SusanDoris the millstone

1181921232434

Comments

  • Well, I'm sure the Ordinariate has room for priests' wives with aprons who are always in the kitchen at parties.

    And yes, I knew he was AC rather than RC.
  • Ah - I do believe I've referred to him before. Actually, he's not dead, just retired from inactive parish work.

    Alas, there is now no convenient Ordinariate group for him to join. They had to give up, as the two members couldn't afford the rental for the former telephone box.

    Apologies for whimsical but bitter tangent. Back to millstones.

    IJ
  • Now I'm jealous.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited September 2018
    That was the 1000th post on this most runcible of threads....

    IJ
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    That was the 1000th post on this most runcible of threads....

    ...and far more entertaining than most of it.

  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    Close members of my family are all non-believers. Some of them enjoy taking people to visit the Cathedral because it is a place of great beauty and of enormous historical interest. They do not feel the presence of any God or any need to pray.

    I wonder what you - i.e. the believers - think are atheists' reasons for their now or always lack of belief That is, if any choose to respond.

    If you think this question is not relevant, or should not be here, etc then please ignore it.

    Rook answered this far better than I ever could.

    However, FWIW (very little) here is an attempt to answer it from my own perspective.
    Thank you - and apologies for not responding yesterday - I only saw itjust now while looking through to find something else.
    'Close members of my family are all non-believers.' That's not unusual. So are most of mine and I suspect many other people here. What's your point?

    'Some of them enjoy taking people to visit the Cathedral because it is a place of great beauty and of enormous historical interest.' So do plenty of other people. Cathedrals are big tourist attractions these days. I enjoy visiting cathedrals for those reasons too. What's your point?

    'They do not feel the presence of any God or any need to pray.' Again, they are not alone in that. I would imagine plenty of people who visit cathedrals feel the same. Others don't. Nobody is making them pray. If they want to visit a cathedral and admire the architecture, fine. If they want to pray there then that's fine too. Again, what's your point?

    Then your question: 'I wonder what you - i.e. the believers - think are atheists' reasons for their now or always lack of belief.'

    My answer:

    I would imagine there are as many different reasons as there are atheists. There'll be all sorts of reasons. They may have been put off organised religion (or even unorganised religion) by something they've seen or heard. They may want some kind of proof in a 'seeing is believing' sense. They may have concluded that the whole thing is irrational and not worth bothering with. All sorts of reasons.

    Why do you ask?

    I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make here.

    I'm sure if we asked all the atheists aboard Ship their reasons for being atheists, they'd all give us a number of reasons. Some would overlap, some would be quite different.

    Some people may feel a sense of the numinous and a need to pray in a cathedral or other religious building - of whatever faith - and I'm sure if you asked them why that was you'd get an equally diverse range of reasons.

    Same if you asked those who didn't feel the need to pray.

    I really don't see the point of your question. Am I missing something?
    My perception of several previous posts was that such a comment or two might add to the reasonable side of the discussion here but I was not trying to hammer home any particular point.

    It is interesting reading the current Purgatory topic of 'everything happens for a reason' because I am sitting on the sidelines cheering at nearly every word said! I'm wondering how to join in without being accused of not engaging. Hmmmm!
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate
    edited September 2018
    @SusanDoris your comment about "reading the current Purgatory topic of Everything happens for a reason" and cheering along with the posts points up how little you have taken on board the way most posters here understand Christianity and post about it. Our reactions there are normal for Purgatory. Most people do not believe in the God you have been asking us about for however many years you have been around. You keep asking questions based on things you believe Christians believe, without listening to the answers given here.
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Close members of my family are all non-believers. Some of them enjoy taking people to visit the Cathedral because it is a place of great beauty and of enormous historical interest. They do not feel the presence of any God or any need to pray.

    I wonder what you - i.e. the believers - think are atheists' reasons for their now or always lack of belief That is, if any choose to respond.

    If you think this question is not relevant, or should not be here, etc then please ignore it.

