SusanDoris the millstone

13468934

Comments

  • fineline wrote: »
    I wonder if the difficulty is that for SusanDoris personally to believe in God, she would feel she was being unreasonable. For SusanDoris personally, atheism is the only reasonable way. And maybe she is having difficulty expressing that thought process in a way that indicates it is about herself, and that she can't actually speak for anyone else.
    But is it necessary to express that thought process on every goddam thread she takes part in? There are threads about subjects where I can't add anything reasonable. If I were to try to write on the Rugby thread, I'd show myself an ignoramus about Rugby. So I don't. I suppose my feeling about Rugby is somewhat analagous to SusanDoris's feeling about theism. But I don't feel a need to go on a thread that presupposes the worth of playing and discussing Rugby, let alone to go there and say "there is no intrinsic reason to think playing Rugby is a good or worthwhile thing." It would be fatuous and obnoxious and pointless.
  • balaam wrote: »
    @SusanDoris
    when the subject of agnosticism for instance comes up, is the apparent assumption by believers that the probability of God (any god) existing as against the probability of its not existing is a sort of 50-50 case. Whereas it can only be a 1-99 - keeping the probabilities as for and against the same as the previous 50-50 above.
    I have never seen any believers arguing from the position of the probability of God if I tried it would not be 50 -50. as for 1 - 99, can you tell me where you got this statistic. I hope it is not MADE UP.
    You appear not to have noticed that I used the adjective 'apparent' and the phrase 'sort of'. This was in order to make it clear that it is my personal impression.
    You claim that belief is not from reason.
    No I do not claim that. That is an assumption you are making. The reasonsfor belief over millennia are clear, obvious and historical.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    mousethief wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    I wonder if the difficulty is that for SusanDoris personally to believe in God, she would feel she was being unreasonable. For SusanDoris personally, atheism is the only reasonable way. And maybe she is having difficulty expressing that thought process in a way that indicates it is about herself, and that she can't actually speak for anyone else.
    But is it necessary to express that thought process on every goddam thread she takes part in?

    Well, yes, that’s definitely another difficulty and one which has now been mentioned many times and discussed in detail and SusanDoris is aware of and says here she is thinking about why she does this. So I didn’t think it necessary to mention it again.

    That particular post of mine you have quoted was addressing another difficulty, which LambChopped and yourself had been discussing - that SusanDoris posts as if atheism were the reasonable position and theism were unreasonable. She has said she was not intending this, and LC was saying here that she says it nonetheless, so there is a communication problem which she doesn’t know the answer to. So this problem was the one I was addressing and speculating a possible answer to.
  • It's ok, every time SD drops another "but maybe God doesn't exist" type statement in a thread which isn't about that, someone can challenge her in her unexamined assumptions. Starting with her total ignorance of the philosophy of science, moving through her unexamined acceptance of Scientism and beyond.

    There's a rota on the table at the back of church.

  • mousethief wrote: »
    Chorister wrote: »
    Somebody upthread asserted that SusanDoris doesn't engage. Which made me laugh, because for 5 pages here she has been engaging rather well!
    I'd say the "rather well" part is a matter of opinion. If you mean she's been actually engaging with people's points, well, I'm afraid we're going to part company.
    Yep. There’s some engagement on the periphery, but very little on any real challenge to what she said. The post a few up from this one, where she responded to @balaam, is a good example. She noted her use of qualifications in response to his challenge to her statement that believers seem to think there’s a 50-50 chance that God exists. But she totally ignored his challenge asking her to explain her basis for saying “it can only be a 1-99” chance.

