Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad (Reply 14165):

1)I do answer questions. Try me anytime.

Me (Reply 14168):

How should anyone distinguish your faith beliefs from the different faith beliefs of anyone else? (Cue tumbleweed...)

Vlad’s answer:

...

Who'd have thought it eh?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad (Reply 14165):

Me (Reply 14168):

Vlad’s answer:

Who'd have thought it eh?

Lol How do we distinguish ''faith claims''? How does one compare philosophical claims?
The simple answer of course is to examine them.

Of course, as one of ''Dawkin's little wizards'' you have no more duty to do THAT as you have to study leprechaunism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Lol How do we distinguish ''faith claims''? How does one compare philosophical claims?
The simple answer of course is to examine them.

Of course, as one of ''Dawkin's little wizards'' you have no more duty to do THAT as you have to study leprechaunism.

You compare philosophical claims by testing the logic that supports them.

Leaving aside for now your shifting of the burden of proof, having heard the faith claims of you, the Muslim, the Ra-ist, the leprechaunist etc what precisely then would you propose that I "examine", and how?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You compare philosophical claims by testing the logic that supports them.

Leaving aside for now your shifting of the burden of proof, having heard the faith claims of you, the Muslim, the Ra-ist, the leprechaunist etc what precisely would you propose that I "examine", and how?

No as a naturalist who takes naturalism beyond the methodological....you have a burden of proof.
Unfortunately naturalism provides no basis for discussion of matters like morality and we end up with a situation where we confuse it with behaviour, taste or imagine it's some consensus thing totally ignoring hegemony.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No as a naturalist who takes naturalism beyond the methodological....you have a burden of proof.

Ah, the same blunder you always make at this juncture. My “naturalism” is neither here nor there – if you expect your beliefs to be taken seriously and you don’t think naturalistic methods are suitable for the job, then it's for you to suggest a method that is.

That is, it's your claim so the burden of proof remains yours.

Unfortunately naturalism provides no basis for discussion of matters like morality and we end up with a situation where we confuse it with behaviour, taste or imagine it's some consensus thing…

No idea why you’ve veered so wildly off the point here, but of course naturalism lends itself to discussion about morality, just as it does to discussions about language, about aesthetics etc. Why on earth wouldn’t it?

Oh, and the moral Zeitgeist is a “consensus thing”, which is why it can and does change over time.

…totally ignoring hegemony.

Your random word generator seems to be overheating again. What are you even trying to say here?

Oh, and the question you were actually asked by the way was about how anyone should examine and differentiate the competing faith beliefs on the table. Rather than attack the naturalistic, why not at least try to answer it?

[Sassy]

No, it doesn't and in saying people are deliberately hiding from the truth is calling them LIARS. Saying people don't want to look for the truth is saying that are LIARS.

RUBBISH! That is s twisted and deliberate hiding station.
You are WRONG because someone hiding from the truth is someone denying it not lying about it.  You should be ashamed of yourself for trying pervert the course of denial in the existence of truth to make those who do liars rather than ostriches pretending it doesn't exist.

Well it was your way of trying NOT to address the issues and your way of trying to hide the truth that you deliberately DON'T LOOK for the truth and hide behind making it the responsibility of somebody else.

Truth wins out in the end and you have been proved WRONG!

Can you admit?

[Walter]

RUBBISH! That is s twisted and deliberate hiding station.
You are WRONG because someone hiding from the truth is someone denying it not lying about it.  You should be ashamed of yourself for trying pervert the course of denial in the existence of truth to make those who do liars rather than ostriches pretending it doesn't exist.

Well it was your way of trying NOT to address the issues and your way of trying to hide the truth that you deliberately DON'T LOOK for the truth and hide behind making it the responsibility of somebody else.

Truth wins out in the end and you have been proved WRONG!

Can you admit?

W T F?

[floo]

RUBBISH! That is s twisted and deliberate hiding station.
You are WRONG because someone hiding from the truth is someone denying it not lying about it.  You should be ashamed of yourself for trying pervert the course of denial in the existence of truth to make those who do liars rather than ostriches pretending it doesn't exist.

