Prophecy fullfilled

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

So, that's what you believe.

Cheap shot. Show me my definition of believing is wrong. In what way does believing mean just another word for knowing? In what way is belief the same like knowledge? Knowledge can be tested, and proven right or wrong, that's what scientific processes are about. But belief is dogma, and dogma is not knowledge, it is - well simply this: dogma. as that it is immune to any question, examiniation, analysis, and sees no need to answer to these. It is DOGMA. The above characteristics are what is summarized in the word by definition. Dogma even says you are not free in what you believe - not to mention to gain knowledge and ask questions!

Edit: You could even put it that way: knowing means knowledge that you have gained by experiencing the object, examining it, analysing it, testing it, the cobclusions you come to are what you label as knowledge. It depends on the procedures you perform.

Believing is knowledge that you imagine to have, although not having experienced the object, not having tested it, not having analysed it, you cannot prove it, you canot say it is or is not, that way you do not come to conclusions, but your fantasy of what you believe you know coagulates into dogma.

This kind of dogma also appears occasionalyl in sciences that abuses it's methods by being not objectzive about them and censoring the set of questions you ask during the scientific process. That way you get a tunnel-view as a researcher that ends up in scientific dogmas. Unfortunately, these can cause as much harm as do religous dogmas.

Dogmas are imagined knowledge only. They are like a fata morgana. like the Fata morgana itself is real and does exist, so does the dogma. But what both are showing you is unreal.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Cheap shot.

It's not intended as a cheap shot, I'm simply summarizing. Geetrue posted about something he believes. You've made several posts dismissing it, you are defining for us what belief is all about, and I simply pointed out, that's your belief.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

It's not intended as a cheap shot, I'm simply summarizing. Geetrue posted about something he believes. You've made several posts dismissing it, you are defining for us what belief is all about, and I simply pointed out, that's your belief.

Than I am wondering if we even speak the same English language, because you imply that the very meaning of terms and words are arbitrary and thus we talk about something without meaning anything, at least nothing there is consensus on what "it" means". Different cultures often use the same terms and mean very different things by them. But you and me may be of different nationalities, but still of the same culture, more or less. One should assume that more or less the same terms should have the same meaning for you and me.

So let's get this thing straight, to end the confusion over the meaning of this term "belief".

Belief:

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual is convinced of the truth of a proposition.
False beliefs are not knowledge, even if the individual believes them to be true; a sincere believer in the flat earth theory does not know that the Earth is flat. Unknown facts are not knowledge, because they are not known by any individual; it is the belief element in a true belief that makes the link between a state of affairs and an individual. Unjustified true beliefs are lucky guesses, and therefore not knowledge.
A primary problem for epistemology is exactly what is needed, in addition to true belief, in order for us to have knowledge. In the dialogue Theaetetus, Plato has Socrates examine and reject the proposal that knowledge is justifiedtrue belief. More recently, this view has been challenged by the Gettier problem which suggests that justified true belief does not provide a complete picture of knowledge.
An idea is, in some forms of philosophy, accepted as the opposite of belief. Often a belief is something accepted, by the believer, as a truth, and therefore resists change. An idea is a thought that, while still being accepted by the thinker, is not held to such truth as belief, and can be changed, molded, or added onto with improvements or suggestions.
Mainstream psychology and related disciplines have traditionally treated belief as if it were the simplest form of mental representation and therefore one of the building blocks of conscious thought. Philosophers have tended to be more rigorous in their analysis and much of the work examining the viability of the belief concept stems from philosophical analysis.
The concept of belief presumes a subject (the believer) and an object of belief (the proposition) so like other propositional attitudes, belief implies the existence of mental states and intentionality, both of which are hotly debated topics in the philosophy of mind and whose foundations and relation to brain states are still controversial.

Knowledge:

Knowledge is defined (Oxford English Dictionary) variously as (i) facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject, (ii) what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information or (iii) awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
“We suppose ourselves to possess unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and, further, that the fact could not be other than it is. Now that scientific knowing is something of this sort is evident — witness both those who falsely claim it and those who actually possess it, since the former merely imagine themselves to be, while the latter are also actually, in the condition described. Consequently the proper object of unqualified scientific knowledge is something which cannot be other than it is.