    Rook answered this far better than I ever could.

    However, FWIW (very little) here is an attempt to answer it from my own perspective.
    Thank you - and apologies for not responding yesterday - I only saw itjust now while looking through to find something else.
    'Close members of my family are all non-believers.' That's not unusual. So are most of mine and I suspect many other people here. What's your point?

    'Some of them enjoy taking people to visit the Cathedral because it is a place of great beauty and of enormous historical interest.' So do plenty of other people. Cathedrals are big tourist attractions these days. I enjoy visiting cathedrals for those reasons too. What's your point?

    'They do not feel the presence of any God or any need to pray.' Again, they are not alone in that. I would imagine plenty of people who visit cathedrals feel the same. Others don't. Nobody is making them pray. If they want to visit a cathedral and admire the architecture, fine. If they want to pray there then that's fine too. Again, what's your point?

    Then your question: 'I wonder what you - i.e. the believers - think are atheists' reasons for their now or always lack of belief.'

    My answer:

    I would imagine there are as many different reasons as there are atheists. There'll be all sorts of reasons. They may have been put off organised religion (or even unorganised religion) by something they've seen or heard. They may want some kind of proof in a 'seeing is believing' sense. They may have concluded that the whole thing is irrational and not worth bothering with. All sorts of reasons.

    Why do you ask?

    I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make here.

    I'm sure if we asked all the atheists aboard Ship their reasons for being atheists, they'd all give us a number of reasons. Some would overlap, some would be quite different.

    Some people may feel a sense of the numinous and a need to pray in a cathedral or other religious building - of whatever faith - and I'm sure if you asked them why that was you'd get an equally diverse range of reasons.

    Same if you asked those who didn't feel the need to pray.

    I really don't see the point of your question. Am I missing something?
    My perception of several previous posts was that such a comment or two might add to the reasonable side of the discussion here but I was not trying to hammer home any particular point.

    It is interesting reading the current Purgatory topic of 'everything happens for a reason' because I am sitting on the sidelines cheering at nearly every word said! I'm wondering how to join in without being accused of not engaging. Hmmmm!

    It might help if:

    1) You said something new or different if you did join in.

    2) You actually listened and took note of what contributors were trying to say.

    FWIW you post questions and challenges in a way that implies that the rest of us haven't thought about them before.

    'I'd like to ask the believers here if they've ever wondered why other people - like my relatives for instance - don't share their beliefs.'

    Oh, really? You mean there are people out there who aren't theists? Goodness me, I wasn't aware of that! How did that happen? I can't for the life of me imagine how or why that came about ...

    The point is there are atheists here who were former believers, there are atheists here who have never believed or never signed up for any formal belief system. The same applies in reverse. There are believers here who used to be atheists or agnostics.

    There'll be all sorts of reasons why that is in each case.

    Anyhow, I'm glad you are following that Purgatory thread. Perhaps we can all learn something from it - or the book thread about Mr Polly too, come to that.

    Peace be to all.
  • @SusanDoris your comment about "reading the current Purgatory topic of Everything happens for a reason" and cheering along with the posts points up how little you have taken on board the way most posters here understand Christianity and post about it. Our reactions there are normal for Purgatory. Most people do not believe in the God you have been asking us about for however many years you have been around. You keep asking questions based on things you believe Christians believe, without listening to the answers given here.
    It is because I have listened to the answers given here that I will only post in that thread if I have something useful to say. This may not, of course, be seen as useful by posters here who are so keen to point out where I am going wrong, but you never know, I might manage it!
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    I find evanjellyfish is a term evangelicals themselves use, to describe those among them who are too polite to tell people they are going to hell. Those who have no such scruples are the ones who use the term.
    I am surprised that, in this day and age, anyone would use such an expression anyway. What do they think it means? Do they (whoever they are) think there is a Hell to go to? Do they provide any clues as to how anyone is supposed to get there ... wherever they imagine it to be? I do not know, and have not known, anyone who says such things. The whole thing is off the wall daft.

