[quote name='rozz666' timestamp='1311792133' post='4841218']
It's not about consistency. It's about it being wrong. Second, can you differ between hallucinating and god reveling himself? Don't just say yes/no. Explain.
I can differ between it insomuch as I can differ between hallucinating and anything I perceive to be reality.
[/quote]
Really? And how do you test whether something is real?
Because his concept of good and bad is messed up. Killing millions of people or sending plagues just to prove a point is hardly good in my book. Before you start arguing that you don't have to justify god's actions, answer: would it be good if a human did this?
Do you consider the Allied response to the Axis in WWII 'good'? You could view that in just as poor a light as the picture you've just painted.
[/quote]
What are talking about? Where did I say it was good? Why do you change the topic? Can you answer the question that was posted?
[/quote]
What are you on about? I am giving a counterexample of something good that resulted in millions of deaths and ruined lives. When you take things out of context it's easy to consider something "hardly good".
[/quote]
You believe it was good?
Assuming I agree with you on this example (which I don't), explain how the flood or killing all man, woman and children except for virgins, sending plagues to show off, stoning disobedient children is good?
Really? And how do you test whether something is real?
The same way anybody does. Feel it, hear it, touch it, etc. If we're just going to slowly boil away into an existential argument in which nothing exists please stop this chain of questioning.
You believe it was good?[/quote]
Do I believe stopping a genocidal army from taking over most of the world was good? Yes I do.
Assuming I agree with you on this example (which I don't), explain how the flood or killing all man, woman and children except for virgins, sending plagues to show off, stoning disobedient children is good?
[/quote]
[quote name='rozz666' timestamp='1311798839' post='4841286']
Really? And how do you test whether something is real?
The same way anybody does. Feel it, hear it, touch it, etc. If we're just going to slowly boil away into an existential argument in which nothing exists please stop this chain of questioning.
[/quote]
No, I'm going that route. I'm just asking how you determine what's real (precisely, not etc.).
You believe it was good?
Do I believe stopping a genocidal army from taking over most of the world was good? Yes I do.
[/quote]
That's not what I asked.
Killing millions of people to stop that army could be justify as necessary evil, but that's still evil.
Assuming I agree with you on this example (which I don't), explain how the flood or killing all man, woman and children except for virgins, sending plagues to show off, stoning disobedient children is good?
So do you want me to just read you the Bible...?
[/quote]
No, Bible verses tend to be full of inconsistencies and metaphors (so they can be interpreted as somebody likes), therefore please write your justifications.
No, I'm going that route. I'm just asking how you determine what's real (precisely, not etc.).
The same way anybody does. Feel it, hear it, touch it, etc.
That's not what I asked.
Killing millions of people to stop that army could be justify as necessary evil, but that's still evil.[/quote]
Taking the action that results in more good than would if you did not take the act I would consider good on the whole. This is generally the stance of the catholic church as well.
No, Bible verses tend to be full of inconsistencies and metaphors (so they can be interpreted as somebody likes), therefore please write your justifications.
[/quote]
So you just want me to write my own translation of the bible for you...
[quote name='rozz666' timestamp='1311800766' post='4841298']
No, I'm going that route. I'm just asking how you determine what's real (precisely, not etc.).
The same way anybody does. Feel it, hear it, touch it, etc.
[/quote]
And as I've already pointed out, using examples from my own life, you can not trust your senses 100%.
That's not saying "nothing is real" but it does allow for unreal things, which fit your expected pattern of what is real to be accepted as a real event.
After thinking about this for a while, the following occurred to me.
People in general can be classified into two groups. 1) Those who believe what they're forced to believe based on observation, analysis, and reason; and 2) Those who believe things because they prefer a universe in which those things are true to a universe in which those things aren't.
People of the first type hold external Truth to be primal to belief. The believe we cannot choose a Truth. It doesn't depend on where we were born, who our parents were, or what book we enjoy the most. They are forced to adjust their beliefs according to their current snapshot of the Truth. They can, of course, be wrong, and often they are, but if it is shown that they probably are they will quickly realign their beliefs.
People of the second type hold belief to be equal to Truth. They choose some beliefs, and those beliefs become their Truth. No amount of evidence from the real world can change their beliefs, because the real world has nothing to do with their belief systems.
The second type of person, being a human, has the same capacity for reason and logic that the first type does. If attempting to use this capacity has the effect of casting some doubt on the beliefs, however, there isn't the expected realignment of belief, because remember that belief==Truth and Truth obviously cannot be realigned. The cognitive dissonance forces the person to either cast out the reason and logic as somehow flawed, or to simply accept the illogical as a paradox.
This type of person won't always claim to have direct access to or knowledge of the Truth, but the fact that contrary evidence or reason is dismissed without regard reveals that they perceive their connection to the Truth to be stronger than simple belief.
Considering how the second type of person's belief system is structured, it becomes clear that attempting to change that person's belief through the use of logic or reason is futile. The very premise that "logic is a source of truth" is not shared by this type of person, and therefore trying to have an argument based on logic and reason with that type of person is like trying to herd cats.
Like death and taxes, I think it's just something we have to live with and be sad about.
I've managed to convince some people that their beliefs are illogical, but that was toward the end of highschool when many people are just learning to use reason and think for one's self. There's the capacity to learn to think, and once one learns to think it's only a short hop to throw out the illogical and unreasonable. I think that once a person of the second type is an adult, that person is so sure of the fact that his belief is directly connected to the Truth that there's no possibility of driving a wedge of reason in between the two.
The best we can do is try to teach people how to think while they're young, and hope that the general trend of increase in critical thinking at a higher level continues.
After thinking about this for a while, the following occurred to me.
People in general can be classified into two groups. 1) Those who believe what they're forced to believe based on observation, analysis, and reason; and 2) Those who believe things because they prefer a universe in which those things are true to a universe in which those things aren't.
People of the first type hold external Truth to be primal to belief. The believe we cannot choose a Truth. It doesn't depend on where we were born, who our parents were, or what book we enjoy the most. They are forced to adjust their beliefs according to their current snapshot of the Truth. They can, of course, be wrong, and often they are, but if it is shown that they probably are they will quickly realign their beliefs.
People of the second type hold belief to be equal to Truth. They choose some beliefs, and those beliefs become their Truth. No amount of evidence from the real world can change their beliefs, because the real world has nothing to do with their belief systems.
How do you justify people who's beliefs change over time?
And as I've already pointed out, using examples from my own life, you can not trust your senses 100%.
That's not saying "nothing is real" but it does allow for unreal things, which fit your expected pattern of what is real to be accepted as a real event.
I'm aware of that, but then we're bordering on an existential argument for anything existing rather than the existence of God. Just like anything else it isn't an isolated instance that causes me to believe in God. It's a lifetime of experiences that lead me to no other conclusion.
How do I "justify" people? The question makes no sense, you'll have to be more clear.
Well you have people who structure their beliefs around what they observe and people who structure what they observe based off of what they believe, but you leave no place to explain people who are neither of whom there are many.
That in mind how do you justify religious people who change their beliefs with your two groups?