  • SusanDorisSusanDoris Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Chorister wrote: »
    Somebody upthread asserted that SusanDoris doesn't engage. Which made me laugh, because for 5 pages here she has been engaging rather well!
    I'd say the "rather well" part is a matter of opinion. If you mean she's been actually engaging with people's points, well, I'm afraid we're going to part company.
    Yep. There’s some engagement on the periphery, but very little on any real challenge to what she said. The post a few up from this one, where she responded to @balaam, is a good example. She noted her use of qualifications in response to his challenge to her statement that believers seem to think there’s a 50-50 chance that God exists. But she totally ignored his challenge asking her to explain her basis for saying “it can only be a 1-99” chance.
    It was my personal idea. It was not a statistic. I did not find it on any statistical web site!. It did not come from anywhere else. It is an impression I personally have had from reading and posting on other forums and listening to various radio programmes, such as those by Melvyn bragg. I might therefore be right or I might be wrong. I have made no claim anywhere to be right on this. If you think I have, cite it""" *sighs and wonders whether I ought to add more.... :)*

    ETA to remove extra letter f
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Chorister wrote: »
    Somebody upthread asserted that SusanDoris doesn't engage. Which made me laugh, because for 5 pages here she has been engaging rather well!
    I'd say the "rather well" part is a matter of opinion. If you mean she's been actually engaging with people's points, well, I'm afraid we're going to part company.
    Yep. There’s some engagement on the periphery, but very little on any real challenge to what she said. The post a few up from this one, where she responded to @balaam, is a good example. She noted her use of qualifications in response to his challenge to her statement that believers seem to think there’s a 50-50 chance that God exists. But she totally ignored his challenge asking her to explain her basis for saying “it can only be a 1-99” chance.
    It was my personal idea. It was not a statistic. I did not find it on any statistical web site!. It did not come from anywhere else. It is an impression I personally have had from reading and posting on other forums and listening to various radio programmes, such as those by Melvyn bragg. I might therefore be right or I might be wrong. I have made no claim anywhere to be right on this. If you think I have, cite it.
    SusanDoris, you said "it can only be a 1-99" chance. That sounds an awful lot like a definitive claim to me. If you did not intend it as such, perhaps you shouldn't have worded it as such.

  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Talking about probability, giving numbers like 50/50 or 1/99 is a very specific scientific approach, SusanDoris. On the one hand you are demanding scientific rigor in evidence of God, and on the other hand you are throwing out invented statistics for the world based your impressions of a radio programme with Melvyn Bragg. Can you see how this might make people question what your purpose is, or think you’re not really after serious discussion at all?
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Chorister wrote: »
    Somebody upthread asserted that SusanDoris doesn't engage. Which made me laugh, because for 5 pages here she has been engaging rather well!
    I'd say the "rather well" part is a matter of opinion. If you mean she's been actually engaging with people's points, well, I'm afraid we're going to part company.
    Yep. There’s some engagement on the periphery, but very little on any real challenge to what she said. The post a few up from this one, where she responded to @balaam, is a good example. She noted her use of qualifications in response to his challenge to her statement that believers seem to think there’s a 50-50 chance that God exists. But she totally ignored his challenge asking her to explain her basis for saying “it can only be a 1-99” chance.
    It was my personal idea. It was not a statistic. I did not find it on any statistical web site!. It did not come from anywhere else. It is an impression I personally have had from reading and posting on other forums and listening to various radio programmes, such as those by Melvyn bragg. I might therefore be right or I might be wrong. I have made no claim anywhere to be right on this. If you think I have, cite it.
    SusanDoris, you said "it can only be a 1-99" chance. That sounds an awful lot like a definitive claim to me. If you did not intend it as such, perhaps you shouldn't have worded it as such.
    I will make things clearer!! However, ;I did connect that 99-1 to the 'sort of', 'apparent' previous part of the post. It was not a separate claim. If there was a ful stop punctuation mark in between the sentences, it sshould have been a ssemi-colon.