    This perhaps is part of the issue. Quite aside from the fact that you missed the point I was making, you continually express shock at the fact that certain Christians in the world do, say or believe certain things, and you seem to want to keep exclaiming about it. Whereas I'd say most people here (and elsewhere) are aware that there are Christians out there who behave in certain ways, and use certain expressions, and believe certain things. We might not know them personally, but they are around on the internet, they can sometimes be found shouting out in the streets, or can be read about. They are not hiding. And so while we might find it daft or annoying, we don't continually express surprise over it.

    Your questions, I assume, are rhetorical, because you are asking about the thought patterns of certain other people, rather than anything anyone has personally expressed here. You could doubtless find forums online where people do hold and express such views, and could ask there if you were so inclined. Or read websites devoted to helping people avoid hell - I'm sure plenty are to be found by googling! Or maybe devote a thread here to asking people's views on hell - maybe there are people here who have views you find 'off-the-wall daft.'

  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    I guess, thinking about it and trying to explain it better, it's kind of like when adults are talking about something quite complex, and a child picks up on something on the periphery - maybe something they're quoting a neighbour as having said, which fits into the bigger picture of what they are saying, maybe some issues with the neighbourhood in general, and there is an understanding that the neighbour is a bit odd, but the child just picks up on that one bit and pipes up: 'Did Mavis-next-door really say that? Haha - how weird! Silly Mavis!'
  • fineline wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    I find evanjellyfish is a term evangelicals themselves use, to describe those among them who are too polite to tell people they are going to hell. Those who have no such scruples are the ones who use the term.
    I am surprised that, in this day and age, anyone would use such an expression anyway. What do they think it means? Do they (whoever they are) think there is a Hell to go to? Do they provide any clues as to how anyone is supposed to get there ... wherever they imagine it to be? I do not know, and have not known, anyone who says such things. The whole thing is off the wall daft.

    This perhaps is part of the issue. Quite aside from the fact that you missed the point I was making, you continually express shock ... exclaiming
    No, I used the word 'surprise' deliberately. I can see I should have qualified it with 'mildly', or 'somewhat'. I have lived a long timeand had many and varied experiences and have not vegetated in a backwater.

    It is also interesting to note that people quite often say I have 'missed their point', but then, as far as I can hear, do not then make it clearer. I am certainly not, however, asking for anyone to go back and do that as I think there might be some gasketsbllowing, or possibly some slight irritation felt here and there.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    SusanDoris, I have several times tried to explain to you points you have missed, as have many others, but that particular point was a response to something someone else had said, a side issue about evangelicals, so I didn’t feel like explaining the entire conversation and context behind it.

    And whether you use the term ‘shock’ or ‘mild surprise’ is not so important. The degree of your surprise is not the point I was making. Your continually expressing this surprise (and elaborating that we are talking about something you’ve never come across before) is the point, so feel free to reread my post substituting ‘mild surprise’ for ‘shock.’

