What's your Religion?

[stealthmongoose]

Lucky~9~Lives

stealthmongoose

Lucky~9~Lives

stealthmongoose

Lucky~9~Lives

How does whether belief has a direct influence over the reality of a rock's nature or not have any influence on what constitutes knowledge?

Because if belief has no influence on the rock's nature, and the rock's nature is a key component in knowledge about the rock, then knowledge consists of a real premise or evidence.

That the rock's nature is a key component in knowledge about the rock is precisely a belief about what constitutes knowledge.

Less so than grammatical distancing from the subject matter is a sign of intellectual lazyness.

Tell me, how have your beliefs and your knowledges compared? I bet there's a difference.

I'm not saying belief is equivalent to knowledge - I'm saying the criteria for determining what is knowledge is (influenced by) belief.

Yes, i was about to retract my statement before you mentioned that. Belief is required on the part of the person to acquire knowledge, because once someone knows a thing they believe it and cannot choose to believe something else even if they try.

You can still believe something inaccurate until you know something accurate that contradicts that belief, then i think beliefs change. I support matt's point in that podcast in that beliefs aren't necessarily a choice.

Even so, this does not necessarily disprove the fallibility and inequity (sorry for the term) of a belief that does not allow for exploration of knowledge. That's why i don't believe that the Sikh (sp) religion is acceptable for worship since their principles seem to bar the seeking of that knowledge.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

stealthmongoose

Even so, this does not necessarily disprove the fallibility and inequity (sorry for the term) of a belief that does not allow for exploration of knowledge. That's why i don't believe that the Sikh (sp) religion is acceptable for worship since their principles seem to bar the seeking of that knowledge.

Again: according to your belief about what constitutes knowledge. From the Sikh point of view, what is not being explored in this case is not believed to be knowledge - it is unknowable.

[stealthmongoose]

Lucky~9~Lives

stealthmongoose

Even so, this does not necessarily disprove the fallibility and inequity (sorry for the term) of a belief that does not allow for exploration of knowledge. That's why i don't believe that the Sikh (sp) religion is acceptable for worship since their principles seem to bar the seeking of that knowledge.

Again: according to your definition about what constitutes knowledge. From the Sikh point of view, what is not being explored in this case is not believed to be knowledge - it is unknowable.

It is at worst unknown, i wouldn't say much of anything is unknowable.

It's like preventing exploration of the stars or investigation of the seeds of plants and the like, when we already can know how these things work.

What is in this world is explorable and knowable. Want to know the origin of corn? How about bananas? Us? The great apes themselves?

We've already acquired knowledge on these and other such things.

SIkh is wrong, in addition to being unworthy of my worship. I would even assert that because of it's incorrectness on what is unknown and unknowable, it is lacking as a belief as well as a way to understand the universe.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

stealthmongoose

Lucky~9~Lives

stealthmongoose

Even so, this does not necessarily disprove the fallibility and inequity (sorry for the term) of a belief that does not allow for exploration of knowledge. That's why i don't believe that the Sikh (sp) religion is acceptable for worship since their principles seem to bar the seeking of that knowledge.

Again: according to your definition about what constitutes knowledge. From the Sikh point of view, what is not being explored in this case is not believed to be knowledge - it is unknowable.

Same difference.

stealthmongoose

It is at worst unknown, i wouldn't say much of anything is unknowable.

Because you don't believe it.

stealthmongoose

What is in this world is explorable and knowable. Want to know the origin of corn? How about bananas? Us? The great apes themselves?

The exact position and momentum of a particle at a given time?

[Requiem ex Inferni]

I'm irreligious. No point in associating myself with a religion if I'm not going to bother following it's teachings.

[RedPirateMercs]

I'm Christan but I don't believe in all that "devil and "hell" stuff. The way I see it, if God was really all loving then why would he just damn a person to hell. No second chance, no extra lives, no continues, nothing. That just doesn't seem like a loving God. Either way I believe God exist he created the universe, everyone is welcome to his Kingdom of God if they can show love. Otherwise they just sit outside the Kingdom of God until they decide to love.

That's my religion.

