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 -
docyabut2

Beliefs in the other side

242 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Mr Walker
On 14/01/2019 at 12:00 PM, Liquid Gardens said:

True but irrelevant, all you are saying is that the truth always 'beats' things that may or may not be true, which is obvious. Mere claims of knowledge are what I call beliefs, so beliefs can beat what others think is knowledge, if the beliefs are correct and the 'knowledge to me' is wrong. 

More importantly, actual knowledge (not the 'to me' type) is thwarted by misperceptions, incomplete information from the senses, motivated reasoning, memory accuracy degradation, etc, all entirely natural and not necessarily pathological occurrences.  Just sayin.

However my point is this. True knowledge  held via experience by even just one person, beats the firmly held beliefs of a billion people 

I distinguish between belief and knowledge but know that any individual can hold knowledge that no one else  possesses

It is less common in this day and age, but once upon a time many people had knowledge not possessed by others in their community

Your last point is true for all other forms of "knowledge"  as well   A t least experienced observation enables a study first hand of a phenomenum

Most people's memory is best when connected to smells, sounds, and sharp emotional states.

 This is less likely reading, or even watching media, to gain knowledge.. ie we forget what we read or experience from quiet pursuits more quickly  and readily than memories associated with real  [physical and exciting experiences.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Mr Walker
On 13/01/2019 at 4:08 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

You could try using google to see how many believers God's omniscience makes sense to and why, since you don't seem to understand it. 

Looks more like you are cherry-picking and engaging in biased thinking to me.  I have provided you already with a quote that 'explicitly' states that God's understanding is infinite.  You've ignored this and not countered with anything explicitly stating he isn't.

What happened to your excessively vaunted memory, you're asking if I'm a believer?!  I'm not upset, why should I be?  It doesn't follow that just because someone thinks god is non-existent that topics related to it aren't worth arguing about; I've had conversations concerning Star Trek and Godzilla despite not thinking those exist.  I'm not really convinced you know your own mind that well so I think you should be very skeptical about guessing about others.

You can't even implicitly surmise accurately the positions and attitudes of other humans from their words but you think you can for the words of believers millennia ago concerning their God?

Again, the original boundary of the conversation was the story, not what you believe about God.  

imagination and belief allows humans to create and attribute ANY qualities  to a being.  However, if that being is real it will be constrained by its very relity  

This is the difference between  imagined gods and real gods but also imagined dogs and real dogs.

I didn't ignore it I explained that some writers SAW god as being omniscient and allowed imagination and magical thinking to inform their view of god. OTHERS writing for the bible did not and their stories show a god who does not see the future, makes mistakes, and has to act to correct them  He gets it so wrong that one third of his angels rebel against him, and adam and eve dont follow his plan for them. 

sorry think i may have answered this post already 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
On ‎1‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 4:24 AM, docyabut2 said:

Image may contain: text

So your belief in an afterlife is based on a childrens book?

I am not trying to be mean, but you do know that anybody could write a book and claim it's all true, right?

I could write a book detailing the awesome adventures of me and my talking cat, BC, and claim it as 100% truthful. But that doesn't make it so.

 

And just for the record, "transparent" and "translucent" are virtually identical in meaning. :)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
14 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

*SNIP*

And just for the record, "transparent" and "translucent" are virtually identical in meaning. :)

To be fair, transparent refers to an object you can see details through. Translucent objects let light through without revealing detail.

Transparent can also be used to mean that something, such as a motive, is easily seen through.

In this case the book is referring to a fly it seems. I don't really understand how it could be both at the same time. :blink: 

*definition Nazi out* :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne

@onlookerofmayhem

 

Remember, no one likes a snarky ferret! :P

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
1 hour ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

 I don't really understand how it could be both at the same time. :blink:

So what you're saying is, the book is unclear about clarity.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2
2 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

So your belief in an afterlife is based on a childrens book?

 

 This book was written by my minister from unity church years ago, who passed way years ago.  My dad who gave me this book he passed way years ago to. I just started reading the book and wants to know what people think of it and if there is anything to try and believe our lives do go after death,

he wrote of a contact with a friend katy on the other side

Quote

 

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
1 hour ago, docyabut2 said:

This book was written by my minister

Yes hun, we get it, you've mentioned that a dozen times.