    Doc Tor said you were tone deaf. He meant this metaphorically, of course - not about music, but regarding understanding tone of posts, and the point of posts, and context. You genuinely seem to have a difficulty with these things. I gave the example of a child piping up in adult conversation to try to illustrate this. Not intending to mock you. It’s something I have difficulty with sometimes too, and unfortunately being aware that one has a difficulty doesn’t stop it happening. But it can help you recognise what is happening when people point it out to you.
  • fineline wrote: »
    SusanDoris, I have several times tried to explain to you points you have missed, as have many others, but that particular point was a response to something someone else had said, a side issue about evangelicals, so I didn’t feel like explaining the entire conversation and context behind it.
    Ah, right. In that case, yes, I noticed the reference and did not choose to comment on it.
    And whether you use the term ‘shock’ or ‘mild surprise’ is not so important. The degree of your surprise is not the point I was making. Your continually expressing this surprise (and elaborating that we are talking about something you’ve never come across before) is the point,
    so feel free to reread my post substituting ‘mild surprise’ for ‘shock.’[/quote]
    But I am not newly, or freshly surprised at what is said on the topics I read in Purgatory! There may be, are of course, some new aspects which have come to light in the news in more recent times, but they are on the range of human behaviour from the very worst to the very best are they not?
    Doc Tor said you were tone deaf. He meant this metaphorically, of course - not about music, but regarding understanding tone of posts, and the point of posts, and context. You seem to have a difficulty with these things.
    If I do have difficulty in future, then I will ask a question to clarify a point perhaps. Having to memorise what people say is a bit of a difficulty, but that's my problem not that of anyone here.
    I gave the example of a child piping up in adult conversation to try to illustrate this. Not intending to mock you. It’s something I have difficulty with sometimes too, and unfortunately being aware that one has a difficulty doesn’t stop it happening. But it can help you recognise what is happening when people point it out to you.

  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    edited September 2018
    SusanDoris, thanks for your reply. Asking clarification questions is always a good idea - I do it a lot when I'm not sure I'm understanding what someone is saying, and it helps. Though a problem with the 'tone deaf' thing is that a person generally isn't aware that they are missing the point, so they don't know they are having a difficulty, so don't think to ask. It is everyone else who sees it, and they may get annoyed but are often too polite to say anything directly, until eventually someone snaps and (in the context of the Ship) makes a Hell thread. But just being aware it is an issue may be helpful.

    Can you do a search for a specific word on a page with your software? Web browsers in general have that option, and I find it helpful when I want to find a specific post to do a search for the screen name of the person who posted (or my own screen name, if the post was quoting my post). I did that to find your post that I replied to today, rather than reread through seventy posts to find it - I searched for 'fineline'.
  • SusanDoris wrote: »

    But I am not newly, or freshly surprised at what is said on the topics I read in Purgatory! There may be, are of course, some new aspects which have come to light in the news in more recent times, but they are on the range of human behaviour from the very worst to the very best are they not?

    If you are not surprised, then why do you say you are surprised? That is precisely what you said: "I am surprised that, in this day and age..." and so on and so forth.

    If you say you are surprised, we will take it that you are surprised.

    That, or else that you are playing games with us. Which is annoying.

  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    ...That, or else that you are playing games with us. Which is annoying.

    It certainly is.


  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    To be fair, SD was saying she wasn't surprised in Purgatory - this is Hell, so I interpreted her to be saying the surprise expressed here is a one-off, rather than a thing she does a lot. Though I'm not sure I agree (though it's hard to search posts, as the last few pages of her posts are from this thread). I may be wrong, but it seems to me to be a way of posting she had employed before - when people talking about something, with the shared understanding that there are various Christians who do various things and we don't always agree with these things, SD pipes up with a comment about how unbelievable it is that people do such and such in this day and age. Even if she doesn't use the term 'surprised', she announces things as if they are new and surprising - like earlier in this thread, here, announcing as if it's big news that there are Christians who try to control others by what they think God has said. And Gamma's comment draws attention to the fact that she is announcing something everyone is already familiar with, and which is not big, surprising news:
    Sure, of course there are. There are people out there who believe differently to you. Get over it already.

  • SusanDoris wrote: »

    But I am not newly, or freshly surprised at what is said on the topics I read in Purgatory! There may be, are of course, some new aspects which have come to light in the news in more recent times, but they are on the range of human behaviour from the very worst to the very best are they not?

    If you are not surprised, then why do you say you are surprised? That is precisely what you said: "I am surprised that, in this day and age..." and so on and so forth.

    If you say you are surprised, we will take it that you are surprised.

    That, or else that you are playing games with us. Which is annoying.
    Right, let me have another try!! In view of the availability of knowledge - of all

    kinds and sorts and varieties, it - neutral it - is disappointing, very mildly surprising.

    I wouldnt 'play games' even if I was any good at doing so.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Okay, let me try again too.

