Discount Cialis Online ® Licensed Drugstore - CIALIS (tadalafil)

[fatherofaking (fatherofaking)]

trainedobserver,

...let's discuss the questions of intellectual honesty and self deception that I have been struggling with concerning belief systems.

just tell what they are. i am not afraid to explore these things, like others seem to be.

just tell me the rules of engagement.

[franklin (franklin)]

Same as Adam and Eve. They had no church to go to. If a man is stranded on a deserted island, can he have communion with God? I say yes.

That is the experience you have never had. The Bible is words on paper to you. To me they are divine inspiration from God. The Word of God triggers the heart of a believer to open up, hear the word directly from God and to have communion with Him. A spiritual experience that you have never had. If you had you would not be confused and jaded as you are now.

A humble, repentant and reverent heart finds God within.

Going to church and having the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not the same experience. An experience that has been shared with and confirmed by billions of Christians worldwide. That is what comprises the brotherhood and sisterhood of Christ. That is what you have not experienced. That is all that is really true and meaningful in the world.

[munchkin (munchkin)]

franklin
i've been meaning to ask this but how do you "know" so much about people that is not basedin any realm of fact. It is at best conjecture. Even though i have repeatedly said i'm not aetheist you thought i was. and although others have told you that they have had religoous experiences you say well no you didn't , is that not the sin of arrogance to assume to know someone when in your theory only God can know us?

just wondering
beccaxx

[franklin (franklin)]

If t.o. had had an spiritual experience, baptism of the Holy Spirit, like the hundreds of factnet readers and posters have had, including yours truly, he would have shared it with us. He'd be shouting it from the rooftops like I do.

Having a religious experience is not having a spiritual experience.

I was skeptical of it until it happened to me. Before then I was like him at that stage attending different churches even dabbling in new age religions. Then I sought God earnestly, swallowed my pride, repented and then ZOWIE!!!!!

All of a sudden I was speaking to people I had turned my back on, spreading the gospel and feeling the love for all mankind that I had as a child. I became a loving child once more. Passed through the eye of the needle and entered the Kingdom of God. I was reborn. No ifs, ands or buts.

Christ told us the truth. The Kingdom of God is at hand!

[munchkin (munchkin)]

again thoguh what you get is not what others get. Just because they don't have the same experiences as you do, you tell them they haven't done this or haven't done that. When you CANNOT know. If according to you only God knows our hearts then only (in your opinion) God will know the truth, so how can you know the truth? Who set you up to judge your fellows? Did God? Not in any scripture i've read. So again i ask why do you assume to know what you can't, how do you KNOW that the people you say can't have had this or that didn't open completly and repent all?
You CAN'T know only God and the individual can know all you can to is offer conjecture based on your belif and your experience. If as you say only God knows the truth, if God has granted you powers no-one esle has had then enlighten us please. If not then stop judgeing people which by your own Gods words is wrong.
beccaxx

[trainedobserver (trainedobserver)]

just tell what they are. i am not afraid to explore these things, like others seem to be.just tell me the rules of engagement.

Things are kinda hectic right now. I'll post something along those lines before long.

[trainedobserver (trainedobserver)]

If t.o. had had an spiritual experience, baptism of the Holy Spirit,
like the hundreds of factnet readers and posters have had, including
yours truly, he would have shared it with us.

Didn't I say so earlier? Yes, I received the baptism of the holy spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues something like 28 years ago.

Then I sought God earnestly, swallowed my pride, repented and then ZOWIE!!!!!

And the implication is that I and others like me must not have been as sincere and earnest as you were. I think you still have some pride to swallow because that is an extremely arrogant thing to say.

I can't say that the content or the tone of your posts, that I have read, makes me believe that you are anymore born-again than I am franklin.

[angietangerine (angietangerine)]

atheists and secular humanists rule !

[trainedobserver (trainedobserver)]

fatherofaking,

Ok, first what do I mean by intellectual dishonesty and self-deception?