Let me be blunt: 

Your minister was selling his beliefs. He believes in an afterlife, and thought that writing a book about his belief, written as "fact" would attract more followers.

Given that the target audience for the book seems to be youngsters, it's my opinion that he was engaging in the age olde adage of "get 'em while they're young".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scudbuster
1 hour ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

 

Given that the target audience for the book seems to be youngsters, it's my opinion that he was engaging in the age olde adage of "get 'em while they're young".

Just like another industry we all know and "love" - the tobacco boys. It's all about making money, no matter how nefarious, scandalous, or deceitful that particular "conduit" might be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2

oh well is us our young or old people that could want to believe in a after life :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
58 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

oh well is us our young or old people that could want to believe in a after life :)

If it brings you serenity to believe in an afterlife, then it's all good. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2
16 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

If it brings you serenity to believe in an afterlife, then it's all good. :)

 

do you have a contact with your cat that was dead ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne

No, I don't.

In my life, I have had 2 canine companions, 3 felines, 3 bunnies and countless fish.

When I am feeling sentimental, I like to think that they are all romping and playing together in the Elysian fields. But, that is just emotions at work.

My current BF is a rescue cat by the name of Babycat (BC for short), who is my furbaby. When He isn't being a jerk!  LOL 

Edited by Jodie.Lynne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
12 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

@onlookerofmayhem

 

Remember, no one likes a snarky ferret! :P

Only because they prove others wrong. :) 

Truth trumps popularity every time. 

Words and their meanings are important in clear communication and, to communicate, we must have the same known and understood  meanings for a word 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
4 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Words and their meanings are important in clear communication and, to communicate, we must have the same known and understood  meanings for a word 

 

Definition of translucent

 

1 : permitting the passage of light:
a : transmitting and diffusing light so that objects beyond cannot be seen clearly
b : clear, transparent translucent water
2 : free from disguise or falseness

Definition of transparent

 

1a(1) : having the property of transmitting light without appreciable scattering so that bodies lying beyond are seen clearly : pellucid
(2) : allowing the passage of a specified form of radiation (such as X-rays or ultraviolet light)
b : fine or sheer enough to be seen through : diaphanous
2a : free from pretense or deceit : frank
b : easily detected or seen through : obvious
c : readily understood
d : characterized by visibility or accessibility of information especially concerning business practices
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
11 hours ago, eight bits said:

So what you're saying is, the book is unclear about clarity.

I dont see a smiley here, so assume this may be serious . Can a book ( or anything) be both translucent and transparent at the same time?   maybe so but generally you cant see details though translucent things or the y would be called transparent  I suspect all transparent things are translucent but we don't call them this BECAUSE  you can see details through them  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
11 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

 

Definition of translucent

 

1 : permitting the passage of light:
a : transmitting and diffusing light so that objects beyond cannot be seen clearly
b : clear, transparent translucent water
2 : free from disguise or falseness

Definition of transparent

 

1a(1) : having the property of transmitting light without appreciable scattering so that bodies lying beyond are seen clearly : pellucid
(2) : allowing the passage of a specified form of radiation (such as X-rays or ultraviolet light)
b : fine or sheer enough to be seen through : diaphanous
2a : free from pretense or deceit : frank
b : easily detected or seen through : obvious
c : readily understood
d : characterized by visibility or accessibility of information especially concerning business practices
 

 

See the post to 8 bits that i was writing as you posted 

If translucent was transparent we would not need both words.

  ie not all translucent things are transparent while all transparent things are most likely translucent.

So the words are not entirely interchangeable and have quite difernt meanings . 

 

The above definition  actually excludes one from being the other.  

Definition of translucent

 

1 : permitting the passage of light:
a : transmitting and diffusing light so that objects beyond cannot be seen clearly
 

Definition of transparent

 

1a(1) : having the property of transmitting light without appreciable scattering so that bodies lying beyond are seen clearly : pellucid
Something cannot, BOTH allow an object to be seen clearly,  and NOT allow it to be
 
Think of it this way. A translucent shower door in a public area would be quite acceptable , but a transparent one would not  :) 
One instance where the wrong word  in ordering the glass could be  "catastrophic"
 
 
Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
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.