Originally posted by Great King RatCan you share with others in the hopes that they too would come? We are saved because
You tell me. Between the two of us, you're the expert.
Let's say my place in heaven was guaranteed. Would it be better for me to die right now?
of someone other than ourselves, and he asks us to help share His love and grace to
others like us who cannot earn God's grace on their own. At some point yes being there
would be better than here. The question isn't what we think but the One in charge, He has
put a limit on the amount of time we all have here.
Originally posted by Great King RatI'm guessing they'd turn you away. Sort of a metaphysical "No shirt, no shoes, no service" sign. We'd kinda like to see you go dressed properly, at least. 🙂
But what would happen if I went to heaven "totally unprepared"?
I hear the "armor of God" is always in style, and in season.
1 edit
Originally posted by Great King RatScientifically speaking, because that is how you secular humanists claim you try to see the world, how is the world improving?
I never said that all that matters is my happiness. Would you like to go back to my post and read it again?
And yes, part of that happiness comes from seeing the world slowly get better.
Last I heard there is global warming and it will continue no matter if the entire world went totally green tomorrow.
And then there is the problem of entropy.
Then again, scientifically speaking, why is the destruction of the earth a "bad" thing? You are assigning things value based upon your belief system.
Now what if left wingers are correct in that human beings are a virus? Then if that virus was eradicated completely, it might save other life forms in the universe who are not.
So in the twisted mind of left wingers, like the Human Extinction Project etc., human extinction could be considered a "good" thing.
Originally posted by whodeyPerhaps a fan of the Human Extinction Project will engage you in debate on this thread, you never know. What kind of music would you say they play? Sounds like some sort of heavy metal to me, but, not being a consumer of this kind of stuff, I am not sure what the correct genre label is: https://www.reverbnation.com/playlist/view_playlist/-4?page_object=artist_93532
So in the twisted mind of left wingers, like the Human Extinction Project etc., human extinction could be considered a "good" thing.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyCome on Whodey, what are you talking about? What kind of weird definition are you using to come to the conclusion that I have a belief system that makes me assign value to things? What kind of belief system do I have, according to you?
Scientifically speaking, because that is how you secular humanists claim you try to see the world, how is the world improving?
Last I heard there is global warming and it will continue no matter if the entire world went totally green tomorrow.
And then there is the problem of entropy.
Then again, scientifically speaking, why is the destruction of the ...[text shortened]... rs, like the Human Extinction Project etc., human extinction could be considered a "good" thing.
If I say, I believe it won't snow tomorrow, is that a belief system according to you?? Because if so, we have such a radically different idea about what a belief system entails that further conversation is quite pointless.
Your belief system - roughly speaking - means that you believe there is an afterlife, some kind of wizard there who judges everyone in their current life and then tosses them in Cloudworld of Fireworld based on his own rules. Are you really saying that me seeing people getting healthier and education improving is similar of even comparable to your beliefs??
And do you actually believe that the average "left winger" believes that humans should go extinct? How is that "they-be-left-wing-we-be-right-wing" schism working out for you?
Originally posted by Great King RatSome beliefs may seem crazier than others. If you say that you believe it will snow tomorrow that does not sound that crazy, unless you live in Saudi Arabia.
Come on Whodey, what are you talking about? What kind of weird definition are you using to come to the conclusion that I have a belief system that makes me assign value to things? What kind of belief system do I have, according to you?
If I say, I believe it won't snow tomorrow, is that a belief system according to you?? Because if so, we have such ...[text shortened]... should go extinct? How is that "they-be-left-wing-we-be-right-wing" schism working out for you?
So what you are saying is, the term "belief" can only be used when in reference to something that is not statistically plausible Whatever.
Things that are statistically plausible take much less faith to believe in, but it is still a belief nonetheless.
So lets look at something that you believe in that is not statistically plausible, namely, abiogenesis. I know, I know, this does not apply to you so let's hear why again.
Originally posted by KellyJay
With man and I'm using the word man to describe each and everyone of us not just the
males. 🙂 Don't we run risks with this to our own hurt? For example with our political
process in America we *all not just some* tend to over look faults in those we feel like
minded with and tend to make a huge deal out of the faults of those we do not agree with,
to t ...[text shortened]... I am including myself in this as well this isn't a statement to put down those I disagree
with.
Don't we run risks with this to our own hurt? For example with our political
process in America we *all not just some* tend to over look faults in those we feel like
minded with and tend to make a huge deal out of the faults of those we do not agree with,
to the point of accepting some nasty things in our guys while holding the other's feet to
the fire for the same things?
Perhaps. But, for one, it does not manifest equally across all persons. For two, it does not manifest equally across all issues. I would say it manifests most strongly on issues where one has strong conative or affective attitudes and vested interests. In many cases, there is incongruity between the way the world is and the way one would like the world to be, and this is most palpable on issues that one cares deeply about. Like with all things, there are going to be healthy ways to relieve this tension (like striving to maintain a clear, unbiased understanding of the way the world is and then endeavoring toward healthy acceptance of what one cannot change and constructive reform of what one can) and unhealthy ways (like some bizarre trajectory of willful biasing one's understanding of the way the world is, as if one is distorting the world to fit into some preconception).
Some of the bias can be done through intentional effort, which seems to be the most egregious sort. Some, however, is unintentional and reflects embedded conditioning in environmental upbringing, inculcations, or whatever. Both are bad, but the remedies are probably different and the two probably indicate different degrees of inculpation.
Getting back on the point of this thread, the cases that are relevant involve intentional effort to bias one’s evidence toward a more preferred understanding of the way the world is. Such intentional effort exists on some level, that is clear. But I am skeptical of a few things: I am skeptical that such an approach is generally effectual; I am skeptical that such an approach is healthy; and I would deny that such an approach typifies normal processes for belief building and maintenance.
If this is a human trait wouldn't we do that with all things where we are sorting out what
is and is not true? Looking favorably towards the evidence we like and ignore that which
isn't pointing in our direction? That would make us all subject to accepting flaws and
in my opinion cause to migrate towards the herd that thinks like we do because it is
safe there in numbers *we think but that isn't always true*.
To fail at being unbiased is no more a “human trait” than to fail at any other idealized behavior. I doubt we can generalize this as deeply as you imply. Some persons are more biased than others in some respects and less biased in others in other respects; some issues and experiences are more galvanizing in their biasing effects than others; some routes towards biasing are intentional and others are imbedded; etc. It seems like a textured topic.
But, back to the point of this thread, if we agree that humans are disposed on some level to willfully biasing their evidence; then the relevant questions are these: is this a process of effecting belief; and if so, is this a typical process of effecting belief? Again, for what it is worth, here would be my answers. First, if that is a process of effecting belief, then it is at best an unreliable and justificatorily impoverished one with limited success conditions. Second, no it is not a typical process of effecting belief. Rather, it seems to be an unhealthy way of trying to relieve some tension between conflicting cognitive and conative/affective attitudes on galvanizing issues. It seems to be a process used with selective care at sweeping beliefs that have already formed through typical processes under some proverbial rug; or coaxing others out of hiding; or whatever.