Here are some workable definitions of the terms from Wikipedia. Their entry has hyperlinks to some of the other terms used in these definitions that may not be familiar to everyone.

Intellectual dishonesty is the creation of misleading impressions through the use of rhetoric, logical fallacy, fraud, or misrepresented evidence. It may stem from an ulterior motive, haste, sloppiness, or external pressure to reach a certain conclusion. The unwary reader may be deceived as a result.
Scientists and scholars generally consider plagiarism a serious form of intellectual dishonesty. Other examples include the incorrect attribution of a quotation or quotation out of context, use of obfuscated or irrelevant citations, deceptive omission of contextual text through ellipsis, and the unsupported amplification of a relationship.

Self-deception is a process of denying or rationalizing away the relevance, significance, or importance of opposing evidence and argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The most basic question about religion and the supernatural is, “what evidence supports their claims?” Or just a basic, “Why do you believe that to be true?” This question is often ignored or answered by introducing faith in the discussion. Faith, as the act of believing something without evidence. “You must accept that on faith” is an often repeated phrase.

That leads me to this disturbing question:
In exercising or using faith is an individual agreeing to practice self-deception and intellectual dishonesty?

From my personal experience as a person of faith, I believe so because as a practitioner I did this routinely and so did everyone around me to the point of absurdity.

My reasoning:
An individual agrees to self-deception because it requires them to deny or rationalize away any opposing evidence or argument irregardless.

It also appears to be intellectually dishonest because it requires a person to present to others as indisputable fact that which they themselves have accepted without evidence.

Conclusion:

I find this, coupled with the vast amount of contradictory information derived through faith (i.e. contradicting views about god, gods, god's laws, etc.), enough to disqualify it as a means of arriving at the truth of a matter. In fact, faith appears to be just the opposite when looked at this way.

Rules of engagement

No platitudes. State your viewpoint clearly first. Second, explain the reasoning behind it and then offer a conclusion.

(Message edited by trainedobserver on November 14, 2005)

[angietangerine (angietangerine)]

AMEN, T.O.
PROPS TO MATERIALISM !

[fatherofaking (fatherofaking)]

trainedobserver,

Faith, is the act of believing something without evidence.
that statement is a misunderstanding of the proper use of faith.

faith (the ability to trust) is an innate ability. we all have it.
should we use it to believe something without having any evidence? i don't think that is a good idea. when people do that they are often let down.
sometimes to the point of not being able to trust at all for a long time.

that does not mean that we cannot find enough evidence to use the faith we have.
the concept of faith does not seem to be the issue. unless it is misunderstood.
if someone asks me to put my faith in something without evidence, it would be foolish for me to do such a thing.

i think we need to look at what is adequate evidence and what is not.
we need to determine what can be considered objective evidence.
we also need to determine if subjective evidence can be used to decide if something is true. such as or our own experience or even someone elses experience.

[angietangerine (angietangerine)]

my experience is that if i cant use my five senses to detect the existence of something, it isnt there.

faith that something is there, doesnt make it there.

and emotions create behavors/feelings which are totally different. behaviors can be detected. emotions can be felt.

[fatherofaking (fatherofaking)]

angie,
is there anyone that you trust in your life?
have you ever had to trust even when you weren't sure you should?

the evidence we use to trust is not always something we can see. it is evidence even if we can't see it.

for example:
i have a teenage son. inevitably he gets into trouble sometimes.
when that happens i say, if you go with this person can i trust you to stay out of trouble?
he says, yes dad, i say, what evidence do i have to believe you? he says, i messed up, i am not a trouble maker. i think, he is right. the evidence is there so i trust him. he goes and comes back without incident.

this is not evidence that can be seen with your eyes, it is experience. it starts as subjective evidence. over time consistent experience builds history. it then becomes objective evidence.

there are things that we can't see that is evidence.

