Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Logical issues with belief.


danydandan

Recommended Posts

Actually, I thought of something else to say. Big surprise, huh?:D

When I say truthfulness, I might be defining it differently than others. I mostly mean, by truthfulness, an accurate assessment (or growing accurateness of assessment) of self. Inner truthfulness. Concerning things like...ragging on everyone for their selfishnesses but not being able to see that you have any. Or...refusing to forgive someone for being rude to you when you have been curt or rude to someone ever before.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I think thats a big part of it, truthfullness, righteousness, humility, golden rule.. generally try and be a good person, helping others as much you can while having a strong conviction in God. Youre probably way ahead of me, getting bogged down in all sorts of scriptural knots.. :D

Anywho; I think all Abrahamic religions have been diverted from their source teachings, I think that source is thesame, and I suspect Saul of Tarsus (aka Paul) has had a big hand in one of if not the main diversion of 'Christianity'.

I really enjoyed reading your posts, no double layers or pretences.. open minded. Which is refreshing.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:

Well I think thats a big part of it, truthfullness, righteousness, humility, golden rule.. generally try and be a good person, helping others as much you can while having a strong conviction in God. Youre probably way ahead of me, getting bogged down in all sorts of scriptural knots.. :D

Anywho; I think all Abrahamic religions have been diverted from their source teachings, I think that source is thesame, and I suspect Saul of Tarsus (aka Paul) has had a big hand in one of if not the main diversion of 'Christianity'.

I really enjoyed reading your posts, no double layers or pretences.. open minded. Which is refreshing.

 

I've not heard this thought. I briefly skimmed through those three documents you linked. I just didn't pay them too much attention because Paul has been such a help to me, so I figured i f he isn't a help to others, they could probably focus on the other parts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favourite approach to God is "I do not know what it is and if exists, I will spend my life trying to find out." I mean do not believe but do not disbelief it either whatever people has to say, be it a religious person, be it an atheist or agnosticc... Maybe they are both right, the believer and non believer too. :rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 11/12/2018 at 8:36 AM, danydandan said:

That would mean the author assumed the Earth was flat, not round because you obviously can't see around a sphere.

Or that you don't know what you are talking about...

You do know that the moon has mountains don't you? So what do you think you will see from the other side.  

5c614860b6059_Pinnacle1(1).jpg.495b31c5b03188301dc4c4ac764a7138.jpg Image from Google Earth [3D terrestrial Earth]

And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.Luke 4:5

Edited by 029b10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, 029b10 said:

Or that you don't know what you are talking about...

You do know that the moon has mountains don't you? So what do you think you will see from the other side.  

5c614860b6059_Pinnacle1(1).jpg.495b31c5b03188301dc4c4ac764a7138.jpg Image from Google Earth [3D terrestrial Earth]

And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.Luke 4:5

What's your point exactly? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, 029b10 said:

That you can't see all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time on a flat earth.  

You'd have a better chance at seeing them all from a flat Earth, than a round spherical Earth wouldn't you think? Considering you can't see China if your in Europe because of the curvature of the Earth. If the Earth was flat the curvature isn't an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One, the earth isn't flat.  Two, human vision only allows a 90 degree view in a moment of time.  Three, they didn't know that the moon had mountains back then.

  • And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. Luke 4:5

In conclusion, from a distance half a sphere is visible and as the image demonstrates all the kingdoms of the world are visible from a exceeding high mountain.

  • Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; Matt 4:8

(FYI- at the time of the events recorded in the NT you only had to stand on a pile of dirt two foot high to see all the kingdoms of the world since the world was ruled by Roman Empire.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 9:58 PM, Jen5 said:

So Paul is seeming pretty right on at this point - the only way to not break the law is to have no law to break.

So, are you suggesting that Paul, a mere human, can override Jesus, the who is claimed as the son of god (or part of god)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, 029b10 said:

One, the earth isn't flat.  Two, human vision only allows a 90 degree view in a moment of time.  Three, they didn't know that the moon had mountains back then.

  • And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. Luke 4:5

In conclusion, from a distance half a sphere is visible and as the image demonstrates all the kingdoms of the world are visible from a exceeding high mountain.

  • Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; Matt 4:8

(FYI- at the time of the events recorded in the NT you only had to stand on a pile of dirt two foot high to see all the kingdoms of the world since the world was ruled by Roman Empire.)

