How consistent are your beliefs?

12346»

Comments

  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,053
    Probably about the time he referred to me as a monster.
    Do you claim absolute knowledge?
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • angelica wrote:
    Do you claim absolute knowledge?

    Do you read my posts?
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,053
    Do you read my posts?
    Oh, to me, that's not absolute knowledge, that's knowledge within the context of what you understand as yourself, the subjective person, attempting to be objective. You earlier admitted you strive to the ideal but you have no guarantees--that's not absolute to me.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • OutOfBreathOutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    That's a pretty big "should", isn't it? Yuk......

    :)
    Maybe I just like them extra crunchy... ;)
    But eating popcorn cold wouldn't be illogical, although it would certainly be unusual.
    I do walk that line of uncertainty, but I don't walk it because I seek knowledge as the quote implies. It is because I seek knowledge through a process of logical judgment and the discovery of absolutes that the line gets further and further away.
    In other words, if you do 5 things right, and then 1 thing wrong, it wouldn't be wrong as you still are far away from "the line"? You cant remove yourself from the line. You may walk steadily, and in good balance but on the line you must stay.

    Btw, how did you interpret that quote as somehow being me or anyone forcing their views on you? Because I question you? The point of the quote is not to make you not judge, and follow lead. That would make the quote a complete contradiction to be sure, as it would indicate that the one making the statement was exempt from it. He is not. What it says, is that one must forever entertain that little element of doubt, otherwise you run the risk of being wrong, and oblivious to that because you are certainly "right". Like what I do with my statistical work. At best, I am mathematically 99 % certain that a coefficient will fall within a certain part of the bell-curved spectrum, for instance.

    If you claim absolute truth (not necessarily what you do btw, in this sense) then you look away from that ever-present potential for error. That's what they did in Soviet, looked away from the possiblity of error in their projects. You may say that some things are more likely than others, certainly. But if you close it down 100%, the you run the prescribed risk.

    (damn, sucked right back in)

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • Maybe I just like them extra crunchy... ;)
    But eating popcorn cold wouldn't be illogical, although it would certainly be unusual.

    Quite true. Though "edible popcorn must be warm" is oh-so-close to an absolute ;)

    But not quite there I suppose.
    In other words, if you do 5 things right, and then 1 thing wrong, it wouldn't be wrong as you still are far away from "the line"? You cant remove yourself from the line. You may walk steadily, and in good balance but on the line you must stay.

    Hehe. Not quite. Try this way:

    If I do the same thing 5 times right, chances are I won't do the 6th wrong.
    Btw, how did you interpret that quote as somehow being me or anyone forcing their views on you?

    I don't. I view the quote as being the author's way of contradicting himself.
    Because I question you?

    You're always welcome to question me!
  • OutOfBreathOutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    Hehe. Not quite. Try this way:

    If I do the same thing 5 times right, chances are I won't do the 6th wrong.
    Exactly. "Chances are" being the operative words here. But it requires equal circumstances (not just similar) for it to be read as you will do it right also the 6th. Hell look at footballers, who can consistently put away goals easily match after match, but suddenly have an "off" day and miss even the easiest opportunities. They may well have done 5 times right in very similar situations, and fail the 6th. You dont know when you might fail, even if you do the same thing. Something that's right 99% of the time, is still wrong 1 out of 100. You cant do away with that.
    I don't. I view the quote as being the author's way of contradicting himself.
    Using an absolute to refute absolutes? Not too big a contradiction to me.
    (edit) Besides, it's not the absolutes in themselves he's gunning for, it's the claim for knowing the absolute truth. (When most likely none do)
    You're always welcome to question me!
    When have I not? ;)

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • angelica wrote:
    First of all, maybe you could clear up this contradiction I'm seeing in the logical process for me. You say: "Judgments based on faulty premises are incorrect." If logic is built upon the premises that may be faulty, how do you come to know if they are faulty or not?
    Really? Each judgment is either right or wrong. It can go either way.

    She said: "It is true that every judgement teeters on the brink of error. Every judgement could easily have gone the other way."

    --I hear: Every judgement can go either way: that of error, or that of correctness.