    SusanDoris, this was your post:
    I am surprised that, in this day and age, anyone would use such an expression anyway. What do they think it means? Do they (whoever they are) think there is a Hell to go to? Do they provide any clues as to how anyone is supposed to get there ... wherever they imagine it to be? I do not know, and have not known, anyone who says such things. The whole thing is off the wall daft.

    First you expressed surprise. Then you asked a whole bunch of questions, as if you were trying to grasp the possible meaning or motivation behind such a strange phenomenon. You pointed out you'd never come across such a thing, and then called it 'off the wall daft.'

    This, all combined together, does kind of suggest you are coming across it for the first time, finding it very odd, surprising and hard to comprehend, and writing a reactive post to a new idea. This is not the first time you've written posts in this way, and it's hard to have serious discussion from such posts, because they seem to be a surprised, impulsive, stream-of-consciousness from you, about issues that were not actually the point of the post you were responding to, or the point of the thread.

  • fineline, I think the patience you have shown (and continue to show) on this quite surreal thread is An Example To Us All.

    Your reward will be in Heaven (wherever or whatever such a place may be, if it exists etc. etc. etc.)

    :lol:

    IJ
  • fineline wrote: »
    Okay, let me try again too.

    SusanDoris, this was your post:
    I am surprised that, in this day and age, anyone would use such an expression anyway. What do they think it means? Do they (whoever they are) think there is a Hell to go to? Do they provide any clues as to how anyone is supposed to get there ... wherever they imagine it to be? I do not know, and have not known, anyone who says such things. The whole thing is off the wall daft.

    First you expressed surprise. Then you asked a whole bunch of questions, as if you were trying to grasp the possible meaning or motivation behind such a strange phenomenon. You pointed out you'd never come across such a thing, and then called it 'off the wall daft.'

    This, all combined together, does kind of suggest you are coming across it for the first time, finding it very odd, surprising and hard to comprehend, and writing a reactive post to a new idea. This is not the first time you've written posts in this way, and it's hard to have serious discussion from such posts, because they seem to be a surprised, impulsive, stream-of-consciousness from you, about issues that were not actually the point of the post you were responding to, or the point of the thread.
    Thanks again, but after all this analysis of words and posts, is it worth my while to try and see if anyone responded to the questions?! Probably not and I certainly don't remember any such response.

    I'll just have to use the synonym finding google facility more often.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    SusanDoris, no, no-one responded to those questions you asked. I personally imagined (as I said previously) that they were rhetorical, and they were certainly completely unrelated to this thread. You were asking questions about a certain type of Christian who goes round telling people they are going to hell - pretty sure no one here can answer on behalf of such Christians!

    Again, the point of my post was to simply explain to you why people are interpreting you the way they are (and getting frustrated with you). I was not suggesting you should go back and look for answers to those rhetorical questions. I actually have no idea how you got that from my post! This is the sort of miscommunication that is getting people frustrated. People post something, and you reply as if they posted something else.

    Note, as you said this doesn't happen, that I have explained to you the point of my post, rather than simply saying you missed it. There seems to be a gaping commumication gap going on in this thread, and I'm trying to help bridge it. I seem to be totally failing in my attempts, but I keep persisting.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Bishops Finger, I'm not quite sure what it is that compels me to keep posting here, but I don't think it's patience. If I thought, as some have expressed, that SD was deliberately trolling, I'd have no patience. I just really don't think she is. I think she genuinely wants the interaction and is doing it the way she knows how, and I hope she stays on the Ship.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Indeed, fineline is only encouraging the zombie-troll to continue to try eating our brains. Curse you, fineline, and your blatant disregard for everyone's mental wellbeing.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited September 2018
    Well, sheer dogged determination to hack through the impenetrable jungle, perhaps!

    Whatever.

    But, personally (and YMMV, of course), I think you're pursuing a Lost Cause, at least on this thread.

