Jump to content

Krowb

◊ Platinum Patron ◊
  • Content Count

    157
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Krowb

  1. Rambling is welcome! That's essentially what started this topic. Look into the conjunction fallacy a bit, while cultural influence obviously affect the nature of a particular local religion, this particular reasoning error appears to be a hardwired reasoning defect as opposed to a cultural bias. But you are 100% correct that cultural influences are going to be a large part of the religion that ultimately springs up. Just spitballing here, but that may be why Hinduism has maintained all their local deities whereas Christianity and Islam jettisoned theirs.
  2. Thanks for the insight with Goebbels' quote. I had never seen the full version of it. So Kahneman and Tversky may have been psychologists, but they are considered the founders of the field of behavioral economics. Classical economics is based on the premise of the "rational man." Behavioral economists refer to psychology and say man is not a calculating machine. We use heuristics as a "good enough" approach to survive and these mechanisms are just about universal while also being universally flawed. It's a fascinating research area. So I was struck with the thought that our
  3. Dear timeless, breadthless Being Above, send us once more a devout follower to shew us the path to your infinite coherent heaven! With neither meal nor morsel in the den it appears some here are growing restless. We await your infinite power to sate the hungry!
  4. While pondering the other night (a dangerous pastime) I surmised the enduring religions of the world owe at least part of their success to being more adept at taking advantage of our in-built limitations or cognitive biases. Oddly enough, I have Choices, Values, and Frames, by Tversky and Kahneman, collecting dust on a bookshelf from my undergrad days so I'm partially acquainted with their work on cognitive fallacies. Two summers ago I read The Undoing Project, by Michael Lewis (of Moneyball fame), and was reminded of their work - I highly recommend The Undoing Project as Choices, Values, an
  5. Some of the confusion in discussions and forums such as these stems from a misunderstanding of claims and how they work. The minutiae of this topic keeps philosophers employed, but for our purpose a broad overview will help as you discuss various religious and non-religious topics. This community will generally define a claim or proposition as: a statement made with the intent that others adopt the statement as True. (You know or believe X and want others to know or believe X too) The following statements are both claims: God exists - is a positive claim
  6. Be cautious with this type of thinking. Objective reality either IS or IS NOT. Our wants and desires influence our perception and interpretation of what is True, but have no bearing on the truth itself. As to Habermas, I looked at it pretty in depth a few years back and found it lacking. Unfortunately, because I discarded it fairly quickly I failed to internalize the argument. If memory serves, his minimal facts approach treats the claims of witnesses and miracles as true at face value. It's a simple argument that lacks grounding.
  7. 666 is a very popular number in China with lots of phone numbers on advertisements having a 666 or 888 in them. The number they avoid is 4 - even to the extent hotels and hospitals excluding that floor number (In Mandarin 4's pronunciation is a close homophone to "death").
  8. Only by asking questions and doing research can one turn ignorance into knowledge

  9. With slight adjustments, that is exactly how that argument is presented in undergraduate philosophy before it's ripped to shreds. The first hurdle is whether existence v non-existence is even a meaningful attribute in the exercise - which, of course, it's not. The you start down the rabbit hole of definition hell.
  10. @WalterP, I don't understand this thread enough to understand it, but I remember when that study came out I called my cousin who at the time was a professor of astrophysics for graduate level work in the Northeast. I was excited that information could be instantaneously transmitted - imagine what this could do for space travel. She laughed for a minute then gently explained I was misunderstanding what actually occurs in quantum entanglement. There is no change in the particle. If particle A reads as 1, then particle B reads as 1, but if you force particle A to read as 0, then y
  11. I think we're getting pulled off course. My position is ultimately that rights are a useful fiction, nothing more. In disputes where both sides claim a right, the decision creates a hierarchy of when one right will predominate over another. The current thread topic raises the question regarding the right to free speech set against the right to contract (employment agreement) and touches on the right of free association (even assuming there is no explicit clause in the employment agreement).
  12. I should keep in mind that we have different backgrounds and specialties. Each year the case law, laws, regulations, and rules become more complex. Disputes regarding rights are resolved through legal and legislative means. Below is barely scratching the surface of how a miniscule sampling have recently(ish) been interpreted: The right to property vis a vis eminent domain - Kelo v City of New London (545 U.S. 469) The right to contract vis a vis a protected class - The Fair Housing Act, the Affordable Care Act, etc . . . The right to religious
  13. We have become a people asserting rights against rights. Devolving into a rigid and legalistic society intent on jockeying for position within an increasingly complex hierarchy of "rights." They are a useful fiction, and nothing more. A right to do something does not mean it is without cost or consequence.
  14. I had not yet run across that site. It's full of goodies. Thank you for sharing and welcome!
  15. Sacrilage! If you're not ordering a baja blast when eating at taco bell then you're an unworthy heathen.
  16. Too bad I didn't know you several months ago. We ate at the Garlic and Thai Sushi Bar on the opposite corner last time we were down there.
  17. I could go for a cathead biscuit with sausage gravy right about now. I'll keep that place in mind if I'm out that way.
  18. I can't believe you let the rest of the Irish off the hook. There've been times I couldn't understand a word they were saying. Those from Carrick in particular.
  19. The distinctions, at least to my old business partner, centered the how much weight to accord Romans 11:11-24 versus John 10:25-29. Those verses in John are the cornerstone of once saved always saved and why Baptists will say you were never saved to begin with.
  20. From my understanding, Armenianism is the dominant strain of thought in the Methodist church. Just another distinction between it and Southern Baptists. Methodists do not subscribe to "once saved always saved." of the Baptists. You can fall away from grace and then be "re-saved." An old partner was a Methodist apologist and taught apologetics at his church. We'd spend some serious time walking through the various distinctions between Methodist and Southern Baptist beliefs.
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.