    She also said: "Can't a person be declaritive anymore? I guess he should have added IMO at the end of his quote".

    --I hear: Can't people make a firm statement in expressing their view? Or do they have to distinguish between their view an absolute truth by adding "imo" in order to qualify each statement?

    Obviously, I don't know if I'm hearing what she intends. From what I hear, I agree.

    It sounds to me that you've missed the author of the quote's intended point along with abook's point. Ironically, I think you agree with them: You are agnostic, because you realise the potential huge error of judging God to not exist. I assumed you recognise that you can trap yourself in a bubble of subjective opinion/judgment, rather than be open to learn and understand from your surroundings. Do you choose to believe you must use a fork and only a fork will do for your purposes? Is it not possible to also use a spoon? Or do you recognise that even if you do feel only a fork will work, other people's purposes will be defined by differing frameworks and your "absolute judgment" may not be absolute to them? Do you understand that while science holds absolute truths, they also hold that tomorrow that same truth could be rendered lacking?

    Do you disagree with these points? I believe the author alluded to this type of thing. And "when you're green you grow, when you're ripe you rot". In other words: If you think you are "right", you are no longer open to understand and learn.

    Yikes.

    Are you condemning, then, also science's certainty of knowing that whatever you know, there is always more to know?

    More power to you on your personal journey and your approach.

    I agree. So the truth you start with--the clarity of perception determines whether the logic serves you or deceives you. Again, how do you ascertain the truth of your premise? By the logic built on the questionable premise? By the logic that can only show truths/untruths in light of the validity of the premise? If you have a bad computer program and you use the bad computer program to determine the validity of the program, how valid will your findings be?

    I say that by removing a predeterimined right/wrong judgment from one's self, one begins by accepting that all in nature is exactly as it is for a reason. Then one starts with the intent of looking to understand what that reason is. By saying this, it does not mean that in the growth process, one does not make adjustments. It does say, though, that everything happens for a reason, at-one with nature and therefore it cannot be "wrong" (which is a subjective personal judgment, not an objective one)

    thanks angelica, I can see you don't need me to type out a whole paragraph to understand a simple thought. But I also know anyone can percieve a thought differently, on the brink of error.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,053
    thanks angelica, I can see you don't need me to type out a whole paragraph to understand a simple thought. But I also know anyone can percieve a thought differently, on the brink of error.
    You're welcome, Abook. I agree with your point. ;)
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • I think this quiz is written by a midly intelligent (with computers) 16 year-old atheist Emo kid. Here's what I got: I was 'hit!' for claiming that God is all powerful, knows all, etc. and yet there is loads of suffering in our world which is totally purposeless. I didn't deny that there is a higher 'meaning' for the suffering in the world; just that there was no higher 'purpose', and the word 'purpose' implies that it's Someone up there's plan to make people suffer, that it's someone's fault, and I don't believe that. How is that inconsistent?

    'You have claimed that God exists, that he knows about suffering, wants to reduce it and can reduce it. But now you say you don't think that there is any higher purpose which explains why people die horribly of painful diseases. Why then does God allow it? Surely, a God which knows about, wants to stop and can stop suffering would put an end to pointless suffering?'

    *yawn*

    Obviously this person has never read the book of Job.
    "and he still gives his love, he just gives it away and the love he receives is the love that is saved,..."
  • cornnifer wrote:
    Actually, most of the questions could (and probably should) be answered essay style. Instead what you are forced to do is give a simple, absolute, true or false response to a series of very baited questions. The "quiz" is ridiculous.
    Good point. Either an "I don't know" option, or the space to explain why or how you have come by your true or false answers. I think I was about three questions in when I realized just how baited they were. As soon as I got a hit (which I can no longer remember) I quit because my supposed contradiction wasn't a contradiction at all.
    "and he still gives his love, he just gives it away and the love he receives is the love that is saved,..."
  • decides2dreamdecides2dream Posts: 14,928
    Do you read my posts?




    hahahahahahaha...damn, that was excellent. would be far better with the addition of ;) or :D...but i'll not quibble. :p

    and yes, dan's sig is excellent. :)
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


Sign In or Register to comment.