”

— Aristotle, Posterior Analytics (Book 1 Part 2)

The definition of knowledge is a matter of on-going debate among philosophers. The classical definition is found in, but not ultimately endorsed by, Plato.[1], has it that in order for there to be knowledge at least three criteria must be fulfilled; that in order to count as knowledge, a statement must be justified, true, and believed. Some claim that these conditions are not sufficient, as Gettier case examples allegedly demonstrate. There are a number of alternatives proposed, including Robert Nozick's arguments for a requirement that knowledge 'tracks the truth' and Simon Blackburn's additional requirement that we do not want to say that those who meet any of these conditions 'through a defect, flaw, or failure' have knowledge. Richard Kirkham suggests that our definition of knowledge requires that the believer's evidence is such that it logically necessitates the truth of the belief.
In contrast to this approach, Wittgenstein observed, following Moore's paradox, that one can say "He believes it, but it isn't so", but not "He knows it, but it isn't so". [2] He goes on to argue that these do not correspond to distinct mental states, but rather to distinct ways of talking about conviction. What is different here is not the mental state of the speaker, but the activity in which they are engaged. For example, on this account, to know that the kettle is boiling is not to be in a particular state of mind, but to perform a particular task with the statement that the kettle is boiling. Wittgenstein sought to bypass the difficulty of definition by looking to the way "knowledge" is used in natural languages. He saw knowledge as a case of a family resemblance.


Both entries from wikipedia.

All that is a bit like trying to use quantum physics when playing billiard and living your ordinary life - it makes little sense, although on sub-nuclear level newton has little to say and quantum physics are the better tool for research. I follow a bit good old Fritz Perl's slogan "Loose your mind and come to your senses!" (not to mention his anti-theologic "Stop mindf#cking!"), and separate knowledge from belief by looking at wether the subject ever was in actual touch with the object, and used logic to examine it and lead it back to a certain cause or group of possible causes, then this may go by as "knowledge". Where as the believer may believe to have been in touch with his object, but that object has been of a quality that he could not use logic on it, or he never has been in contact with that object, an so he only fantasizes. I am fully aware that this definition by me is not complete, but it serves its purpose in everyday life, like Newton still is good enough to explain everyday billiard.

I want to point out - not to missionize - don't get it wrong! - that in classical Chan buddhism, and in Zen in general, theology and recorded traditions are dealt with a great ammount of disrespect (if it is different, you should become suspicious of that given sect or school). Instead, the immediate experience of the given moment is what people are getting pushed back to, and to examine it in a logical, reasonable, empirical way. From the results of this empirical analysis is all Buddhist model of human psychology constructed - and I must say the Buddhist psychology "theory" is by far the most detailed and most comprehensive and logically concluded I ever have heared of any, and by saying that I explicitly include the Western academic branch of psychology. Traditional Chan is the most purest form of empirism I have ever learned about, and leaves no room for "believing", without dogma, but with using scepticism, logic, and reason. - Of course, Zen, like so many other traditions, did not escape the fate of having been distorted and abused for dogmatic and institutional interests. That's why I usually do not talk of "Zen", but prefer the old word "Chan", to refer back to how it all began, originally. I avoid Zen schools like the plague. where they are about traditions and rituals and records and worshipping the Zensho, they have moved away from immediate knowledge, and went into the trap of just believing something again. Doesn't lead very far.

But what said Perls as a warning to some students in training: "Während ihr zu ihm redet, verhüllt sich der Patient nur zu gern im Kokon seiner Neurose, um dort unter behaglichem Schnurren für den Rest der Therapie zu bleiben." - "While you are talking to him, your patient buries himself in the cocoon of his neurosis, to stay there with a cozy purring for the rest of the therapy." (my back-translation from the german translation).

[kurtz]

Originally Posted by geetrue

He is trying to show us that He can create something out of nothing and make it happen.