[angietangerine (angietangerine)]

you saw his behavior. he was not a trouble-maker in the past and you knew that from his behavior that he was likely to not make trouble. that is the experience that you had. his behavior

[fatherofaking (fatherofaking)]

angie,
that is correct.
there was a history that i could look at.
it was not written on paper however. it was a memory. we have to use everything we have.
as you said, all five senses.

faith is a fragile thing and can be abused. it happens a lot, as many here are aware of.
caution in using our faith is wise.

those that say we should trust blindly, should not be trusted.
there are also times when we should trust and we do not despite the evidence.
that is why i say that we must look at what is acceptible evidence and what is not.

you may look at the behavior of someone and come to a totally different conclusion than me.
sometimes the evidence needs to be looked at more closely.

it happens all the time.
ask a police officer that is talking to 3 eye witnesses at the scene of an accident. he will tell you that not everyone sees things the same way.

we have to respect that and be patient and thorough when asking someone to have faith.
especially when it comes to the subject we are discussing.

[angietangerine (angietangerine)]

ok, palpable. the wrecked vehicle can be seen, touched, blah, blah. how it happened is perception.

and the definition of faith in websters is:

1. unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence.
2. unquestioning belief in god, religious tenets, etc.

the type you are speaking of is down there at #

5. complete trust, confidence, or reliance

here we go round the mulberry bush

[fatherofaking (fatherofaking)]

angie,

remember, webster defines words according to their usage in current culture.
there is no doubt that many people do believe blindly.

my position on faith is not as defined in the first two definitions.
using those definitions is what has given christendom all of it's power over mankind. it has given them the right to kill those who have refused to accept their dogmas.

i have never held the position that belief in god is superstition. granted christendom has made it very difficult for people to accept that god exists.
what i see for evidence in the christian religion has caused me reject their message as a lie. their message being, you have to beleive everything we say is truth or you go to hell.
if my son behaved the way they have i would never trust him again.

please do not put me in that catagory. i rejected christendom after only two years of study. that was more than 20yrs ago.

i have not however, rejected the existence of god.

when discussing these things with people i have found it necessary to:
1: be very careful about my assertions
2: understand what people are willing to accept as evidence and discuss those things specificaly.

[trainedobserver (trainedobserver)]

Faith, is the act of believing something without evidence.
that statement is a misunderstanding of the proper use of faith.
faith (the ability to trust) is an innate ability. we all have it.

Remember that you are describing a cognitive function not a mystical power.

Faith requires an object in which the faith is placed. Without the object faith cannot operate. The object of the faith must be trusted. It's a bit of a Mobius strip of a thought. To say, “I place my trust in God” is equivalent to saying “I place my faith in God”. So I think we actually agree.

i think we need to look at what is adequate evidence and what is not.

Evidence that would stand up in a court of law would probably be sufficient don't you think?

Here is a good general outline:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_%28law%29

we need to determine what can be considered objective evidence.

That would be anything that is not subjective in nature. Or am I missing something?

we also need to determine if subjective evidence can be used to decide if something is true. such as or our own experience or even someone elses experience.

Well, we have to ask ourselves a question.

How would someone evaluate subjective evidence?

I'm not coming up with anything. You got something on that?

(Message edited by trainedobserver on November 15, 2005)

[angietangerine (angietangerine)]

i cant come up with anything either.

[fatherofaking (fatherofaking)]

actually if you read my posts carefully you would see that i did come up with something on that.

we make decisions based on our own experience all the time. decisions that affect other people.
our experience is subjective.
we do it because we think that our experience shows that there is enough evidence.

can i evaluate your experience and make a decision? i think it is reasonable to think i can.
i have had to do that here on a regular basis.
if you didn't think that your own experience was valuable you couldn't even trust it yourself.


you have told me what your experience has been and i have had to decide if it is a good reason to reject the existence of god. thus far i have not found reason to think that your experience is evidence to do so. if i did, i would not be typing this.

our individual experiences are subjective. taken with objective evidence however they have value.

we rely on the experience of eye witnesses in a court of law all the time. taken with the other evidence presented we make a decision. if we didn't think that the experience of an eye witness was valuable evidence we wouldn't use it.