own reasoning is based on our senses and our observations. Our experiences will either confirm or correct our perspectives. But just as doubt doesn't say what is actually true, neither does experience say what the right answer is when we realize we were wrong. No matter what we will still need to process everything we learn from experience from the first tier of our ability to reason. Thus experience trumps philosophy in my opinion and has more weight and authority in determining what is true and what isn't. There is a third tier as well, (potientially just a category of more sources to measure the truth by), and that is anything that we hold as having more authority then our own life experiences, observations and measurable tests. If anything fits that category such as faith in a religion, or trust in tradition (because it's lasted this far whiteout falling apart), or it's something else entirely, this would be a catagory that you trust something in spite of not understanding it or not having it confirmed in your experience. This category should be very cautious before agreeing to trust it inspite of your understanding and observations. Perhaps nothing would fit in this category, or perhaps there are some things but they need to be chosen very carefully. ________________ As for doubt, I will still matin that you don't build anything from doubt. In the case of using doubt to see what's left it sounds like a refining process that uses intense fire and heat to melt away any imperfections from gold or glass. If you use it as a tool and part of a process that is great. But if doubt is on it's own, without measure and without purpose then it is like a wild fire. Sure you will see what is left, but you won't be able to build anything from it. (Or what you do build is very limited and of little value).
  7. Awesome answers! Both science and the law use doubt as an active tool in what they do. However in both cases I would still say that in both cases the doubt that is used is a means to tear away the things that are not true, or to protect the innocent from being found guilty without a good reason. Neither case do you build on the doubt to create a foundation. With the courts the assumption is innocent until proven guilty. That can be considered doubt on believing the prosecutor (from the prosecutor's point of view) but just as easily it can considered assumed innocence towards the defendant (from the defendant's point of view). In that situation the assumption is there to protect the defendant. But it isn't built on or added to it. The assumed doubt toward guilt has no foundation to sentence the defendant and thus has no foundation for the court system except to be an means of tearing down unreasonable accusations. It should be noted that the doubt assumed towards the prosecutor does not mean doubt assumed towards both the prosecutor and the defendant. The addumption is in favor of the defendant from the start. In science likewise, doubt is in the the stage of testing, and double checking hypothesizes and already made conclusions. You don't build on that doubt but you use that doubt as a tool to tear down the things that might be untrue or fail a test that measures it's claim.
  8. I'll have to take you're word on that Christians have done here in the past or on the schedule of things. But whether I'm into a corner or not, do my responses act as a person backed into a corner? I've already given you my assessment on your question, and told you to make your point honestly. The question from there is why haven't you? Here let me be clear, I assume that your point is to pit one verse in the bible against another, and see if I measure up to either. But the open endedness of the question can go further then that and badger my relationship with my parents as a whole instead. Asking what I should be doing and questioning any good qualities there are between my parents and myself. To to be clear I am not going to answer a sencere answer on how my relationship is with my parents if that is only a leading question to a theological point you could have made in the first place, nor on an open ended question that can be used to smear my relationship with my parents. If I know this and don't actively choose to answer a deceitful question sincerely, they why pretend to answer it at all? Thus again my standard. Say what you want to say honestly, and if I see merit in it I'll respond in kind.
  9. A political foundation in the way I meant it would be certian perspectives that are active in the political circles and effect how you things should be, regardless how they are or not. For instance if a person holds a political foundation that is centered around immigration (that it should be open because the country was started by immigrants; or that it should be further restricted to keep terrorists and other bad people out), then that foundation is the base on several other views they have, on actions they might take to support those views, and affect who they vote for. If it's important to them or it's something that other decisions are based on I'd count it as a foundation. A practical foundation on the other hand would be based on what works, and what works well. Instead of concerning about what is true, or what is moral, or any other attribute of right and wrong, the scope is based on "is this the best choice," or "does this work". What works and what works best would be the application of a practical foundation. I'd compare a practical foundation to a carpenter with a set of tools he can rely on. They get the job done without caring how the tools were made or if the tools are the real truth or the moral compass. I've look at that topic now, so thanks for pointing it out. Sill reading the posts in that discussion. Looks interesting. I think you've answered the question on a foundational perspective very well. No misunderstanding going on there. These three axioms look like they cover the ground on the topic of reality and what is real. And they look like a good sturdy foundation to stand on. As as for my questions, here would be my answers. • regarding intelect or humor, it's open ended on how you measure both. But for me on the few ways I could measure both they both seem hard pressed to choose one over the other. Therefore truthful my answer might change on this question more then once even before I finish answering it. •Regarding trust or understanding, again I think both are important and close in their importance. But in this case I'd say trust is more important. You trust a lot of people even if you don't understand them. •most impressive man made thing. This s might not be the most impressive to look at but society is built on having clean drinkable water readily available. So I'd say our infrastructure of clean water to any house built to recieve a line to the tap water is pretty impressive. •Most impressive in nature. I like your answer of life, but I think looking at the stars impresses me so much when I go outside at night and look up at the sky. So the stars are my answer. For now anyways. Thanks for answering, and thanks for asking in return.