He's trying to show us that He is in charge of not only hurricanes (God Bless the one soul that perished in hurricane Humberto) ...


The point is we should all worry less and believe more ...

My faith has been increased ... God is in charge

Two things
1) "god bless the poor soul..." Somehow I don't think he will seeing as this god deliberately killed him/her!

2) Given the behaviour of this god I think I might worry a bit more and perhaps go looking for a nicer god to protect me

Edit spelling

[Weigh-Man]

http://puhi.iki.fi/

[Letum]

Originally Posted by kurtz

Two things
1) "god bless the poor soul..." Somehow I don't think he will seeing as this god deliberately killed him/her!

2) Given the behaviour of this god I think I might worry a bit more and perhaps go looking for a nicer god to protect me

Edit spelling

The Christian God doesn't have enough arms either.

[Kaleu. Jochen Mohr]

Originally Posted by Letum

The Christian God doesn't have enough arms either.

its all just bs. there is no god. just an ilusion created houndreds of years ago.
but apearently it is still in ppl's minds

[Penelope_Grey]

Originally Posted by Kaleu. Jochen Mohr

its all just bs. there is no god. just an ilusion created houndreds of years ago.
but apearently it is still in ppl's minds

No its not all BS. I don't believe in practicing religion on an organised basis. But there is more to us than simply death and that's it...

that is not my belief, its what I know.... nothing could ever budge me on that.

[Kaleu. Jochen Mohr]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

No its not all BS. I don't believe in practicing religion on an organised basis. But there is more to us than simply death and that's it...

that is not my belief, its what I know.... nothing could ever budge me on that.

birth -> have a good time -> die -> remain dead -> rott away
anything else to add ? :hmm:

there is no past life (like some believe, even my bro) and no next life

[Penelope_Grey]

Originally Posted by Kaleu. Jochen Mohr

birth -> have a good time -> die -> remain dead -> rott away
anything else to add ? :hmm:

there is no past life (like some believe, even my bro) and no next life

Oh well, you think that if you wish Mohr... Just remember; they laughed and mocked at Copernicus too when he said the Earth went round the sun.

[Kaleu. Jochen Mohr]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

Oh well, you think that if you wish Mohr... Just remember; they laughed and mocked at Copernicus too when he said the Earth went round the sun.

and killed the one who said the earth was round.
but later it was proven by our sientists

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Kaleu. Jochen Mohr

birth -> have a good time -> die -> remain dead -> rott away
anything else to add ? :hmm:

there is no past life (like some believe, even my bro) and no next life

You seem so sure. Have you ever died?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

No its not all BS. I don't believe in practicing religion on an organised basis. But there is more to us than simply death and that's it...

I totally agree.

[Safe-Keeper]

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:s tupid ppl

Granted, there are lots of loonies out there, but surely you understood that was a satirical joke?

Edit:

The Lord said, "A hurricane will broach Texas"

Translation: I felt I had very good reason to believe a hurricane would hit Texas, and decided to do absolutely nothing about it and instead let an innocent die.

One minute later while I was still pondering the message plus why He would tell me this ...

The Lord said, "If a missile were to be launched against Tel aviv ... it would land in Jordan"

How do you know this was a show of force and not a prophecy? And haven't missiles been launched against Tel Aviv before?

My faith has been increased ... God is in charge

...is he?

See, while GeeTrue's original post may have been a 'Poe', or parody of religious fundamentalism, it raises an important point: how can natural disasters be... what's the word they use... reconciled with an omnipotent, loving God?

If He cannot stop these disasters, He is not omnipotent.
If He chooses not to stop the disasters, how can we call him loving?
If He directly causes them, He is a threat to humanity.
And if He neither can, nor wants to prevent natural disasters... to paraphrase what a Greek philosopher said, why call him a god?

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

Oh well, you think that if you wish Mohr... Just remember; they laughed and mocked at Copernicus too when he said the Earth went round the sun.

@Pen



Not worth it young lady As bradclark said in an earlier post, something along the lines of 'ignore and the smell will go away'....problem is he spams on just about every thread to get himself noticed.