    I await with interest SD's further contributions to the Book thread in Heaven....and if she so much dares to even hint at H. G. Wells' incipient atheism, she'll be back down here (probably still on this bloody thread) before she knows it.

    IJ
  • fineline wrote: »
    Bishops Finger, I'm not quite sure what it is that compels me to keep posting here, but I don't think it's patience. If I thought, as some have expressed, that SD was deliberately trolling, I'd have no patience. I just really don't think she is. I think she genuinely wants the interaction and is doing it the way she knows how, and I hope she stays on the Ship.
    Thank you for saying. I wouldn't know how to troll even if I wanted to And yes, it is always so interesting to communicate, whether here in Hell - not too often, I hope! - the occasional topic in Purgatory and, since the new format has made my access to the Ship so much easier, the book of the month topic in Heaven.
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    Thank you for saying. I wouldn't know how to troll even if I wanted to.

    There are some who think that you do know, and that you are.
    :trollface:

    But, as ever on board this fine Vessel, it's up to the H & As.

    IJ



  • This is the kind of thread that makes you wonder if Hell hosts get paid enough <snicker!>
  • Enough? At all would be nice...
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Hellhosts are so expensive that we can only afford to have one at the moment.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    ...I wouldn't know how to troll even if I wanted to ...

    Ah, it's just a natural talent, then.


  • RooK wrote: »
    Hellhosts are so expensive that we can only afford to have one at the moment.

    Yup. I'm still paying my GIN bill.
  • She's bloody well at it again.

    Missing the point in Purgatory big time.
  • She's bloody well at it again.

    Missing the point in Purgatory big time.

    Just ignore her ffs. If you keep taking it personally, this thread will never end.
  • I didn't take it 'personally'. I may have misunderstood her post. It just struck me as yet another instance of her missing the point by a country mile. Perhaps it was me that missed the point she was trying to make.

    I was posting here in Hell rather than ranting inappropriately on the Purgatory thread. That's what Hell's for isn't it?

    But yes, sound advice. Ignore posts from SD unless they make more sense.
  • No, just ignore posts from SD.
    .
    :trollface:

    IJ
  • I'm surer you are all having a lovely time thinking up new and more stylish, more clever ways of saying the same things - with what aim now, I'm not sure. I
    I didn't take it 'personally'. I may have misunderstood her post. It just struck me as yet another instance of her missing the point by a country mile. Perhaps it was me that missed the point she was trying to make.

    I was posting here in Hell rather than ranting inappropriately on the Purgatory thread. That's what Hell's for isn't it?

    But yes, sound advice. Ignore posts from SD unless they make more sense.
    Well, now, if you're reading this, what point do you think I was missing in the Purgatory topic? What *point* of mine do you think I was making and that you were missing?
    I hesitated to join that very interesting topic since it would be very likely that someone would accuse me of missing some point and assuming that I was making some other, ulterioly motivated, point.

  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    I'm surer you are all having a lovely time thinking up new and more stylish, more clever ways of saying the same things - with what aim now, I'm not sure.

    No, we don't have to think because you haven't changed your tune at all. Same old same old. Condescending, supercilious, trite.

    "Oh, if only everyone who thought they gained inner strength through believing in a sky fairy wasn't so deluded, they could be like me and realise that fortitude came only from within!"

    It's enough to make an entirely imaginary baby Jesus cry.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited September 2018
    So I read the entire thread, I don’t know why, masochism maybe ?

    Susan, you like thinking about interesting ideas, please read this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

    The crux of your argument seems to be that truth claims based on the the hypothetico-deductive method are better than other kinds of truth claim (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetico-deductive_model). Though you haven’t explained why.

    You seem to want God/faith to be proposed as a scientific hypothesis, but it isn’t. You don’t seem to understand why anyone finds any other kind of truth claim to have value. When anyone points out they don’t pose God as a scientific hypothesis you tend to respond with a variant of, ok so you don’t but why not ? Surely it would be better ?

