How does one come to believe something?

[ScottA]

You are a Christian, correct?

I am.

 

[bhsmte]

I am.

2/3 of the worlds population don't believe in Christianity. Are all these people lost and not able to see things as you do?

 

[ScottA]

Foreign tongues all point to the same things. We just label these differently. That's how we get any sort of translation. You are not doing that. You are seemingly injecting confusion by communicating nothing specific, and then you hide behind that confusion and say that "it's your fault you can't understand".

Well. Тогда наверное мне лучше говорить с тобой на другом языке. Результат будет такой же.

Foreign tongues was only an elementary example...one you can't seem to get past. How then shall we move forward?

So, then, being elementary, foreign tongues only tells part of it. If you had kept pace with the logic, I would have gone on to say that the matter goes well beyond that to a complete paradigm shift - that you should expect nothing less.

Are you ready or not?

 

[ScottA]

2/3 of the worlds population don't believe in Christianity. Are all these people lost and not able to see things as you do?

By those terms, Yes.

 

[bhsmte]

Foreign tongues was only an elementary example...on you can't seem to get past. How then shall we move forward?

So, then, being elementary, foreign tongues only tells part of it. If you had kept pace with the logic, I would have gone on to say that the matter goes well beyond that to a complete paradigm shift - that you should expect nothing less.

Are you ready or not?

What logic?

 

[bhsmte]

By those terms, Yes.

Have you ever thought, those with different beliefs, think the same of you?

 

[Eudaimonist]

You call saying that we can be wrong in our thoughts Phil. 201???

We can be mistaken about reality, yes.

The simple truth is that mind is a part of reality, and that mind can be understood in several senses, but none of them are independent from reality...

The mind isn't independent of reality. Rather, the nature of reality is independent of the mind.

To put that another way, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to experience it, it's still a tree and it still has fallen.

As an atheist, you are facing a material universe possessing minds as a part of it, and consciousness and awareness and thoughts and feelings and great passions and trivial passions, and the great materialist breakdown of categorization of all the possible permutations into a materially determined mind all fail...

Which "great materialist" breakdown would that be?

Nature exists independently of mind? Then there is no relationship between them and knowledge is impossible...

You seem intent on misreading what is being said. Nature exists independently of mind in the sense that a tree is a tree whether you know about trees or not. Trees have their own existence. If every sentient being were to go extinct, but trees were to outlive us, they would still be trees, because trees exist as trees whether there are consciously aware beings or not.

Are we on the same page yet?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ScottA]

What logic?

The logic named in the same statement.

 

[ScottA]

Have you ever thought, those with different beliefs, think the same of you?

To some extent, but that depends on how you mean that - please clarify.

 

[bhsmte]

To some extent, but that depends on how you mean that - please clarify.

Exactly as I said. Those with different beliefs, think you are lost, because they are just as certain, their beliefs are correct.

 

[ScottA]

Exactly as I said. Those with different beliefs, think you are lost, because they are just as certain, their beliefs are correct.

You are not being clear. First you say they don't believe as I do, then you ask if they do believe as I do, then you ask about different beliefs. You are going to have to do better than that.

 

[bhsmte]

You are not being clear. First you say they don't believe as I do, then you ask if they do believe as I do, then you ask about different beliefs. You are going to have to do better than that.

Read it again.

 

[ScottA]

Read it again.

No.

 

[Near]

but as a preference in spite of observation of contrary (in some cases show here).

I haven't seen any evidence that suggests Jesus didn't rise from the dead. There are alternative explanations to what caused the belief in his Resurrection, but none of the alternatives have been proven, so at that point, I guess you could say I prefer the explanation that he did rise from the dead. I also think there are good reasons to think he rose from the dead, which I haven't gone into much detail with.

2) But when we are talking about rational and philosophical reasons and justification for any given belief, then we are talking about certain concept that extends beyond one's preference.

If you believe something as a mere preference, then there's very little point to participate in such discussions, because you are not bringing any arguments in particular. You are merely reciting a preference just like "I don't really like veggies" or "I like Chinese food".

I think there's more to it than preference but if it's the case that I'm wrong, and naturalism is true, then you could say it's mere preference.

I know that that's not the only thing that you do, but that seems to be the core of your arguments when the rest of the arguments fail to be consistent with reality, or fail as something that contradicts known facts or semantic definition of words.

I haven't gone into much detail as far as arguments go. I think the point of my posts here was merely to show why I believe something. I think there's been a great misunderstanding on the part of a few people replying to my posts. Here I am saying, "I believe X to be true, and how I came to belief in X is this way"... it's been misunderstood as, "I believe X, and here's why X is true". As for consistency with reality, I haven't seen any argument that shows that Christianity is not compatible with observable reality, nor inconsistent with known facts.

 

[Arsenios]

We can be mistaken about reality, yes.

So is the mind real or not?

The mind isn't independent of reality.

Then are you saying that the mind is determined by non-mental factors...

Because look - Mind is a part of reality, or it is not...

Rather, the nature of reality is independent of the mind.

And the NATURE of mind is one part of the NATURE if reality...

To put that another way,
if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to experience it,
it's still a tree and it still has fallen.