  10. Hmm. But still the issue comes back to "how do you test it?" Think of a supernatural claim like a rare natural phenomon. For instance compare the supernatural claim that your house is haunted, with the rare claim that there are lights in the sky dancing as a natural phenomon. Now those dancing lights have been studied over the centuries, and because of this even if it is rare, there are tests on the claim of the dancing lights. Even to test on their rare occurance what are the causes behind them. Moving to ghost stories one person can say their house is haunted, but any haunted-like situation is rare. Therefore you might not see it when you come over to test it. Perhaps it's haunted only when the right conditions are met. At night when the owner of the house has his in ignition run wild about being in the dark. Perhaps the haunting only occures after a rainstorm and a leak in the roof eventually leads to a source of water dripping on something else that the owner hears in several rooms. Perhaps there is another explaination entirely but the cause is just as unknown because when the claim is tested it is never at the right time. Like the northern lights the symptoms of being haunted are rare never there when the claim is tested. I think anything can be tested to see if it has merit, but only if there's an oppurtunity to test it. Supernatural claims might not give that oppurtunity, even if your willing to test it a thousand times. On the other hand if you test something a thousand times it holds the argument that nothing is there stronger then if you don't test the claim at all. Nonetheless it can always come back to the question "how was it tested."
  11. Perhaps your right. However I feel strongly that a person should offer more to a conversation then just doubt. If they do not intend to do so in that other conversation then I think they should be pointed out the pitfalls of that hypocritical and opurtunistic stance. I disagree. Memory might not get all the details correct but I'd argue that it gets the job done fairly well, most of the time. One other interesting point I heard once was that nowadays holding a reliable memory has becoming a lost skill. Back before the printing press, and mass produced ink and paper, people had to remember more just because there wasn't an alternative. I don't know if that claim could ever be tested, but it is interesting and thought provoking. Regarding the bible, I've heard that the bible is held to more scrunity then any other ancient text. With that in mind it is held to higher standards and still comes out fairly well. With that in mind that makes the bible more reliable then any other text that we have of ancient times. If you want to doubt the gospels and the other texts in the bible, you should look for other reasons then the time it was recorded after the events. Having skeptisism as a tool is something I can agree with. But not skeptism to the point of blinding doubt or deafening cynicism. It has it's place. But no foundation can be built out of a person's doubt. They need to have a foundation that they don't continually throw doubt at while they do the same thing throwing doubt at the things they disagree with. It is with that observation that I call doubt a doctrine of opurtunistic hypocrisy. Is that so? And those who also base their beliefs on what they perceive? No, they are deluded aren't they? Rubbish indeed! You our are also free to disrespect whatever you want. Thank God we live in the US (for those of us that do) instead of China who polices everything, or in an Islamic country that actively hunts down people of different thoughts. if you think I am accosting you though @TEG, you can always let the conversations with me go. The Internet is full of things to focus on that could be a better use of your focus without me assaulting you as you see it. Or you can go the extra measure and ask for me to leave. See if that works too.
  12. Depends. How are you testing the claim? There are surveys and questionnaire that are designed and worded to get a certian response. Then after they send out the surveys the results come back that most people agreed with the view they are trying to push. If this is the way one kind of sampling test works then there would be scrunity on how tests in general are done. How you test a claim is important. If you test a thousand claims with a weighted and compnman's scale, then you will get the results you hope for every time. It will point to no truth, only to what you want to hear.
  13. Those of you interested I have a second thought for you. Because most of you would answer my thoughts, perspectives even my observations with the tag line "how do you know," I ask what are your thoughts, perspectives, and observations. I don't ask it as a means to turn the tables, I already know you apply the logic hypocritically, and that is not the focus I care about. But more so just to know what foundations that you do have. if you want to continue to try and get me to answer a challenge measured to spread doubt, then I first challenge you to put your answers to the topic of doubt in general. I've started a topic for that just now. take a gander and give your thoughts on it. (I won't respect your opinions on this current topic that try to cause doubt until you can at least attempt to breach the topic in the linked conversation on doubt). Or if you want a less challenging conversation, you can give some of the things you build your thoughts and perspectives off of. The things you hold reliable.