[Fermionic]

RedPirateMercs

I'm Christan but I don't believe in all that "devil and "hell" stuff. The way I see it, if God was really all loving then why would he just damn a person to hell. No second chance, no extra lives, no continues, nothing. That just doesn't seem like a loving God. Either way I believe God exist he created the universe, everyone is welcome to his Kingdom of God if they can show love. Otherwise they just sit outside the Kingdom of God until they decide to love.

That's my religion.

So you're not really a Christian then?

[RedPirateMercs]

Fermionic

RedPirateMercs

I'm Christan but I don't believe in all that "devil and "hell" stuff. The way I see it, if God was really all loving then why would he just damn a person to hell. No second chance, no extra lives, no continues, nothing. That just doesn't seem like a loving God. Either way I believe God exist he created the universe, everyone is welcome to his Kingdom of God if they can show love. Otherwise they just sit outside the Kingdom of God until they decide to love.

That's my religion.

So you're not really a Christian then?

I'm a variation of it, from what I learned that's what Christianity used to be before it became biased.

[Fermionic]

RedPirateMercs

Fermionic

RedPirateMercs

I'm Christan but I don't believe in all that "devil and "hell" stuff. The way I see it, if God was really all loving then why would he just damn a person to hell. No second chance, no extra lives, no continues, nothing. That just doesn't seem like a loving God. Either way I believe God exist he created the universe, everyone is welcome to his Kingdom of God if they can show love. Otherwise they just sit outside the Kingdom of God until they decide to love.

That's my religion.

So you're not really a Christian then?

I'm a variation of it, from what I learned that's what Christianity used to be before it became biased.

The idea of sin and redemption through Jesus [to not go to hell] is central to Christian doctrine. If you reject that; you are rejecting one of the primal teachings of your faith.

[RedPirateMercs]

Fermionic

RedPirateMercs

Fermionic

RedPirateMercs

I'm Christan but I don't believe in all that "devil and "hell" stuff. The way I see it, if God was really all loving then why would he just damn a person to hell. No second chance, no extra lives, no continues, nothing. That just doesn't seem like a loving God. Either way I believe God exist he created the universe, everyone is welcome to his Kingdom of God if they can show love. Otherwise they just sit outside the Kingdom of God until they decide to love.

That's my religion.

So you're not really a Christian then?

I'm a variation of it, from what I learned that's what Christianity used to be before it became biased.

The idea of sin and redemption through Jesus [to not go to hell] is central to Christian doctrine. If you reject that; you are rejecting one of the primal teachings of your faith.

Whatever I'm not Christian then.

[Stemboing]

I have no religion and im not really looking for one because it seems to me that things wouldnt really need to be in the context of a religion to me true. They would just be true and wouldnt need a religion to house them. If there was evidence for a god that could be found I would probably be a deist. I cant see any religions really being plausibly true.

[stealthmongoose]

Lucky~9~Lives

stealthmongoose

Lucky~9~Lives

stealthmongoose

Even so, this does not necessarily disprove the fallibility and inequity (sorry for the term) of a belief that does not allow for exploration of knowledge. That's why i don't believe that the Sikh (sp) religion is acceptable for worship since their principles seem to bar the seeking of that knowledge.

Again: according to your definition about what constitutes knowledge. From the Sikh point of view, what is not being explored in this case is not believed to be knowledge - it is unknowable.

Same difference.

stealthmongoose

It is at worst unknown, i wouldn't say much of anything is unknowable.

Because you don't believe it.

stealthmongoose

What is in this world is explorable and knowable. Want to know the origin of corn? How about bananas? Us? The great apes themselves?

The exact position and momentum of a particle at a given time?

1. Belief without evidence is not knowledge. As long as we're clear on that you can argue semantics until water turns into wine and is caught on camera doing so.

2. The capacity for something to be known or unknown does not depend on my initial belief. I think you should retract that statement and cease presuming my views on reality. Regardless of my initial belief on what the sun consisted of, it's nature was still there. I did not believe in math before it was taught to me. It is not because of a lack of belief that things are unknown, but rather a lack of observation as well as material obstacles (Like the atmosphere or tuition).

3. As long as you're shooting for that which is unknown, you should review that which already is known. Can you demonstrate that knowledge and facts acquired are untrue in and of themselves when related to all of the other truly demonstrable things in our universe? Never mind that, let me address your question quite simply...

We're getting there, and until then belief has nothing to do with the truth or reality of a thing.

Of course, if your beliefs trump these truths, then please, demonstrate through evidence how your beliefs can trump reality and by that virtue attain the status of knowledge? Or is knowledge something that is so interwoven with reality that you need to omit truths and operate using ignorance to assert it's association with belief? Can you turn water into wine without resorting to emptying a bag of kool-aid and cheap merlot into it? Can you turn that hard rock into rubber by hoping and praying day by day that it won't hurt when you hurl it at someone? Can you make the sun stop beaming it's rays straight into your face by simply willing it to go away?

Can you forget or deny something and then pretend it isn't real? Does that stop it from touching you? Surrounding you? Making you bleed when it pricks you? Making you laugh when it tickles you?

The day you can, your beliefs will be on par with knowledge. Until then, the argument is one of semantics and not worthy of worship in the least.

Do you have any ideas that ARE worth worshiping?

[Gonecrazy1099]

I'm not religious and in a theological perspective I'm an atheist.

[dragonson04]

The Simple C

dragonson04

The Simple C

dragonson04

I am LDS

emotion_brofist

I'm also a Latter-Day Saint. C:

Well, nice to meet you sister. emotion_brofist

HOW YOU DOIN'?

I'M DOIN' FINE, HOW YOU DOIN'? Where are you from btw?

[Lucky~9~Lives]

stealthmongoose

Lucky~9~Lives

stealthmongoose

Lucky~9~Lives

stealthmongoose

Even so, this does not necessarily disprove the fallibility and inequity (sorry for the term) of a belief that does not allow for exploration of knowledge. That's why i don't believe that the Sikh (sp) religion is acceptable for worship since their principles seem to bar the seeking of that knowledge.

Again: according to your definition about what constitutes knowledge. From the Sikh point of view, what is not being explored in this case is not believed to be knowledge - it is unknowable.

Same difference.

stealthmongoose

It is at worst unknown, i wouldn't say much of anything is unknowable.

Because you don't believe it.

stealthmongoose

What is in this world is explorable and knowable. Want to know the origin of corn? How about bananas? Us? The great apes themselves?

The exact position and momentum of a particle at a given time?

1. Belief without evidence is not knowledge.

That's just shifting the problem, not solving it; what constitutes evidence is also a belief.

stealthmongoose

2. The capacity for something to be known or unknown does not depend on my initial belief.

The capacity to know depends on your belief about what knowledge is.

stealthmongoose

I think you should retract that statement and cease presuming my views on reality.

Pardon me for presuming your beliefs match what you say; so, you wouldn't say much of anything is unknowable, but you believe much of anything is unknowable?

stealthmongoose

Regardless of my initial belief on what the sun consisted of, it's nature was still there. I did not believe in math before it was taught to me. It is not because of a lack of belief that things are unknown, but rather a lack of observation as well as material obstacles (Like the atmosphere or tuition).

Again, irrelevant - I'm not talking about the nature of the subject of a proposition (something that can be known), but the nature of propositions themselves (what constitutes knowledge).

stealthmongoose

3. As long as you're shooting for that which is unknown, you should review that which already is known. Can you demonstrate that knowledge and facts acquired are untrue in and of themselves when related to all of the other truly demonstrable things in our universe? Never mind that, let me address your question quite simply...

We're getting there, and until then belief has nothing to do with the truth or reality of a thing.

As above, that is irrelevant; quite simply - under the Sikh view, there's nowhere to get to. It's unknown a priori, like "how many kilos in a meter"?

stealthmongoose

Of course, if your beliefs trump these truths, then please, demonstrate through evidence how your beliefs can trump reality and by that virtue attain the status of knowledge? Or is knowledge something that is so interwoven with reality that you need to omit truths and operate using ignorance to assert it's association with belief? Can you turn water into wine without resorting to emptying a bag of kool-aid and cheap merlot into it? Can you turn that hard rock into rubber by hoping and praying day by day that it won't hurt when you hurl it at someone? Can you make the sun stop beaming it's rays straight into your face by simply willing it to go away?

Can you forget or deny something and then pretend it isn't real? Does that stop it from touching you? Surrounding you? Making you bleed when it pricks you? Making you laugh when it tickles you?

Again: I'm not arguing that believing a box is not blue makes said box not blue - I'm arguing that believing it cannot be known what colour a box is makes the colour of said box not knowledge.