Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 135

Thread: What does it matter . . . ?

  1. #21
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,983
    Amen (Given)
    1216
    Amen (Received)
    1261
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    If not believing something that is true has an effect that must be weighed in the case of not believing that something. Take the case of the Bible believing Christian not believing there is no God, on the premise that it is true there is no God. The effect would be that upon death that Christian would not know anything let alone that he was wrong.
    Right, so he would have lived his life based upon a lie.

  2. #22
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,990
    Amen (Given)
    1277
    Amen (Received)
    878
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    Shuny, you are of the Baha'i faith, right? You believe it to be true in some way.
    Correct

    Now on the premise that Baha'i faith is true, and Bible believing Christians for example do not believe in it. What does it matter for the Christian? Are there any meaningful consequences for the Bible believing Christian that should be weighed?
    The problem here is your changing the subject, and not addressing the issues I presented in the last post in response to your post. The problems with the nature of truth, logic, and evidence and their misuse are very real, and I presented the reality and limits in the previous post and you have not responded to that.

    Nonetheless here goes . . .

    Historically I believe you have presented very circular arguments claiming proof and what is true, beyond the limitation of logic of objective verifiable evidence. I make no such level of a claim.

    The first question is how we justify what we believe, and how we view objective evidence and the logic for reasoning why we believe. Philosophically I am a Socratic skeptic, and even question my own belief, but yes I believe and the I believe the Baha'i Faith is in 'some way true,' the key here is in 'some way true.' Everyone who believes in a religion and 'God' has to believe it is in some way true.

    From the fallible human perspective I believe the more narrowly one defines their belief system the more likely they are wrong, and this is a distinct weakness of ancient worldviews..

    I will say that based on science, history of all humanity, the claims and nature of the different religions, and their flaws and obvious conflicting views and beliefs, based on ancient paradigms. the reasons and consequences of belief in the real world I found the Baha'i Faith by far the most consistent and best choice if there is a God.

    Consequences? Yes, in all religions there are consequences. In the Baha'i Faith there are consequences. The consequences are up to God, and the Baha'i Faith does propose that the issue of the sincerity of the believer will eventually be judged before God. The Baha'i believes in the journey through many worlds exist beyond this world.

    The ancient religions are replete conflicts and scripture which has poor provenance, as far as author, content origin, and even the time it was written. This is, of course, a highly contentious issue in many threads and debates here,but I sincerely believe this is a severe problem that brings to question the exclusive claims of any religion, church or sect. Some say that 'some religion must be right.' No, considering the fallibility of human nature, we can all be wrong.

    'We have met the enemy, and they are us.' - Pogo

    You could be going around and around to propose some sort of Pascal's wager,which is bogus as a three dollar bill.

    Again . . .

    The question comes down to how you are using 'true' or 'truth.' Different religions claim their beliefs are to a certain degree 'true' and there is consequences for not believing them. The problem is there are diverse and conflicting claims for what is 'true' and how 'truth' is defined. The diverse conflicting claims and the consequences of the different religions remains anecdotal and subjective. What standard would you propose that one religion or belief system is true, and the consequences of not believing it is true over the many diverse conflicting other belief systems?

    Is there any reason to believe objectively that any one of these diverse and conflicting claims 'truths' and the consequences of not believing is 'true,' No.

    One the other hand concerning the the objective verifiable knowledge of science, which is consistent and predictable, there are consequences of rejecting the knowledge of science.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-26-2017 at 06:52 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  3. #23
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,185
    Amen (Given)
    815
    Amen (Received)
    442
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post

    The problem here is your changing the subject, and not addressing the issues I presented in the last post in response to your post. The problems with the nature of truth, logic, and evidence and their misuse are very real, and I presented the reality and limits in the previous post and you have not responded to that.

    Nonetheless here goes . . .

    Historically I believe you have presented very circular arguments claiming proof and what is true, beyond the limitation of logic of objective verifiable evidence. I make no such level of a claim.

    The first question is how we justify what we believe, and how we view objective evidence and the logic for reasoning why we believe. Philosophically I am a Socratic skeptic, and even question my own belief, but yes I believe and the I believe the Baha'i Faith is in 'some way true,' the key here is in 'some way true.' Everyone who believes in a religion and 'God' has to believe it is in some way true.

    From the fallible human perspective I believe the more narrowly one defines their belief system the more likely they are wrong, and this is a distinct weakness of ancient worldviews..