  14. Second guessing has it's place in anyone's life, and it can be a good means of correcting ourselves and our philosophies. However doubt has no foundation to build on. What it's good at is tearing down a person's convictions, trust, and even hopes down until there is nothing left. If the doubt has merit so be it. But what about the times when doubt doesn't have merit. When a person doesn't act on a relationship because "how do I know, really know, that they love me..." Or when a person is crippled with indecision, "I just can't be sure which is the right choice..." Or even a question of what they see, hear, taste or any other measure of our senses. Like telling a witness "memories are unreliable are you sure this is the man you saw?" The last example could potentially let a guilty man walk free if a convincing lawyer made a witness question their own testimony to the point they question if they know what they had for breakfast last week. My point is that there are times when doubt holds no cause and no merit. Yet when it comes to things people disagree with the doctrine of doubt is usually one of the first tactics that come up. "Are you sure," "how do you know," "there's no way to validate that..." Or even to go to the point of ridiculous hypotheticals to try to make a point and seed some doubt in a person's mind. I hear some wacky ones around voting time to say what might happen if the other guy gets into office. The doctrine of doubt (and it can be considered a doctrine because often the same lines are used over and over again, just applied to different a subject matter) can have merit though as well. To point out a real falsehood by looking at real inconsistencies, or to help a person out of blind love and see the person in front of them for who they really might be instead of who you imagine them to be, or several other situations that are common but not too common. Nonetheless there is one thing I have to say. More often then not doubt is used opportunistically and hypocritically. Creating a standard to doubt that nothing can live up to, and applying the standards of doubt only to things they disagree with or to people they want to be rid of. (Think of a man or woman seducing another person while also trying to convince them that their current spouse is no good for them). To sum it up, my thoughts are that you can not build on anything with doubt. It is not a foundation. Therefore if you apply doubt it will either tear down everything, or it will be used with a measured restraint, only applied when you see a cause for it. Or it will be used hypocritically when there's an opportunity. In other words a person needs to find the things in the world that are reliable and a solid foundation. People or ideas that they can depend on and rely on.
  15. If it was the city's taxes then I think it should be up to that city's decision on how to use it. Every year where I live there are holiday decorations that the city puts out. Usually small things designate a holiday season like hearts around Valentine's Day, clovers around Saint Patrick's Day, holloween decorations in October. But best of all is the grand display of lights around Christmas time. All of the costs at some point undoubtedly came out of the city taxes. No reason to say other city decorations and that last in any season like statues, momuments and other items. Personally I wouldn't want to pay for a monument for anything that is connected to Scientology. But I also think strongly that that decision should be left up for the local city's decision. If enough people support it, then so be it. As it is with anything, it all comes down to the details. But it helps if this isn't the only time that God's done something of that nature. The universe is conscience? I've wondered along the same lines as well. Where is our conscienceness located within each of us, it isn't in individual cells nor in our organs, yet they are part of who we are. Could each cell or each organ have it's own conscienceness within itself that acts on it's own within us. In the same way we could be like that, conscience on our own but without knowing it also being part of something bigger still, like each city, country community and cultural group acts like a single body with it's own sense of the world around it. Or perhaps conscienceness is not to blame but possibly that our bodies just sometimes work better or worse on their own without explaination, and the same for like minded groups being able to act as one unit in the same cause could be something besides conscienceness, just that people of like minded views would act in a simular way, or an even stranger idea would be that there are spiritual forces that hold some sence of authority and are able to influence or direct the people that are under its jurisdiction. there are several ways of looking at the world, some without conflicting with the others, and the univ rose being conscience is one of them. regarding to not have certian thoughts, let me give a counter point. It's been noticed by many people that our focus on one thing or another can help or harm a person's ability to move through the world, to behave in a healthy way, and be responsible. Though I get your point on not being restricted by a religion's stance, I just thought you should still hear and be aware of the counter point. As for not harming another, that's a good measure indeed. I doubt that's your only one, but I agree that that is a good start. As for whether sins harm anyone that is sometimes something that requires a bit of wisdom. I assume it is your stance that there are harmless sins and possibly that sins in general are a bad measure for morals. (Sorry for putting words in your mouth, that's just the vibe I get). I won't agree with you entirely on that point, but nor will I argue against it if the main point is to do no harm.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.