Well it was your way of trying NOT to address the issues and your way of trying to hide the truth that you deliberately DON'T LOOK for the truth and hide behind making it the responsibility of somebody else.

Truth wins out in the end and you have been proved WRONG!

Can you admit?

Maybe it is you who is in denial by believing that your version of faith is the 'truth'.

[Spud]

Spud,

You're really not getting it. If you think that "miracles" happened because that's your faith, then you have no basis to argue against one else's faith beliefs about anything else. Why and how should anyone take your claims more seriously than theirs?

I think the problem is that some people misinterpret their scriptures, which might lead them to do bad things.

[Shaker]

I think the problem is that some people misinterpret their scriptures, which might lead them to do bad things.

The wrongness ... where do I begin?

[savillerow]

Msg 14185 Spud "Some people misinterpret their scriptures" So for the sake of mankind, the future of the human race, the protection of the next generation and because it makes bloody sense will these people who misinterpret, hang on to, believe unexamined writings and events, pray, my personal relationship blah blah, its a miracle theres no other explanation, thats holy that is,we must keep this sacred, the afterlife, heaven and hell etc etc please drop these strange thought processes. By tomorrow tea time would be nice.

[Sebastian Toe]

I think the problem is that some people misinterpret their scriptures,

Do you?

[floo]

I think the problem is that some people misinterpret their scriptures, which might lead them to do bad things.

And you think you have interpreted them correctly?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

I think the problem is that some people misinterpret their scriptures, which might lead them to do bad things.

Nope. Two problems there:

First, you have all your work ahead of you still to demonstrate that scriptures are a reliable guide to anything.

Second, even if you could do that though then you'd still have all your work ahead of you to provide a method to decide which interpretations were correct and which were not.

[Spud]

Spud,

Nope. Two problems there:

First, you have all your work ahead of you still to demonstrate that scriptures are a reliable guide to anything.

Second, even if you could do that though then you'd still have all your work ahead of you to provide a method to decide which interpretations were correct and which were not.

I apologize - I assumed that the Koran does not teach violence against innocent people, and thought that Islamic terrorists had misinterpreted the Koran. However, it looks like it does teach that:

http://tinyurl.com/hyvb9qe

You said,

If you think that "miracles" happened because that's your faith, then you have no basis to argue against one else's faith beliefs about anything else. Why and how should anyone take your claims more seriously than theirs?

I meant that the Hebrews thought that miracles happened in Egypt, which gave them more faith in capturing the cities of Canaan.

Muslims believe the Koran is divinely inspired:

Islam considers the Quran to be a holy book, the word of Allah, and a miracle.[citation needed] The text itself is believed to be a miracle on the grounds that the Arabic text does not conform to the standard poetry and prose categories commonly expressed by all forms of written and spoken languages and therefore falls outside the realm of limited human possibility and must be divinely inspired.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran_and_miracles

So there is quite a lot to untangle. Christianity teaches that the conquest of Canaan was a one-off event and that God does not require that kind of thing now. Whether the violence-advocating verses of the Koran in the link above apply now I do not know. Some clearly think they do. Those that think they don't would presumably be able to prove it; otherwise they are lying when they say Islam is a religion of peace. There you go: a method to decide which interpretations were correct and which were not.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

I apologize - I assumed that the Koran does not teach violence against innocent people, and thought that Islamic terrorists had misinterpreted the Koran. However, it looks like it does teach that:

http://tinyurl.com/hyvb9qe

You said,
Quote
If you think that "miracles" happened because that's your faith, then you have no basis to argue against one else's faith beliefs about anything else. Why and how should anyone take your claims more seriously than theirs?

I meant that the Hebrews thought that miracles happened in Egypt, which gave them more faith in capturing the cities of Canaan.