  • No, the problem here is definitely not about punctuation.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Well I'm usually accused of taking things literally but I interpreted "about 99-1" in the context of SD's post as "pretty damned unlikely" rather than a calculated assessment of probability.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Well I'm usually accused of taking things literally but I interpreted "about 99-1" in the context of SD's post as "pretty damned unlikely" rather than a calculated assessment of probability.
    Possibly because you are using a different filter than they are.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    It's ok, every time SD drops another "but maybe God doesn't exist" type statement in a thread which isn't about that, someone can challenge her in her unexamined assumptions. Starting with her total ignorance of the philosophy of science, moving through her unexamined acceptance of Scientism and beyond.
    One of the major subthreads on this thread is that no, you cannot challenge her on that. Or you can but you will be flapping your gums because she will ignore you, or change the subject. And the crusading goes on unabated.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    It's ok, every time SD drops another "but maybe God doesn't exist" type statement in a thread which isn't about that, someone can challenge her in her unexamined assumptions. Starting with her total ignorance of the philosophy of science, moving through her unexamined acceptance of Scientism and beyond.
    One of the major subthreads on this thread is that no, you cannot challenge her on that. Or you can but you will be flapping your gums because she will ignore you, or change the subject. And the crusading goes on unabated.

    Yes, I apologise for forgetting the [irony] tags
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    It's ok, every time SD drops another "but maybe God doesn't exist" type statement in a thread which isn't about that, someone can challenge her in her unexamined assumptions. Starting with her total ignorance of the philosophy of science, moving through her unexamined acceptance of Scientism and beyond.
    One of the major subthreads on this thread is that no, you cannot challenge her on that. Or you can but you will be flapping your gums because she will ignore you, or change the subject. And the crusading goes on unabated.

    Yes, I apologise for forgetting the [irony] tags

    Poe's law.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Well I'm usually accused of taking things literally but I interpreted "about 99-1" in the context of SD's post as "pretty damned unlikely" rather than a calculated assessment of probability.
    But that's the thing. She didn't say "about 99-1." She said "it can only be a 1-99." I wasn't taking literally something stated as an approximation. I was simply taking her to mean what she typed.

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Well I'm usually accused of taking things literally but I interpreted "about 99-1" in the context of SD's post as "pretty damned unlikely" rather than a calculated assessment of probability.
    But that's the thing. She didn't say "about 99-1." She said "it can only be a 1-99." I wasn't taking literally something stated as an approximation. I was simply taking her to mean what she typed.
    You know, one of the annoying things about SOF is the tendency to take things literally that are just the way people speak. Often despite the context and poster's history. I know, the written word has less context. But that goes both ways. In SD's case, her posting history doesn't make it easy to find nuance, no. Without clarification, though, it pretty much seems to be interpreted through the filter with which one views her.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    You know, one of the annoying things about SOF is the tendency to take things literally that are just the way people speak. Often despite the context and poster's history. I know, the written word has less context. But that goes both ways. In SD's case, her posting history doesn't make it easy to find nuance, no. Without clarification, though, it pretty much seems to be interpreted through the filter with which one views her.
    Which is based in large part by her behavior (as can be seen on this thread). Consider the proverb starting, "You made your bed..."
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Well I'm usually accused of taking things literally but I interpreted "about 99-1" in the context of SD's post as "pretty damned unlikely" rather than a calculated assessment of probability.
    But that's the thing. She didn't say "about 99-1." She said "it can only be a 1-99." I wasn't taking literally something stated as an approximation. I was simply taking her to mean what she typed.
    You know, one of the annoying things about SOF is the tendency to take things literally that are just the way people speak. Often despite the context and poster's history. I know, the written word has less context. But that goes both ways. In SD's case, her posting history doesn't make it easy to find nuance, no. Without clarification, though, it pretty much seems to be interpreted through the filter with which one views her.
    I’d say that’s one of the annoying things about internet discussion boards in general. And it’s exacerbated when we’re talking with people from all over the world. What might come across as clear locally (for the speaker) may lose something in translation when, say, it crosses the ocean.

    Yes, we all read and hear through filters. Sometimes those filters are faulty or even unfair. Sometimes those filters are shaped by past conversations with the speaker at issue.

    In this instance, my read of "it can only be a 1-99” was informed by reading SusanDoris’s previous posts over the years, in which assertions have typically been made with apparent certainty, and in which having an objective basis for opinions has been held up as being of high importance.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Well I'm usually accused of taking things literally but I interpreted "about 99-1" in the context of SD's post as "pretty damned unlikely" rather than a calculated assessment of probability.
    Thank you!
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Whereas to me, despite my tendency to literal interpretations, it was absolutely blindingly obvious 1-99 was a way of saying "very little chance".
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Whereas to me, despite my tendency to literal interpretations, it was absolutely blindingly obvious 1-99 was a way of saying "very little chance".