    I will say that based on science, history of all humanity, the claims and nature of the different religions, and their flaws and obvious conflicting views and beliefs, based on ancient paradigms. the reasons and consequences of belief in the real world I found the Baha'i Faith by far the most consistent and best choice if there is a God.

    Consequences? Yes, in all religions there are consequences. In the Baha'i Faith there are consequences. The consequences are up to God, and the Baha'i Faith does propose that the issue of the sincerity of the believer will eventually be judged before God. The Baha'i believes in the journey through many worlds exist beyond this world.

    The ancient religions are replete conflicts and scripture which has poor provenance, as far as author, content origin, and even the time it was written. This is, of course, a highly contentious issue in many threads and debates here,but I sincerely believe this is a severe problem that brings to question the exclusive claims of any religion, church or sect. Some say that 'some religion must be right.' No, considering the fallibility of human nature, we can all be wrong.

    'We have met the enemy, and they are us.' - Pogo

    You could be going around and around to propose some sort of Pascal's wager,which is bogus as a three dollar bill.

    Again . . .

    The question comes down to how you are using 'true' or 'truth.' Different religions claim their beliefs are to a certain degree 'true' and there is consequences for not believing them. The problem is there are diverse and conflicting claims for what is 'true' and how 'truth' is defined. The diverse conflicting claims and the consequences of the different religions remains anecdotal and subjective. What standard would you propose that one religion or belief system is true, and the consequences of not believing it is true over the many diverse conflicting other belief systems?

    Is there any reason to believe objectively that any one of these diverse and conflicting claims 'truths' and the consequences of not believing is 'true,' No.

    One the other hand concerning the the objective verifiable knowledge of science, which is consistent and predictable, there are consequences of rejecting the knowledge of science.
    Well a couple things here. First my not answering your argument-question has to do with the fact that I did not, do not understand it.

    Second, you did not answer, or seem to answer my question as to "what does it matter" if a Bible believing Christian does not accept the Baha'i faith?
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  4. #24
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,185
    Amen (Given)
    815
    Amen (Received)
    442
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    Right, so he would have lived his life based upon a lie.
    Yeah, but what did it matter?
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  5. #25
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,990
    Amen (Given)
    1277
    Amen (Received)
    878
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    Well a couple things here. First my not answering your argument-question has to do with the fact that I did not, do not understand it.
    Do you understand the basics of logic and science? Do you understand what syllogisms are, and their limitations.

    Second, you did not answer, or seem to answer my question as to "what does it matter" if a Bible believing Christian does not accept the Baha'i faith?
    I answered it. It is God's judgement that determine's the individuals 'sincerity' on the journey through the spiritual worlds beyond this physical world. Do you believe mortals like us could judge an individual's beyond this world including our own? Specifically the Baha'i Faith believes that those who limit themselves spiritually lack the light to guide them on the journey. One's own decisions judges one's self in the next world. The lack of light is darkness.

    Again . . .

    The question comes down to how you are using 'true' or 'truth.' Different religions claim their beliefs are to a certain degree 'true' and there is consequences for not believing them. The problem is there are diverse and conflicting claims for what is 'true' and how 'truth' is defined. The diverse conflicting claims and the consequences of the different religions remains anecdotal and subjective. What standard would you propose that one religion or belief system is true, and the consequences of not believing it is true over the many diverse conflicting other belief systems?

    Is there any reason to believe objectively that any one of these diverse and conflicting claims 'truths' and the consequences of not believing is 'true,' No.

    One the other hand concerning the the objective verifiable knowledge of science, which is consistent and predictable, there are consequences of rejecting the knowledge of science.

    What specifically do you not understand. Can you answer the question in bold or not?

    Also again . . .

    Two points are a problem here. First, objective physical evidence may be used for the process of falsification only, and not to prove nor support a claim of 'truth.' Second logical deduction cannot demonstrate nor prove a claim of truth. Logical deduction involves the construction of sylogisms where the conclusions are not necessarily true, because to be accepted the propositions must be accepted as true. Many sylogisms in apologetic arguments are dependent on propositions that are only accepted by those that believe in the conclusion.

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism



    A syllogism (Greek: συλλογισμός syllogismos, "conclusion, inference") is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true.

    © Copyright Original Source



    What specifically do you not understand.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-26-2017 at 09:31 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  6. #26
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,983
    Amen (Given)
    1216
    Amen (Received)
    1261
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    Yeah, but what did it matter?
    Well, it depends on the individual I suppose. If you don't care about truth, then I suppose it doesn't matter.