1.Are you jumping to some silly assumption that I think the world is flat?

2.What does the Moon having mountains got to with anything?

3.Areas around Persia weren't the only Kingdoms of the World at the time. China, Mayan civilisations for just two examples.

4.If one was taking the two gospel quotes you posted literally and out of context, it quite understandably infers that the Author thought the Earth was flat. The literal only way to see all Kingdoms of the Earth is to stand on a very high mountain, under the assumption the Earth is flat, and cast your eye as far as it can see.

5.Humans have more than ninety degree vision span it's more like one hundred and twenty degree span, in any moment of time.

6.FYI the world wasn't near being completely ruled by the Roman Empire at the time. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 5:08 AM, andrew.t said:

My favourite approach to God is "I do not know what it is and if exists, I will spend my life trying to find out." I mean do not believe but do not disbelief it either whatever people has to say, be it a religious person, be it an atheist or agnosticc... Maybe they are both right, the believer and non believer too. :rofl:

You are Agnostic then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/15/2018 at 11:38 AM, seanjo said:

Battleground God - Analysis
 
You navigated the battlefield suffering 2 hits and biting 0 bullets, which represents an overall performance at the 54th percentile (i.e., 54% of scores are worse than yours). The tables on the right show how your performance compares to the other 76492 people who have completed Battleground God.

You can find a list of questions here (page will open in a new tab).

Recap of your Direct Hits
Direct Hit 1

You answered "True" to questions 11 and 15, which generated the following response:

Earlier you responded that it is rational to believe the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.

The contradiction is that on the first occasion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.

 

(God Isn't an imaginary beast that has been proven by constant searches to not exist)

Direct Hit 2

You answered "True" to Question 8 and "False" to Question 16, which generated the following response:

Earlier you said that even in the absence of independent evidence, it is justified to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner-conviction. But now you do not accept that the serial murderer Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the killer has exposed that you do not, in fact, think that a belief is justified just because one is convinced of its truth. So you need to revise your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!

(Having the faith that a God exists, is not the same as murder because of your mental instability giving you a conviction)

 

Battleground god.JPG

My issue with this is was loch ness is an in the world entity by its nature.  And God is a spiritual entity by definition.  Observational evidence or the lack of can not be applied here.  There are no observational standards or measures yet agreed upon, and many discount the concepts of a spiritual reality and thus; would never agree to them if they were proposed.  In general this seems to argue over a presupposed dualistic universe but applies materialist arguments. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 7:09 AM, danydandan said:

2.What does the Moon having mountains got to with anything?

I'm reading it that @029b10 believes that Ole Lucifer whisked Jesus to the moon to 'survey the kingdoms of Earth'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

I'm reading it that @029b10 believes that Ole Lucifer whisked Jesus to the moon to 'survey the kingdoms of Earth'?

Still doesn't explain why the Moon having mountains has anything to do with anything? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Still doesn't explain why the Moon having mountains has anything to do with anything? 

IDK either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

IDK either. 

Perplexing ain't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logic and belief. Seems like the two are in opposition to one another. One can create an internally logical system of belief, and therefore justify both one's logic and belief system. As long as it remains internally consistently logical. And if one can maintain a suspension of disbelief in anything that conflicts with one's internal logic.

For example, in the 'Harry Potter' series, one can accept (in the stories) magical flying cars, mythical creatures, and offensive and defensive magic spells. You have suspended your disbelief to become absorbed in the tale, and can accept any actions and explanations, as long as they are internally consistent. Harry defeats a troll be shoving a magic wand up its nostril and into its brain. OK, not the usual usage for a wand, but consistent. It wouldn't be consistent if he whipped out a phaser and blasted the creature.

But, as long as one is willing to ignore all the sciences, one can immerse oneself in the tale and enjoy its "realism"

To me, beliefs in deities is similar, we suspend our disbelief in order to accept these supernatural entities, and will ignore anything that contradicts our beliefs. Or worse yet, co-opt the contradictions and engage in linguistic gymnastics in order to "logically" incorporate the disproof as proof.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Logic and belief. Seems like the two are in opposition to one another. One can create an internally logical system of belief, and therefore justify both one's logic and belief system. As long as it remains internally consistently logical. And if one can maintain a suspension of disbelief in anything that conflicts with one's internal logic.