Muslims believe the Koran is divinely inspired:
Quote
Islam considers the Quran to be a holy book, the word of Allah, and a miracle.[citation needed] The text itself is believed to be a miracle on the grounds that the Arabic text does not conform to the standard poetry and prose categories commonly expressed by all forms of written and spoken languages and therefore falls outside the realm of limited human possibility and must be divinely inspired.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran_and_miracles

So there is quite a lot to untangle. Christianity teaches that the conquest of Canaan was a one-off event and that God does not require that kind of thing now. Whether the violence-advocating verses of the Koran in the link above apply now I do not know. Some clearly think they do. Those that think they don't would presumably be able to prove it; otherwise they are lying when they say Islam is a religion of peace. There you go: a method to decide which interpretations were correct and which were not.

Yes but, whether once or often, both religions rely on faith for their convictions, regardless of what the content of those beliefs happen to be. The question you were asked was: once anyone invokes “faith” as their rationale, how then should any faith claim be distinguished from any other?

And no, you have no method for either the Koran or for the Bible. You can cherry pick both violent and peaceful bits from each – how does that help you either with demonstrating that because something is called “scripture” it must be true, or once you’ve done that with deciding which is the “correct” interpretation of either?

[Spud]

Spud,

Yes but, whether once or often, both religions rely on faith for their convictions, regardless of what the content of those beliefs happen to be. The question you were asked was: once anyone invokes “faith” as their rationale, how then should any faith claim be distinguished from any other?

Don't forget that atheism also relies on faith, if I'm not mistaken? If so then there seems to be no worldview that doesn't rely on faith.

[Spud]

And no, you have no method for either the Koran or for the Bible. You can cherry pick both violent and peaceful bits from each – how does that help you either with demonstrating that because something is called “scripture” it must be true, or once you’ve done that with deciding which is the “correct” interpretation of either?

As an example, Abram believed God when God said he would give his descendants the land of Canaan. But Abram then went and had a child with Hagar, thinking because his wife couldn't have children, that must be the right thing to do.

[Spud]

But in the above situation, there was a right thing to do, which was wait, rather than commit adultery.

[Gordon]

Don't forget that atheism also relies on faith, if I'm not mistaken? If so then there seems to be no worldview that doesn't rely on faith.

You're mistaken, Spud.

[Nearly Sane]

Don't forget that atheism also relies on faith, if I'm not mistaken? If so then there seems to be no worldview that doesn't rely on faith.

I am an agyhhuryytist. Is that a worldview and is it dependent on faith?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spud,

Yes but, whether once or often, both religions rely on faith for their convictions, regardless of what the content of those beliefs happen to be. The question you were asked was: once anyone invokes “faith” as their rationale, how then should any faith claim be distinguished from any other?

And no, you have no method for either the Koran or for the Bible. You can cherry pick both violent and peaceful bits from each – how does that help you either with demonstrating that because something is called “scripture” it must be true, or once you’ve done that with deciding which is the “correct” interpretation of either?

But naturalisticist gigs have violence and peaceful bits too. Stalin, Pol Pot on the violent side and Bertrand and that nice Mr Copson on the peaceful side.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Don't forget that atheism also relies on faith, if I'm not mistaken? If so then there seems to be no worldview that doesn't rely on faith.

Depends what you mean by "faith". All beliefs rest on certain axioms – indeed it's only axiomatically true that there's an "I" to have the belief in the first place. Reason and inter-subjective experience and so on provide models of reality which – insofar as we accept the underlying axioms – we call “true”: it’s “true” that aeroplanes fly, that medicines cure etc.

Your problem here though is that by conflating this with “faith” in the religious sense you end up with the relativist position that all assertions of truth are as valid as all others (ie, the “going nuclear” option). This not only provides no solutions, but as some such claims will contradict some others it’s logically incoherent.

Which brings us back you your problem. If you want others to take your faith beliefs seriously, why should any other faith beliefs be taken any less seriously?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But naturalisticist gigs have violence and peaceful bits too. Stalin, Pol Pot on the violent side and Bertrand and that nice Mr Copson on the peaceful side.

No idea what you mean by “naturalisticist gigs” but the question concerned how we should model truths, not their outcomes.

Oh, and as you well know, you’d have all your work ahead of you if you wanted to show that Stalin, Pol Pot etc behaved as they did because of their naturalism rather than because they were homicidal bastards. 

[Spud]

You're mistaken, Spud.

So you're 100% certain that there is no God?