    And that makes a difference how exactly? Whether or not it was taken to be a literal probability, SD is still claiming it is possible to apply probability theory to the existence of a deity - and that if one did so, it would be obvious that the chance of existence was low.

    The fundamental issue here is not the number but that anyone thinks it is possible to assert that it is highly unlikely.

    A person who has only seen desert might assert that the existence of a body of water that takes days to cross is highly unlikely. That doesn't actually mean anything, does it?

    Confidently asserting something is or isn't true without access to all the information cannot - even in general conversational use - be applied to probability theory. It is meaningless.

    All one is saying that one doesn't believe it is true.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Which is based in large part by her behavior (as can be seen on this thread). Consider the proverb starting, "You made your bed..."
    In part. Which I've acknowledged from the beginning. It is the other part which I've been taking about.

  • And which you grossly overinflate, as I believe has been shown.
  • SusanDorisSusanDoris Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Whereas to me, despite my tendency to literal interpretations, it was absolutely blindingly obvious 1-99 was a way of saying "very little chance".

    And that makes a difference how exactly? Whether or not it was taken to be a literal probability, SD is still claiming it is possible to apply probability theory to the existence of a deity -
    That is wrong, untrue, not correct, er, er, oh yes, daft! I do not make claims unless I can back them up. .
    ...and that if one did so, it would be obvious that the chance of existence was low.

    The fundamental issue here is not the number but that anyone thinks it is possible to assert that it is highly unlikely.
    I do not assert either, although if I do and am called on it I will apologise,
    A person who has only seen desert might assert that the existence of a body of water that takes days to cross is highly unlikely. That doesn't actually mean anything, does it?
    In my opinion, the analogy doesn't work, since the existence of deserts is easily checked and verified.

    ETA If I write something that might be taken as a claim or an assertion, I qualify it with 'sort of', or 'possibly', etc. I will make sure I double-check this in future to avoid the possibility of it being suggested I am claiming or asserting.

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I’d say that’s one of the annoying things about internet discussion boards in general. And it’s exacerbated when we’re talking with people from all over the world. What might come across as clear locally (for the speaker) may lose something in translation when, say, it crosses the ocean.
    Yes, but we have something here at SOF that isn't present everywhere on the internet. Context. I've been accused of things that are the exact opposite of my posting history by people who should well know better. And I am not unique in that.
    Sometimes those filters are shaped by past conversations with the speaker at issue.
    These filters are turned on and off depending on how they contrast to other filters. To be fair, this is how people operate face-to-face as well; so that is at least consistent, if not exactly laudable.
    In this instance, my read of "it can only be a 1-99” was informed by reading SusanDoris’s previous posts over the years, in which assertions have typically been made with apparent certainty, and in which having an objective basis for opinions has been held up as being of high importance.
    Again, she is hardly unique in that. And, whilst I do appreciate that more nuances Christian thinkers here do get annoyed with the less nuanced, they do not generate the ire that SD does.

  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    SusanDoris, to me, what it boils down to is this: are you wanting a scientific discussion with facts, figures and citation of research (which it often seems to me that you are saying you do) or are you just wanting a casual chat about your general impressions of the world? To me, that provides the context as to how literally to take you. And bear in mind everyone’s minds work differently and some people’s minds do work more literally than others, and some people have said they find it hard to read your tone or work out what sort of discussion you want.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Well I'm usually accused of taking things literally but I interpreted "about 99-1" in the context of SD's post as "pretty damned unlikely" rather than a calculated assessment of probability.
    Possibly because you are using a different filter than they are.

    I suspect we all have different ways of reading things, and even those of us who took it literally won't all have done so for the same reasons. For someone who seems to want to be getting people to avoid 'them and us' superiority thinking, you seem to be engaging in it quite a bit yourself, expressing irritation with people whose minds work differently from yours.