    The crux of everyone else’s argument seems to be, could you please for the love of gravity confine this dispute to threads about this specific dispute - rather than incorporating it into any thread where God/faith is mentioned or assumed.

    The stylistic dispute seems to be the belief by other posters that polite responses do not, in and of themselves, equal respectful engagement with the other poster’s argument - whilst you seem to think they do.
  • Doublethink

    Thank you - interesting post. The first line made me smile - I will read links and come back later.
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    Doublethink

    Thank you - interesting post. The first line made me smile - I will read links and come back later.

    I forgot to put in this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy) on phenomenology, and this on social constructionism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism.

    Essentially, there are a number of streams of serious academic discourse that challenge the idea that objectivity is possible. There are also serious lines of academic enquiry about knowledge that exist out with scientific discourse. Science is one of several ways of knowing. Sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists and philosophers have all tried to document how humans as social animals try to make sense of the world by reason and by other means.

    I love my cat. You can not scientifically disprove this, and I can not prove it - it is none the less true, and important to my wellbeing and that of my cat.
  • So I read the entire thread, I don’t know why, masochism maybe ?

    Susan, you like thinking about interesting ideas, please read this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

    The crux of your argument seems to be that truth claims based on the the hypothetico-deductive method are better than other kinds of truth claim (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetico-deductive_model). Though you haven’t explained why.
    I have gone to those links. One of the reasons I do not use the vocabulary of philosophy is that to try and retain the exact meaning of and not to misuse words like epistemology from only listening to e.g. the the Wikipedia page is difficult and, much as I would like to do so, I am not prepared, having never studied Philosophy properly, to make a start now. If life had turned out differently, I would have been a keen supporter of the many U3A study courses available in this area.
    However, I do consider that to believe in claimed truths which are not based on independently verifiable observationsAnd which cannot be hypothesised in a way that will lead to testing is …what word/s shall I use? … less reliable?.. and is not one I would choose. Using the adverb ‘better’ is probably not such a good idea, but maybe I’ll try and avoid that, or choose reliable and less reliable.
    You seem to want God/faith to be proposed as a scientific hypothesis, but it isn’t.
    Of course, I do not want any such thing. It cannot be so proposed anyway, since, to my knowledge, no actual observations of any God/god/s have been made, and those dating from thousands of years ago … well, they would not stand up to scrutiny now, would they?
    You don’t seem to understand why anyone finds any other kind of truth claim to have value.
    Of course I do. Not only do I have friends who are church-going, strong believers, but, although in a less devout way, I’ve been there. And I haven't lived life with blinkers on!
    When anyone points out they don’t pose God as a scientific hypothesis you tend to respond with a variant of, ok so you don’t but why not? Surely it would be better?
    That is because I am very interested in the reasons for why people believe things. I know why I believed and then did not. If those to whom I direct the question choose not to reply, then I agree there will be no point in my pursuing it.
    The crux of everyone else’s argument seems to be, could you please for the love of gravity confine this dispute to threads about this specific dispute - rather than incorporating it into any thread where God/faith is mentioned or assumed.
    And then, when I carefully attempt to do this,, a poster or two pounce. Ah, well!
    The stylistic dispute seems to be the belief by other posters that polite responses do not, in and of themselves, equal respectful engagement with the other poster’s argument - whilst you seem to think they do.
    Thank you for that – that is correct.

    I have noticed your further post, but will respond separately, otherwise I'll muddle the tags.
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    Doublethink

    Thank you - interesting post. The first line made me smile - I will read links and come back later.

    I forgot to put in this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy) on phenomenology, and this on social constructionism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism.