Tinker-toys... You have articulated one horn alone, and not that of the nature of mind...

Which "great materialist" breakdown would that be?

The one that makes the mind explainable in terms of material events...

You seem intent on misreading what is being said.

So you seem intent on believing...

Nature exists independently of mind in the sense that a tree is a tree whether you know about trees or not.
Trees have their own existence.
If every sentient being were to go extinct, but trees were to outlive us, they would still be trees,
because trees exist as trees whether there are consciously aware beings or not.

I totally get that things exist of which we have no perception...

But in order for you to have knowledge, you must somehow HAVE within you the thing that is known...
As we now function disfunctionally, that is perceptual images of material reality...
Mind is not a material reality, but is found in man who is material...

Are we on the same page yet?

So far there may be a possibility of hope!

Arsenios

 

[Eudaimonist]

So is the mind real or not?

Yes, the mind is real.

Then are you saying that the mind is determined by non-mental factors...

No, the mind is an emergent phenomenon that is not reducible to the mere sum of its parts.

Because look - Mind is a part of reality, or it is not...

And I have said that the mind is a part of reality more than once, right?

And the NATURE of mind is one part of the NATURE if reality...

Of course, but that doesn't contradict anything I've written. The nature of my mind isn't dependent on any beliefs or understanding I might have about my mind.

Tinker-toys... You have articulated one horn alone, and not that of the nature of mind...

I have no idea why you think I was trying to articulate the nature of mind. I was articulating the non-dependence of the nature of reality on mind.

The one that makes the mind explainable in terms of material events...

I'm not a reductive materialist. I take an emergent and dual-aspect view of mind.

I totally get that things exist of which we have no perception...

NOT MY POINT!

I'm talking about the non-dependence on the nature of reality on mind. When you shut your eyes, the universe does not cease to exist. The universe exists anyway. Doesn't that make sense?

But in order for you to have knowledge, you must somehow HAVE within you the thing that is known...

I assume that by "thing" you mean sense data. Yes.

As we now function disfunctionally, that is perceptual images of material reality...

That is perfect human functioning.

Mind is not a material reality, but is found in man who is material...

I agree, in the sense that the motion of a baseball is not a material thing, but rather a property of a material thing. It is something that the baseball is doing. You can't separate the motion of the baseball from the baseball.

Mind is something that the brain is doing. It is not a material reality, but isn't something separate or separable from material reality either. That's a good thing, or else how would material reality interact with the mind?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ToddNotTodd]

But it does clarify...emphatically. Zechariah 14:4

I'm speaking of the way you specifically discuss things. How many non-theists here have become Christians based on what you're personally said here on these boards? I've seen many more Christians become atheists over my many years here than the opposite.

But it seems like you'll just go on believing that you're making some sort of difference, despite non-theists here telling you that you aren't.

 

[ScottA]

I'm speaking of the way you specifically discuss things. How many non-theists here have become Christians based on what you're personally said here on these boards? I've seen many more Christians become atheists over my many years here than the opposite.

But it seems like you'll just go on believing that you're making some sort of difference, despite non-theists here telling you that you aren't.

You describe yourself as a fox in the hen house, but my concern is not for foxes. The sheep of the field hear His voice and they do follow.

If you knew your end, as I know it, you would be on your knees - but here you are in a free-fall boasting with confidence. But the end will come soon enough.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You describe yourself as a fox in the hen house, but my concern is not for foxes. The sheep of the field hear His voice and they do follow.

If you knew your end, as I know it, you would be on your knees - but here you are in a free-fall boasting with confidence. But the end will come soon enough.

This post is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Nothing about it persuades any thinking non-theist to change their opinion. Indeed, the only thing the "you'll get yours in the end" rhetoric does is tell the non-theist that the theist has run out of salient points and in a last ditch attempt to be persuasive, falls back to the stock threats we've all seen a million times and aren't affected by.

Is your purpose in posting in the Philosophy section to change minds or to hear yourself talk? Because I think if you took a poll, the latter is probably the prevailing view.

 

[ScottA]

This post is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Nothing about it persuades any thinking non-theist to change their opinion. Indeed, the only thing the "you'll get yours in the end" rhetoric does is tell the non-theist that the theist has run out of salient points and in a last ditch attempt to be persuasive, falls back to the stock threats we've all seen a million times and aren't affected by.

Is your purpose in posting in the Philosophy section to change minds or to hear yourself talk? Because I think if you took a poll, the latter is probably the prevailing view.

On the contrary, as you and those like you entertain opinions, there is indeed a time when we cut to the bottom line - which you seem to need, but do not take seriously. Such philosophy is self-defined. So, then, if I go there and you do not, it is perhaps a waste, but it is all on you for not taking any of the matter serious from one end to the other. I, on the other hand, for your sake, have taken what I know to be serious, seriously.

But I am not attempting to be persuasive. I am probing to see if you have in you the seed of the spirit of God. If you do, I am here for you. If not, I will indeed pass you by. If, then, your assessment or poll, is a representation of you and those like you - then you are correct, but that just means it speaks of you not being receptive, rather than me being unconvincing. Those who are drawn by God, do not need convincing. So your poll would simply identify whom God has chosen, and whom He has not - which I leave to Him.