  • mousethief wrote: »
    Chorister wrote: »
    Somebody upthread asserted that SusanDoris doesn't engage. Which made me laugh, because for 5 pages here she has been engaging rather well!
    I'd say the "rather well" part is a matter of opinion. If you mean she's been actually engaging with people's points, well, I'm afraid we're going to part company.

    I'm easily pleased, obviously.
  • fineline wrote: »
    SusanDoris, to me, what it boils down to is this: are you wanting a scientific discussion with facts, figures and citation of research (which it often seems to me that you are saying you do) or are you just wanting a casual chat about your general impressions of the world? To me, that provides the context as to how literally to take you. And bear in mind everyone’s minds work differently and some people’s minds do work more literally than others, and some people have said they find it hard to read your tone or work out what sort of discussion you want.
    For a start, I do not *want* a particular *sort* of discussion. It seems like a good question to discuss, not to have rigid guide lines laid down as to what I want. I cannot think of a way that God can be scientifically proven, but then I do not have a mind suited to the creation of new and original ideas. If everyone thinks that it is impossible to prove god scientifically, then that is the end of that part of the topic!!

    The 'should' aspect is far less clear and I hope that will produce a variety of situations where whether God should or should not be proven scientificallyk would apply.
  • fineline wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Well I'm usually accused of taking things literally but I interpreted "about 99-1" in the context of SD's post as "pretty damned unlikely" rather than a calculated assessment of probability.
    Possibly because you are using a different filter than they are.

    I suspect we all have different ways of reading things, and even those of us who took it literally won't all have done so for the same reasons. For someone who seems to want to be getting people to avoid 'them and us' superiority thinking, you seem to be engaging in it quite a bit yourself, expressing irritation with people whose minds work differently from yours.
    I am trying to not do this. I suppose part of what you are seeing is the irritation that I feel because people, IMO, are harping on the obvious part of the equation to avoid the less comfortable part.
    I am not a mind reader, so I could be reading them wrong. But that is how I see this.
    So, in my mind, it is less about thinking differently than avoiding thinking in a balanced way. This is how everyone operates, including myself. I am not better in that regard, but I am trying to be aware when I do it. It is just easier to see when other people might be.
  • balaambalaam Shipmate
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Well I'm usually accused of taking things literally but I interpreted "about 99-1" in the context of SD's post as "pretty damned unlikely" rather than a calculated assessment of probability.
    Thank you!

    You are thanking someone for getting you off the hook by misquoting you whilst not engaging those who quoted directly.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    In my opinion, the (desert) analogy doesn't work, since the existence of deserts is easily checked and verified.
    There have been many times and places when that was not true for most people. A millennium ago, what did the average inhabitant of the British Isles know about vast deserts?
    ETA If I write something that might be taken as a claim or an assertion, I qualify it with 'sort of', or 'possibly', etc. I will make sure I double-check this in future to avoid the possibility of it being suggested I am claiming or asserting.
    Yes, please do, since "it can only be a 1-99” definitely reads as if you are presenting it as a certainty.

  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    No I do not claim that. That is an assumption you are making. The reasonsfor belief over millennia are clear, obvious and historical.

    Do the clear, obvious and historical reasons for belief which you accept include the obvious one, that the living God is real?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    No I do not claim that. That is an assumption you are making. The reasonsfor belief over millennia are clear, obvious and historical.

    Do the clear, obvious and historical reasons for belief which you accept include the obvious one, that the living God is real?

    What a strange definition of "obvious" you have. By that logic it's obvious that dragons are real.
  • anoesisanoesis Shipmate
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    It's ok, every time SD drops another "but maybe God doesn't exist" type statement in a thread which isn't about that, someone can challenge her in her unexamined assumptions.

    There's a rota on the table at the back of church.

    Or we could turn it into a drinking game...
  • Raptor Eye wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    No I do not claim that. That is an assumption you are making. The reasonsfor belief over millennia are clear, obvious and historical.