    Essentially, there are a number of streams of serious academic discourse that challenge the idea that objectivity is possible.
    I would not have understood that when I was young, but it is many years since I did learn. Nothing is ever 100% certain, but we get along with everyday life without having to think about thatand the older one gets, the less likely one is to bother about the possible disappearance of the force of that gravity you mentioned earlier!!
    There are also serious lines of academic enquiry about knowledge that exist out with scientific discourse. Science is one of several ways of knowing. Sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists and philosophers have all tried to document how humans as social animals try to make sense of the world by reason and by other means.
    I really, really hope you don't think I didn't know this?
    I love my cat. You can not scientifically disprove this, and I can not prove it - it is none the less true, and important to my wellbeing and that of my cat.
    That's a sort of personal NPF, but the chemistry (plus physiology, and whatever other word applies) of emotions such as what we call love has been well studied and I don't think there is anyone who would say that we know nothing about such feelings. The more that is learnt,the more it is clear that there will never be an end to questions. I am reading about the pioneers of meterology - how they would love to have known the way their studies would lead to present-day understanding.
  • For what it's worth, SusanDoris, fineline's tweaking of the wording of your comment in Purgatory has clarified things for me. So all's well that ends well.

    I hope.
  • For what it's worth, SusanDoris, fineline's tweaking of the wording of your comment in Purgatory has clarified things for me. So all's well that ends well.

    I hope.
    Excellent!! :) Harmony rather than discord every time - always, always preferable.

  • She really, really can't tell the difference between the fact of someone loving someone else (what Doublethink said), and scientific inquiry into the nature of love and emotions (what she responded with). She appears to conflate the two.
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    Excellent!! :) Harmony rather than discord every time - always, always preferable.

    Nope, don't agree. Discord / debate / thrashing out differences of opinion, in itself, can be an empowering process. And may not lead to harmony.
    And some people hold beliefs in harmony with the rest of their community but those beliefs can bring terrible oppression to others who hold different beliefs in different communities. I recall time spent with fundamentalist Christians who held beliefs in harmony but woe betide anyone who chose to think for themselves.
    I also mention a story I heard this morning of a member of our government who believes that food banks are a propaganda invention of 'the left' and there is no need for them. (Well, OK, who ever said that either of our main political parties were in harmony?!)
  • Whether SD can or is able to distinguish between the existence of emotion and scientific inquiry into such states I don't know, Mousethief. Is it possible that SD is on the spectrum somewhere? Of course, this is pure speculation by someone not qualified to say.

    What comes across to this reader: posts like Double-think's, which -- due to their length and content offer evidence of substantial time, effort, and caring on DT's part -- consistently get brief "how interesting" responses from SD. Later, after SD has had the additional time she needs to process the content of such posts, she returns to those aspects of the post which avoid the emotive content and deal with her one constant theme, thereby appearing to miss so many points from so many posters.

    The "how interesting" responses come across -- to me, anyway -- as dismissive, almost rude. (It's the phrase I use when an acquaintance backs me into a corner for an opinion about some woefully slapdash artistic effort.) While I hope that's not intentional on SD's part, I can't be sure. When such posts also get followed up by missing the major points made in it, it does appear to me, anyway, that the dismissal is deliberate.

    Whether SD can or is able to distinguish between emotion and its associated biochemical processes, I don't and can't know; but it appears she chooses to avoid any effort to make such distinctions.
  • Ohher wrote: »
    Whether SD can or is able to distinguish between emotion and its associated biochemical processes, I don't and can't know; but it appears she chooses to avoid any effort to make such distinctions.
    Good post, although I want to quibble with this last bit. It's not distinguishing between emotion and the biochemistry thereof; it's distinguishing the fact of one particular emotion held by one person, and the biochemistry thereof. The former is an historic fact and as such unamenable to the scientific method. The latter is irrelevant. It would be like my saying, "Science can't tell you how much of my yard is fenced with cyclone fencing" and receiving the reply "ah but science can tell you about the molecular structure of the steel and the zinc," as if that has anything to do with anything. It's a non-sequitur. It's either unintentional/unnoticed, which says one thing about SD, or it's an intentional non sequitur, which says something more sinister. Presupposing inability is to take the kinder interpretation.
This discussion has been closed.