For example, in the 'Harry Potter' series, one can accept (in the stories) magical flying cars, mythical creatures, and offensive and defensive magic spells. You have suspended your disbelief to become absorbed in the tale, and can accept any actions and explanations, as long as they are internally consistent. Harry defeats a troll be shoving a magic wand up its nostril and into its brain. OK, not the usual usage for a wand, but consistent. It wouldn't be consistent if he whipped out a phaser and blasted the creature.

But, as long as one is willing to ignore all the sciences, one can immerse oneself in the tale and enjoy its "realism"

To me, beliefs in deities is similar, we suspend our disbelief in order to accept these supernatural entities, and will ignore anything that contradicts our beliefs. Or worse yet, co-opt the contradictions and engage in linguistic gymnastics in order to "logically" incorporate the disproof as proof.

 

Amen sister. Isn't it wonderful?

Everyone is free to decide whatever they want! And be entirely responsible personally for making those choices.

It's supercalifragilisticexpialidocious! :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 3:10 PM, Will Due said:

 

Amen sister. Isn't it wonderful?

Everyone is free to decide whatever they want! And be entirely responsible personally for making those choices.

It's supercalifragilisticexpialidocious! :)

 

 

Your response is irrelevant. As are you.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/16/2019 at 8:09 AM, danydandan said:

Still doesn't explain why the Moon having mountains has anything to do with anything? 

Nothing, I just threw that cause I heard you guys who believe the earth is flat like stuff like that.

On 2/16/2019 at 8:16 AM, Jodie.Lynne said:

IDK either. 

LOL

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, 029b10 said:

Nothing, I just threw that cause I heard you guys who believe the earth is flat like stuff like that.

LOL

 

What in the name of the Seven Hells makes you think we believe the world is flat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 029b10 said:

Nothing, I just threw that cause I heard you guys who believe the earth is flat like stuff like that.

LOL

 

Have read the whole tread? Or any of my pervious posts. What in the blue moon made you think I'm a Flat-Earther?

1 hour ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

What in the name of the Seven Hells makes you think we believe the world is flat?

I'm also perplexed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2019 at 1:03 PM, Jodie.Lynne said:

What in the name of the Seven Hells makes you think we believe the world is flat?

Reflective deduction.  It is a conclusion based upon the assumptions reflected in your responses.    

For example, would you believe it is possible that the universe probably was flat?

Thus, your response will reflect how you define the term "world".  

On 2/23/2019 at 2:20 PM, danydandan said:

I'm also perplexed!

It is self-induced which occurs from the inability to accept the possibilities all things.  

Thus, it is reflective from your use of the term 'earth' when referring to a scripture which used the term 'world'.  Not to say that you are wrong, yet it does reflect how you would response if asked if the term 'world' being defined by the scriptures as the elements in the heavens could infer physical universe.   

Since your responses reflect that you would accept that the universe was probably flat, but couldn't perceive that the term 'earth' as used in Genesis 1:1 could infer the physical universe, thus the disorder results from the inability to perceive the association of the two.  And that disorder is a good reason to be perplexed. 
 

Edited by 029b10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, 029b10 said:

Reflective deduction.  It is a conclusion based upon the assumptions reflected in your responses.    

For example, would you believe it is possible that the universe probably was flat?

Thus, your response will reflect how you define the term "world".  

It is self-induced which occurs from the inability to accept the possibilities all things.  

Thus, it is reflective from your use of the term 'earth' when referring to a scripture which used the term 'world'.  Not to say that you are wrong, yet it does reflect how you would response if asked if the term 'world' being defined by the scriptures as the elements in the heavens could infer physical universe.   

Since your responses reflect that you would accept that the universe was probably flat, but couldn't perceive that the term 'earth' as used in Genesis 1:1 could infer the physical universe, thus the disorder results from the inability to perceive the association of the two.  And that disorder is a good reason to be perplexed. 
 

You really are talking crap. 

No-body here thinks the Earth is flat. The term Earth in Genesis means land not the actual planet. As in God created the water and the land. 

There are a number of Biblical scholars who argue the Matthew 4:8, is an assumption of a flat Earth. 

As far as the Universe being 'flat' it depends on the resolution of the observations being made.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.