    Do the clear, obvious and historical reasons for belief which you accept include the obvious one, that the living God is real?
    If something is real, i.e. fact as opposed to fiction, then it can be observed in some way via the senses and independently verified. Itsounds as if you would not agree with this.
    As KarlLB says, by that logic, dragons are real; and I'll add pink unicorns and anything else you can imagine.
    I am not denigrating the strength that your belief gives you, but to the best of our knowledge, it is entirely you that gives you that strength. Give yourself, your human self, the credit, say I!!

  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Well I'm usually accused of taking things literally but I interpreted "about 99-1" in the context of SD's post as "pretty damned unlikely" rather than a calculated assessment of probability.

    Ditto. Well, rather than literal probability, I took it as illustrating her position on a scale, where 0=Atheist with no doubts, and 100=Theist with no doubts. (So 50 would be an agnostic). It was basically a crude way of saying “I’m an agnostic atheist”; that she had to leave the possibility of God in, but that possibility was slight.

    I’d guess on that kind of scale I fluctuate between 40 and 90. I wouldn’t say I have a fixed score.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    <snip> If something is real, i.e. fact as opposed to fiction, then it can be observed in some way via the senses and independently verified.<snip>
    So by these criteria are Caesar’s invasions of Britain in 55 and 54 BC a fact? If so how do we observe and independently verify them?
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    <snip> If something is real, i.e. fact as opposed to fiction, then it can be observed in some way via the senses and independently verified.<snip>
    So by these criteria are Caesar’s invasions of Britain in 55 and 54 BC a fact? If so how do we observe and independently verify them?

    Is there no archaeology available on this? There seem to be endless Roman digs around.
  • Very difficult to date a dig that accurately, to demonstrate two specific dates. Also depends on how much was built, because a campsite - tents* rather than buildings - will leave very little trace.

    * the tents made by Paul and his friends from Acts?
  • But archaeology, history even geography are not science. Nobody is doing a double-blind clinical trial to determine whether these things happened.

    These kinds of knowledge are experienced and observed and one must either experience them for oneself or trust the experience and interpretation of others.

    If we are going to say that books and official records and supporting archaeology are enough to be sure about Roman emporers, then exactly the same kind of thing can be said about the deity.

    If we are going to say that we trust people who say that they've experienced wide seas, or have experienced them ourselves, then exactly the same kind of thing can be said about the deity.

    Yes, much science is based on the observation that seas exist and European history is based on the facts of the Roman empire. But neither has been scientifically proven because neither are that kind of knowledge.
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    No I do not claim that. That is an assumption you are making. The reasonsfor belief over millennia are clear, obvious and historical.

    Do the clear, obvious and historical reasons for belief which you accept include the obvious one, that the living God is real?
    If something is real, i.e. fact as opposed to fiction, then it can be observed in some way via the senses and independently verified. Itsounds as if you would not agree with this.
    As KarlLB says, by that logic, dragons are real; and I'll add pink unicorns and anything else you can imagine.
    I am not denigrating the strength that your belief gives you, but to the best of our knowledge, it is entirely you that gives you that strength. Give yourself, your human self, the credit, say I!!

    Once again you have not addressed my question. The reason people have believed in the one living God, as opposed to made up deities, is that God exists and people can and do sense God's holy presence. I do.

    I don't believe because I gain strength, or anything else, from faith. It's not about me.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    No I do not claim that. That is an assumption you are making. The reasonsfor belief over millennia are clear, obvious and historical.

    Do the clear, obvious and historical reasons for belief which you accept include the obvious one, that the living God is real?
    If something is real, i.e. fact as opposed to fiction, then it can be observed in some way via the senses and independently verified. Itsounds as if you would not agree with this.
    As KarlLB says, by that logic, dragons are real; and I'll add pink unicorns and anything else you can imagine.
    I am not denigrating the strength that your belief gives you, but to the best of our knowledge, it is entirely you that gives you that strength. Give yourself, your human self, the credit, say I!!

    Once again you have not addressed my question. The reason people have believed in the one living God, as opposed to made up deities, is that God exists and people can and do sense God's holy presence. I do.

