Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,584
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
It's good to keep seeking the truth and to believe what is more likely.
No, it's better to seek the answers and choose the one which most "easily" explains the facts we have, not the one which ends the "conflicts" or ends the discussion.
We're seeking truth, not an end to the seeking process or the "conflicts" that arise by the questions being raised or by the differing ideas people have.
There's nothing wrong with examining the human psyche and why people believe this or that and . . . and . . . missing birth certificates? . . . and
It's fine to inquire about the motive for the inquiries, but why should any inquiry be suppressed or any question made to be "done" just because someone doesn't agree with someone's belief about it?
If you don't like someone else's belief, then you can direct your attention to some other issue and away from the one that bothers you. But no question should be suppressed or made "done" from still being investigated further and perhaps someone proposing a new conspiracy theory about something. Being "done" with it is not the goal, but finding the answers, and those not interested in that pursuit will find something else they are interested in.
I'm interested in the possibility that there might be Something More beyond death. Other questions are also important, but I think whoever is interested in this beyond-death question might want to consider various possible answers to it that come to attention. There are many possibilities. No one knows for sure that there is or is not the Something More.
No, that's not easy to assume. Maybe assume any such claim is false, tentatively, and be willing to consider differently depending on the evidence.
We can investigate them and choose, as with any claims. Some claims are true, others false. Why doesn't that apply to all categories of claims, even the unusual ones that conventional science cannot explain?
Yes, but I'll repeat, I'm saying there's evidence that the Jesus miracle healing acts really did happen. Other claims also should be checked for possible evidence. It's dishonest to pick one claim only and ignore all the others. On the other hand, perhaps one cannot investigate every claim ever made before deciding to believe one or another of them.
I hope you'll correct me if I engage in any circular reasoning.
Whoever believes anything should try to give evidence or reasons for their belief. It's not futile. Some beliefs are true. Some are probable, some less likely, and so on. It's not wrong to hold a belief just because you don't have absolute certainty. And it's fine if many belief systems are out there each trying to prove it's the truth.
No it's not chaos. We do have this now, with many "traditions" or belief systems claiming to be the truth -- just surf the Internet -- wow! it's fun considering all those possible versions of what "the Truth" is. A little healthy "chaos" never hurt anyone.
The goal should be to try to figure out whatever "the Truth" is, not to shut down the whole array of different crusades or "traditions" competing for attention and claiming to have the truth. Some of them probably do have some "truth" that people are seeking.
So, on the doctrine of Easiest:
it's really easier to assume that all supernatural claims are bullshit.
Because then we're done. Period, end of conflicts.
No, it's better to seek the answers and choose the one which most "easily" explains the facts we have, not the one which ends the "conflicts" or ends the discussion.
We're seeking truth, not an end to the seeking process or the "conflicts" that arise by the questions being raised or by the differing ideas people have.
Sure, there's room to examine the human psyche and wonder why we're attracted to such stories, why we make them, how we can maybe create automatic filters that detect pure bullshit and prevent stories of AIDS-dipped needles or missing birth certificates from floating around the internet. But the question is done.
There's nothing wrong with examining the human psyche and why people believe this or that and . . . and . . . missing birth certificates? . . . and
It's fine to inquire about the motive for the inquiries, but why should any inquiry be suppressed or any question made to be "done" just because someone doesn't agree with someone's belief about it?
If you don't like someone else's belief, then you can direct your attention to some other issue and away from the one that bothers you. But no question should be suppressed or made "done" from still being investigated further and perhaps someone proposing a new conspiracy theory about something. Being "done" with it is not the goal, but finding the answers, and those not interested in that pursuit will find something else they are interested in.
I'm interested in the possibility that there might be Something More beyond death. Other questions are also important, but I think whoever is interested in this beyond-death question might want to consider various possible answers to it that come to attention. There are many possibilities. No one knows for sure that there is or is not the Something More.
ALMOSt as easy would be to assume that all supernatural claims are valid, because someone made them.
No, that's not easy to assume. Maybe assume any such claim is false, tentatively, and be willing to consider differently depending on the evidence.
Least easy would be to assume that SOME supernatural tales are true . . . , but there's the difficulty in knowing which supernatural claims are true.
We can investigate them and choose, as with any claims. Some claims are true, others false. Why doesn't that apply to all categories of claims, even the unusual ones that conventional science cannot explain?
It would be dishonest to just pick one, without any evidence at all.
Yes, but I'll repeat, I'm saying there's evidence that the Jesus miracle healing acts really did happen. Other claims also should be checked for possible evidence. It's dishonest to pick one claim only and ignore all the others. On the other hand, perhaps one cannot investigate every claim ever made before deciding to believe one or another of them.
Of course, if you did, then all the claims for that tradition would tend to self-support, but that's circular.
I hope you'll correct me if I engage in any circular reasoning.
All those parallel but equally futile efforts...
Whoever believes anything should try to give evidence or reasons for their belief. It's not futile. Some beliefs are true. Some are probable, some less likely, and so on. It's not wrong to hold a belief just because you don't have absolute certainty. And it's fine if many belief systems are out there each trying to prove it's the truth.
And someone else with yet another tradition, and so on down the line.
It'd be chaos!
No it's not chaos. We do have this now, with many "traditions" or belief systems claiming to be the truth -- just surf the Internet -- wow! it's fun considering all those possible versions of what "the Truth" is. A little healthy "chaos" never hurt anyone.
The goal should be to try to figure out whatever "the Truth" is, not to shut down the whole array of different crusades or "traditions" competing for attention and claiming to have the truth. Some of them probably do have some "truth" that people are seeking.