  7. #27
    tWebber Yttrium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Western USA
    Faith
    N/A
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,459
    Amen (Given)
    276
    Amen (Received)
    649
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    The question. What you do not believe to be true is what is actually true, and what you believe to be true is actually false, what does it matter?
    If I believe that it's perfectly safe to jump off a cliff, I'm probably not going to get very far in life.

    The effect of false beliefs and disbelieving in truth can have wide ranging impacts, from endangering oneself to simple enjoyment of life. If I believe a secret government organization is out to get me, when no such secret organization exists, then I might not enjoy life as much as if I didn't hold such a belief. There are beliefs that may have no real impact, but since you're asking about beliefs in general, one has to consider all situations.

    Personally, my beliefs are very flexible, and I hope to make progress towards the truth.
    Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

  8. #28
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,185
    Amen (Given)
    815
    Amen (Received)
    442
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Do you understand the basics of logic and science? Do you understand what syllogisms are, and their limitations.



    I answered it. It is God's judgement that determine's the individuals 'sincerity' on the journey through the spiritual worlds beyond this physical world. Do you believe mortals like us could judge an individual's beyond this world including our own? Specifically the Baha'i Faith believes that those who limit themselves spiritually lack the light to guide them on the journey. One's own decisions judges one's self in the next world. The lack of light is darkness.

    Again . . .

    The question comes down to how you are using 'true' or 'truth.' Different religions claim their beliefs are to a certain degree 'true' and there is consequences for not believing them. The problem is there are diverse and conflicting claims for what is 'true' and how 'truth' is defined. The diverse conflicting claims and the consequences of the different religions remains anecdotal and subjective. What standard would you propose that one religion or belief system is true, and the consequences of not believing it is true over the many diverse conflicting other belief systems?

    Is there any reason to believe objectively that any one of these diverse and conflicting claims 'truths' and the consequences of not believing is 'true,' No.

    One the other hand concerning the the objective verifiable knowledge of science, which is consistent and predictable, there are consequences of rejecting the knowledge of science.

    What specifically do you not understand. Can you answer the question in bold or not?

    Also again . . .

    Two points are a problem here. First, objective physical evidence may be used for the process of falsification only, and not to prove nor support a claim of 'truth.' Second logical deduction cannot demonstrate nor prove a claim of truth. Logical deduction involves the construction of sylogisms where the conclusions are not necessarily true, because to be accepted the propositions must be accepted as true. Many sylogisms in apologetic arguments are dependent on propositions that are only accepted by those that believe in the conclusion.
    <snip>
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    Well, it depends on the individual I suppose. If you don't care about truth, then I suppose it doesn't matter.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yttrium View Post
    Personally, my beliefs are very flexible, and I hope to make progress towards the truth.

    The issue is truth. What is actually true matters.

    The problem is some truths are apparently not knowable. Yet truth claims are being made about such things. And depending on what is actually true, our choices will matter.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  9. #29
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,990
    Amen (Given)
    1277
    Amen (Received)
    878
    Quote Originally Posted by 37818 View Post
    The issue is truth. What is actually true matters.

    The problem is some truths are apparently not knowable.

    Yet truth claims are being made about such things.
    Which truths do propose are unknowable, and which truths are knowable

    The problem is the many diverse conflicting claims of truth cannot be factually resolved.

    Fortunately science does not make truth claims.and its knowledge matters.

    And depending on what is actually true, our choices will matter.
    If what is actually ultimately true is unknown, how do our choices matter?
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-31-2017 at 01:21 AM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  10. #30
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,185
    Amen (Given)
    815
    Amen (Received)
    442
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Which truths do propose are unknowable, and which truths are knowable.
    Truely unknowable truths - we do not even know what they are.
    The problem is the many diverse conflicting claims of truth cannot be factually resolved.
    If those conflicting claims are of no consequence, it may not matter. But if one claim has a more dire consequence to ignore. We would need a very good reason not to believe it. If believing it can make any difference. The standing evidence is we are all going to die some day. Denying that and that we believe that, will not stop that.
    Fortunately science does not make truth claims, and its knowledge matters.
    Well science does make truth claims. Or nothing in science could be believed. And information cannot be accepted as true knowledge unless that information is actually believed.



    If what is actually ultimately true is unknown, how do our choices matter?
    We cannot choose what we do not know about. We cannot honestly claim to believe what we cannot accept - even if it were true.

    So even if logically we understand a reason something is accepted as true, if we for what ever reason find it untenable, how can we believe it? The drawback is, it might matter and we might not be able to believe it anyway.
    Last edited by 37818; 11-15-2017 at 01:12 PM.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •