Again with Sheri's off topic contributions and derision of other members. Sigh....


The topic is WHY DO WE DEBATE WHAT IS BELIEVABLE not "Math is a construct of the belief system"

I'm not sure, for the most part, that we do debate what's believable... I think we spend more time debating how one person's beliefs impact upon another's. We discuss how a specific religious belief can impact upon a political decision, for example. We've had threads about what annoys us about people with differing beliefs. And ones about evangelism. It seems to be more about the place religious belief has in society, how much impact is acceptable, how people use their beliefs, etc. And we've had a few about doubt recently. We don't really spend that much time discussing what we actually believe. I've only given a long explanation of what a Deist believes once - that was to you True, on Mako's thread - as far as I can remember.

or that all things are constructs they are beleif systems as a NB this is an important element in any discussion...True it again is going with the flow as this is about beleifs. son used math as the analogy, I again was saying "well mathematics is a construct too..."

Ones entire perspective of life as Hyper pointed out early is all 'construct'. All belief systems are constructs. Also, non-belief is a construct. If non-belief is a construct and belief is a construct what is there really to debate...we are debating constructs...therefore...what is the point of debating constructs? If the answer is to learn then the debate becomes a positive one...if the answer is to destruct, then the debate becomes a negative one. If the debate becomes negative, then learning ceases.

So, the question then is: why debate constructs? Destruction of another's construct or Instruction from another's construct?

I think we all have much to learn from each other.

Great point joc, coming on and stating "constructs" as facts shows that the person is not willing to learn at all.

That's why I chuckled earlier when hyper posted "The truth is, there is no truth."

That's not a debate or a dialogue. That's a monologue.

thou art fortunate I am not a spiteful god or I would smite you for that.

Just to be clear, I am just pulling your leg

If an individual holds the view that their way is the only way, is it at all possible to learn anything from another's construct? If there is no inclination towards change then isn't it the case that all information received which contradicts that person's own belief system will be thrown out, and anything which is in tune with their belief system will be taken on board and used to bolster the beliefs they already hold. So, in effect, there will have been no development?

Look at the debates we've had here about evolution v. creation. One of the stumbling blocks placed before the creationist is the fact that the desired result already exists... so all effort has to be put into wrapping a theory around an already assumed outcome. If we go back to maths for a second, it's not a case of 2+2=4 .... it's more a case of 4=2+2. In fact, with regards to the creationism argument, it's more like 4=5+6+2+3+whatever.

When your position is firmly fixed, information isn't absorbed... it's rejected if it's not in accord with your already assumed stance, and integrated if it is in accord with what you already believe. I don't consider that to be a learning experience. An increase in knowledge has a tendency to lead to change, and the change can be unpredictable, so the only way to guard against such development is to close your mind.

You know, Shadow, this may be reflecting the way you do things more than what others do. I am learning quite a bit here in UM, it's the reason I have stayed and the reason I don't hang around Christian forums. I want to learn what others think, I want to understand. However, learning what others think and understanding them does not mean that I have to adopt their views. I have changed some of my views based on what I learned here, but I have not once felt what I know to be truth to be in any way threatened by anything I have learned here. Why is it you assume that having certainty about something means you either can't learn from others or should not be interested in learning from others?


??? Would you explain this again, that last part completely confused the issue for me.

However,I think you hit on something which many non-evolutionists keep pointing out: Evolutionists say, "we know the answer is 4, therefore, the problem is 2+2." However, this is completely illogical because 4=3+1, 4=5-1, 4=3+2-1.... Evolutionists use the answer to prove what the problem was and are certain it can only be 2+2 but have absolutely no way of proving it.


Again, I think you are assuming that because this is the way you do thing that therefore, it's the way everyone else does it too, and that is false.

I found an interesting link that may open a few eyes. Its a theory, but its a darn good one./http://biologyofkundalini.com/article.php?story=BiologicalRelationtoZero-Point

Can anything you hear or read about, which contradicts the teachings of the bible, be integrated into your belief system?

If your stance is one where movement is impossible then what is the point of any amount of knowledge?



You don't seem confused... you understood the point enough to apply it to evolutionists. I was merely applying it to creationists. The cause is always going to be divine for the creationist... no matter what scientific discovery is made, it will have to wrap around the god theory. As I said, if your position is firmly fixed then what is the point in any amount of knowledge when it has no impact?

start a thread on it and i wil see you there. make sure to invite venomshocker and bravenewworld as well.

I see you avoided addressing the point I made twice. I think this reflects how you look at things yourself and you are assuming that it applies to everyone else too, and you may want to stop and realize that just because this is how you view things does not mean this is how everyone else views the importance of being exposed to other beliefs.

I'm not avoiding anything Son. I'm just sick of explaining the same thing over and over... but if it's really necessary, here we go:

My belief system is not fixed. It is based in personal experience and grows with me. Each time I learn something new I become a new person because I have evolved. There is no fixed doctrine, there are no rule books, and there are no guidelines I have to adhere to. I don't have to check a book before I can believe something... the new information doesn't need to agree with what I already know to be accepted... I adapt in whichever direction feels comfortable/right/logical... and if that means that I become a Hindu tomorrow then so be it. I am perfectly open to one day reasoning that there is no Creator at all, because if that is where reason leads me then that is where I shall go. I would have thought I'd said this enough times for it to be understood by now, but I guess not.

So how about you answer my questions now...

Can anything you hear or read about, which contradicts the teachings of the bible, be integrated into your belief system?

If your stance is one where movement is impossible then what is the point of any amount of knowledge?

edited: spelling

Actually, yes. From my friend Demonic Presence I learned what real Satanists believe in, I learned that Satanists have a very different outlook on life than I do, and that they think those who worship demons are as deluded as those who worship God. So, I now understand that being a Satanist is more like being an atheist than being a demon worshiper, except that they like to be more "in your face" about their disdain for faith than atheists are and in fact enjoy doing the opposite of what Christians do.

Did I integrate his view of God and Christianity into my "belief system" and modify it? No, that would have been stupid. But I did integrate what I learned from him into my intellect.

Why would it have been stupid? Stupid's a funny choice of word.

Does your intellect ever take precedence over what is written in the bible? Perhaps it would be clearer if I asked... is there anything in the bible which you have concluded is in error based on the use of your intellect? And if it hasn't happened yet, is it likely to?

I specifically chose "stupid." That's how I view the idea of accepting two contradictory ideas. It's like knowing I'm human and then accepting I'm a fluffy bunny... stupid.

My intellect takes precedence over what I perceive is written in the Bible. That's why I have resources, books, theologians, the Holy Spirit, and my intellect to study and truly understand what the message is. In 25 years as a Christian, I have perceived many "inconsistencies" in the Bible, that's how I have acquired the resources I have, I questioned what I read, questioned what I thought I was understanding and went to look for something/someone who could explain it to me. In 25 years of studying the Bible, I have yet to run into one of these "inconsistencies" that stood up to actual research and study.

Why are you debating Iams for what he believes Shadow? You're the first person who has done this in this thread?

Looks at title!


And he's telling you that his belief is personal and not part of a system of belief and yet you are rejecting that and calling him to PROVE to you how this could be.

Yet you want others to respect your belief.

I think Iams is correct in you projecting your own behavior onto others.

Maybe you should consider that for a sec?

It's not about what he believes. We were discussing learning. I'm trying to understand the point of gaining knowledge if that knowledge is always going to take a back seat to everything you already know.

If I knew I was always going to eat Pizza Hut food for the rest of my life, why would I keep on asking about the ingredients in the food at Burger King?

to further convince yourself you had made a good choice. (see confirmation bias)

I'm not suggesting you accept both ideas. I'm trying to discover if you'd ever replace one you have already and why that would be perceived as "stupid". And if you wouldn't, why not? That's all. It seems pretty straight forward to me... perhaps I'm not making myself clear.



I'm not asking if your intellect takes precedence over what you perceive is written in the bible. Let me clarify. Does knowledge received by you ever take precedence over what you know the bible is saying. Would you be willing to accept, as fact, any information which directly contradicted what you know to be contained in the bible?

I agree with the OP. I've never understood why anyone feels the need to change someone's belief or recruit them to their side. I mean, really, are you gathering a posse?? If you're strong enough, you don't need one.

There is no way at all to prove without doubt that any belief is correct. Why exhaust yourself arguing and convincing someone of something that you can't back up with concrete evidence? Some people's minds just cannot be changed. It's called faith for a reason. Some have it. Some don't. I don't have much myself, but I'm not going to try and tell someone else that they are wrong for having it.

There you go... that's what I've been clumsily trying to discuss. There's even a name for it.

The same could be asked of you? Why do you have conversations with Christians if you are not going to become one?

See if the idea is learning Iams has the right idea in my opinion. He doesn't need to change his views to learn something?

Perhaps you just have a different way of learning things. Do you only learn about things you wish to take into your belief system?

Ex. I learn about Wiccan beliefs and Christian beliefs because it is interesting to me. I also like being able to have a dialogue with people of different beliefs rather than only having debates.

You keep saying how you can't reconcile a lot of things that Iams is saying but that's your issue not proof of his confusion.

Excellent post. ITA

I don't understand why you are stuck on this idea that wanting to learn something new MUST mean you are going to modify your foundational beliefs.

I have given you an example of what I have learned here in UM and how it DID modify what I believed (because now I actually KNOW what Satanists believe, so I can't be easily misled about that), but yet what I learned about Satanist beliefs had absolutely NO impact on the certainty of my personal relationship with God. Are you saying it was a waste of time to learn this since it had no impact on how I view my relationship with God? Why?

Because despite the fact that I reject the faith right now, I do not assume that this will always be the case. It's the same with the Hindu faith, Islam, Buddhism (which I'm looking into), Wicca, and so on and so forth. If I don't fully understand how can I even reject a religion and know I didn't miss something of worth?



I'm not suggesting he should change. I simply believe that if we are to grow and use knowledge effectively then we should be prepared for the possibility of change. To rule change out involves negating the impact of information which would have brought about change.



I'm willing to read up on pretty much anything. I don't determine the purpose beforehand.

Thanks. I'm still reeling from the fact that I'm on the same page with both you and IAm, LOLOLOL. Not that I've been argumentative with either of you, I just don't always share your views.

We may not all share the same beliefs, but we should all defend the right to have them.

I'm not saying that every piece of information you encounter must change your foundational beliefs, I'm asking if you are open to the idea of it happening.

from Wiki


Sounds to me Shadow like you are biased against Iams and think he only wants to learn a certain way and so you are poking at him trying to confirm your bias towards Christians.

You know that they aren't open to things etc.

Anyway I don't think he needs to explain his beliefs to you any more than he has, he's stated and twice answered your questions and I think that your getting a wee bit persecuting ! LOL

Thats a sensible question. Your view makes much sense. It appears that you are awaiting what some may call a 'divine revelation'; or how you would say it, an undefined entity to what you 'could' label as God or whatever you comprehend it to be. There is nothing I can say to that. If that is what it takes for you, then those are your grounds. Belief is a choice, and the choice starts with you. Take care

I'm sure it does. And you're not biased in that conclusion I suppose.

We're discussing learning... I'm trying to understand the point in learning when it does not impact upon the one who learns. Having already indicated that he believes all non-believers are deceiving themselves, I am trying to understand how anything he learns from these deluded people can be of worth.

I use an Apple Mac. I have no intention of using any other sort of computer, unless they stop making Apples... so I am not going to go and explore how any other computer works because such knowledge is useless to me. The only thing I would come away with, if I did study the workings of any other computer, would be more reasons to prefer Macs... because I know I am not going to change.



What does that mean? They who? If you mean Christians, then that's not actually true.

Actually I think you are picking on him because you don't like the 'indication' that non-believers are deceiving themselves.
Personally I learn much from the 'delusion' of others. For instance...I might learn that the path they follow is definitely not one I wish to go down. Or, I might learn that my perception of their delusion is in err. Discussion of ideas, discussion of philosophies, discussion of belief systems...these are all areas where learning takes place. Whether one applies the knowledge learned in a practical manner is irrelevant to the knowledge learned. Application is not the same thing as Education.

But it seems as many times as I have explained it, with examples even, you still fail to understand, which strengthens my point that maybe you're the one who won't learn from those you disagree with.


Maybe she'll understand it when you say it.

Well put.

And Shadow I don't understand why you suggest that I'm biased towards Iams and that's why I am posting what I am posting.

Several times in this thread alone I have pointed out comments of YOURS that were disagreeing with Iams as ones I thought make really good points.

Again this sounds like projection. Since you tend to "clique up" with other posters you assume that my responses are based on that.

I think you make some really interesting and valid points. However its odd to me that you seem to take a position in this that goes against pretty much everything you've said about yourself in the past, just so that you don't have to extend the same courtesy to a Christian who is confirmed in his beliefs?

This is kind of at the heart of the whole thread which is why I am focusing on it. You are debating what he says he believes and I don't understand why that matters so much to you?

It does come across like you are picking on him but I don't think that's how you intend it. But it does come across as though what he is saying doesn't jibe with the bias you have towards Christian beliefs and so you are trying to corner him into a flaw by forcing him to explain it to you.

Why do you care what he believes. Even if he is lying say, why does that bother you so much?

I'm not suggesting you are biased in favour of Son... I'm suggesting you have a pictue of me which includes the idea that I am biased against Christians... you've mentioned this many times in the past, and I feel that this colours your judgement. You said "you are poking at him trying to confirm your bias towards Christians."



I am not cliquing up with anyone.



I am trying to understand a stance which I am having difficulty placing myself in. Rather than assume I know what Son is talking about, I am trying to formulate a picture of what is involved in believing someone is deceiving themselves prior to even hearing what they have to say. I would rather not come away from this thinking I understand and being completely in error.



It doesn't bother me. I just feel unable to fathom the concept of having respect for a person and believing they are self-deceived. And from that I am curious about the nature of what is learned when the person passing on the information is considered deluded. I want to understand it... it's that simple.

S. i wonder to how does one exclude all other beleif constructs and call this learning ,and how this works i am really curious too...?? I loved your post girl that you are growing and evolving and becoming a new you every moment and when new data shows up you are open to looking at it to add to your understandings its a very evolved awareness shadow ..one could say enlightened I would, i beleive doc would too........

Honestly... I don't care what Son thinks of me. I just doubt the value in knowledge which is received by a closed mind.

shadow,
how can you be clicking up when your conversations are with diversity.... i am a NB, you are a diest, Gw is an athiest , doc is his own thing ....We contribute to any idea due to openness and the ability to be diverse in beleifs not just if its what we beleive....I agree True you decide things based on your filters, you can't know us , you don't know us but you do know you so in that thats where you are coming from what it would be i if it was you.....
cliques are for those that all need to believe to be the same....

I wonder however; if it were someone else who had said 'believers deceive themselves' would you be carrying on the same argument?

Joc, this is a common theme that "son is being picked on ....S. has no reason to pick on son..she was asking a question he doesn't like it so he is being picked on..this is on every thread.....

Indeed I would. In fact, the questions I've asked are open to everyone who believes that any group of people are self-deceived - regardless of which belief system they hold - so to anyone who believes that everyone who doesn't belong to their specific faith/non-faith is self-deceived, and believes at the same time that they acually learn from those who are self-deceived, I would be very happy to hear how this works.

This is nice, but there are those who don't need to change. And among those who don't need to change are those who you would think inferior when it comes to knowledge. It's not how much you know, it's what you do with what you do know.

yet we change its natural to change, its the essence of life...I am not the same person today i was yesterday ......

It is natural, but the changes some may expect aren't the changes that some need to make. If they are already a good person I don't see the need to sway them away from a religion because It may not be true.

ones own journey is for them to decide and honor not for me to 'sway' anyone...living my own life is full time...Not to mention that goodness comes in religon too...this is just a skeptic forum to really look at ideas, learn and grow and share not convert anyone......how could anyone possibly know what spiritual journey is the best for another ...

Is the sky blue? If you believe that it is you are deluding yourself. The sky isn't blue. Can I respect that you 'believe' the sky is blue because when you gaze upward it seems blue to you? I see no reason not to...you see it blue...in reality, it isn't. In that we are all somewhat 'deceived' by our own perceptions which blur reality...the point is moot.

Shadow I get what you are saying and I do apologize if MY bias towards you has made me prejudge your comments.

But both Iams and I have explained it pretty clearly.

Perhaps you could explain from your personal perspective what you are not getting. This is the kind of thing that makes a really interesting conversation.

For me. My best friend is a born again Christian. I do think that she is mistaken about God. So do I to Iams. But since I understand his perspective I understand what he is seeing.

My husband made a very interesting comment the other night. He said that Chris Angel will hypnotize people to see and feel things that are not there. Now if a person did this to themselves they could very well be seeing God in their mind.

Why I trust the person is because I know they are not a fool and not likely to just STUPIDLY believe something. I trust they have their reasons. I respect them for it based on their conduct. I see that they use this believe as a motivation or excuse to behave in a kind and compassionate manner.

For example my girlfriend never curses. I admire this about her since I curse like a sailor.


Do these examples help a little? Its as King said what you DO with those beliefs that really matters.

I'll have a go. I believe that when one man looks at the next and thinks "you're deceiving yourself" he is raising himself above the other man. He knows better. The other man knows less. Where religion is concerned, this can go hand in hand with one party believing that their knowledge will bring some reward while the self-deception of the other party will bring some form of punishment, or some loss. I don't believe we can arrive at the conclusion that another person is deluding themelves unless we feel that their logic/sense is flawed. And believing that the person you are speaking to is deluded isn't condusive to learning.

My sister is/was a Christian (she's moving away, so I don't know quite what to call her at the minute). I have never once considered her to be delusional... I could always conceive of the possibility that she experienced something which I did not. I don't think my mother is self-deceived for being an Atheist - I am willing to consider the possibility that the Creator I believe exists is the result of something being conjured up within me, and that my mother is correct in her assertion that there is nothing out there. I truly believe that pretty much anything is possible.

That's where I'm coming from... which is why the concept of believing a bunch of people are self-deceived (before you've even met them even) whilst professing respect for them, seems so alien to me.

OK but you don't act like you respect others beliefs? It sounds to me like you think Christians are terrible people because aside from that army chaplain all you ever post are stories putting down people.

So what difference does it make if you say "I'm not saying they are delusional" but you treat them like idiots in the process?

I don't think that Iams is putting himself on a higher level than me. In fact sometimes I honestly think Iams has put me on a higher level than him. But moment to moment I know he sees me as his equal.

People are not the sum total of their beliefs. That's just part of them.

For example if you know someone who thinks they can sing really well and in your opinion they can't, do you hold no respect for this person because of this?

We are all human. We all have things we deceive ourselves about. Its part of the human condition. Perhaps you should stop assessing people sum total by their religious beliefs. I know you don't do that in your day to day life so why do it in a conversation?

There goes that bias again...



I am not even trying to assess anyone as a complete human being. Why would I? I have nothing to go on, when it comes to the personalities of people on this discussion forum, aside from their belief systems. We don't discuss anything else for the most part. We have these little limited glimpses of each other, and we have to make do with that.