    I don't believe because I gain strength, or anything else, from faith. It's not about me.

    No. You have an internal mental state which you interpret as sensing God's presence. However we are not privy to the mental processes by which you come to that interpretation, so it's difficult for anyone else to draw any conclusion from it.
  • Raptor Eye wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    No I do not claim that. That is an assumption you are making. The reasonsfor belief over millennia are clear, obvious and historical.

    Do the clear, obvious and historical reasons for belief which you accept include the obvious one, that the living God is real?
    If something is real, i.e. fact as opposed to fiction, then it can be observed in some way via the senses and independently verified. Itsounds as if you would not agree with this.
    As KarlLB says, by that logic, dragons are real; and I'll add pink unicorns and anything else you can imagine.
    I am not denigrating the strength that your belief gives you, but to the best of our knowledge, it is entirely you that gives you that strength. Give yourself, your human self, the credit, say I!!

    Once again you have not addressed my question. The reason people have believed in the one living God, as opposed to made up deities, is that God exists and people can and do sense God's holy presence. I do.

    I don't believe because I gain strength, or anything else, from faith. It's not about me.

    Ok but you must surely admit that other people who believe in those "made up deities" also believe they are real and alive?

    What a bizarre argument.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    @mr cheesy said -
    These kinds of knowledge are experienced and observed and one must either experience them for oneself or trust the experience and interpretation of others.

    That’s it. It comes down to trust. If something deeply disturbs the trust you may have had in the archaeology/history/politics/theology you once held then how do you regain belief in it, even if you want to?

    I can’t shake the feeling that there is a God, a loving presence who is outside of myself. But that’s all it is - a feeling. I’ve lost all trust in the Church and its traditions. They have proved false in too many ways.

  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    This is probably why we don't often have these conversations about how to cling on to faith in the face of difficult situations, or why we quietly gave up on faith; any such discussion rapidly degenerates into assertions from those who have an unfailing, unshakeable faith countermanded by assertions from atheists that it's creations of our own brains, nothing real that can be pinned down, arguing at each other and drowning out the more nuanced conversations.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    @mr cheesy said -
    These kinds of knowledge are experienced and observed and one must either experience them for oneself or trust the experience and interpretation of others.

    That’s it. It comes down to trust. If something deeply disturbs the trust you may have had in the archaeology/history/politics/theology you once held then how do you regain belief in it, even if you want to?

    I can’t shake the feeling that there is a God, a loving presence who is outside of myself. But that’s all it is - a feeling. I’ve lost all trust in the Church and its traditions. They have proved false in too many ways.

    I suppose I just see this as part of the reality of human existence.

    I don't tend to divide knowledge into stuff that is scientifically proven and that which isn't - I tend to see it as a marketplace of ideas and we tend to decide where we put our trust.

    It is certainly true as far as I'm concerned that it makes most sense most of the time to put most trust in things that are repeatedly observed and have met the highest scientific standards.

    But that's not then to say that other things which can't be interrogated in this way are useless.

    I tend to have a low tolerance for things that are said to be a certain way just because someone says it is, so I also have limited time for most forms of Christianity that I've recently experienced.

  • anoesisanoesis Shipmate
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    If something is real, i.e. fact as opposed to fiction, then it can be observed in some way via the senses and independently verified.
    How would one go about independently verifying your assertion (August 21), that your eternal cheerfulness is due to your genetic makeup?

  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Well I'm usually accused of taking things literally but I interpreted "about 99-1" in the context of SD's post as "pretty damned unlikely" rather than a calculated assessment of probability.

    Ditto. Well, rather than literal probability, I took it as illustrating her position on a scale, where 0=Atheist with no doubts, and 100=Theist with no doubts. (So 50 would be an agnostic). It was basically a crude way of saying “I’m an agnostic atheist”; that she had to leave the possibility of God in, but that possibility was slight.

    I’d guess on that kind of scale I fluctuate between 40 and 90. I wouldn’t say I have a fixed score.
    (thumbs-up em,oticon) Thank you - much appreciated

This discussion has been closed.