Hey, I'm new

[theVOID]

1. People who insist that they have such a thing and insult those who question it are fully expected to back up their claims. Notice how he frequently resorts to ad hominem rather than answering the question presented.

2. Epistemology is not a matter of light disagreement, it is one of reason for which there are right and wrong answers. An epistemology is the single most valuable foundational belief not only because it is key to consistency and eliminating biases, but because it is so plainly open to questioning and refutation.

3. Fr0d0's illusion that he is intellectually honest is contingent upon his maintaining that what he considers to be a justified belief (his belief in God) is in fact such. For him to fail to present a valid epistemology would absolutely defeat that proposition - His actions are telling that he does not have one and that is why he is so reluctant to even attempt to present it.

4. The only thing he doesn't want waved over his head that he is an irrational fool with an unjustified belief.

[therationalist]

Thanks a lot everybody for the warm welcome.
Honored to be here in the forums with open-minded people like you.

[Violet]

1. People who insist that they have such a thing and insult those who question it are fully expected to back up their claims. Notice how he frequently resorts to ad hominem rather than answering the question presented.

I don't disagree that he should back up his claims, and I agree that his resorting to ad hom's when your statement was scarcely impolite is childish.

2. Epistemology is not a matter of light disagreement, it is one of reason for which there are right and wrong answers. An epistemology is the single most valuable foundational belief not only because it is key to consistency and eliminating biases, but because it is so plainly open to questioning and refutation.

(Looks up epistemology on wikipedia... scoffs and existential scoff that sounds like a cough)

Precision does not imply accuracy. Every measurement you have access to might consistently show you x, when the reality is y. I don't mean to undermine the importance of the scientific method, but it is hardly a negligible problem associated with it. I accept the precision of said method to also be accurate, but I would be a fool to say I did not do so out of my strong bias in a 'material' and measurable world.

That one sees fewer biases present in a thing does not mean it is any more true or false. Bias is irrelevant to truth. What bias does is cloud one's ability to adapt to new perceptions of the truth. You and I are heavily biased that our perception of the universe is 'true'. Ultimately it is not, but truth makes no difference to us while it is our perceptions of the world that are even remotely useful to us.

I agree that science is open to questioning and refutation, and I believe that this is perhaps the single strongest point in its status as a unifying factor for us. Religious or otherwise 'personal' viewpoints require a common frame of reference to understand well, and many of us simply lack these 'spiritual' experiences (ie: some of us like me believe they do not exist).

3. Fr0d0's illusion that he is intellectually honest is contingent upon his maintaining that what he considers to be a justified belief (his belief in God) is in fact such. For him to fail to present a valid epistemology would absolutely defeat that proposition - His actions are telling that he does not have one and that is why he is so reluctant to even attempt to present it.

It is hardly difficult to create one, if this indeed were the case.

If he considers his belief to be justified, then that's it. You don't have to accept the same justifications, nor do I, for him to be 'justified' in believing something.

4. The only thing he doesn't want waved over his head that he is an irrational fool with an unjustified belief.

You mean like many already irrationally wave over his head?

It's one thing to let the masses think you are a moron. It's another thing to create a self-fulfilling prophecy of ensuring all of them think you are a moron always.

[therationalist]

Answer to theVOID and Minimalist's question-which God I believe in.
The One God, God of everything, The same God that sent Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, etc.
I am a submitter (as mentioned on my profile). It is the English translation for Muslim. My religion- submission to God or Islam. Hope you are rational enough to deal with that. By the way, don't confuse my beliefs with popular Muslim beliefs. You'll learn more, if you do care about it.

---

Hey here's something that may sound like a joke to you- I am a theist.

Wait. Don't tell me ....
... Wotan, right? Good choice.

Welcome

Wrong guess, 'everythingafter'. I didn't know this religion before, I wonder if Hitler was a Wotan or a Christian.

[Violet]

Thanks a lot everybody for the warm welcome.
Honored to be here in the forums with open-minded people like you.

I thought I gave you a miserable welcome

... must try harder next time...

I'm also not open minded. I'm shut on the entire idea of religion. I'll still go through the motions of discussing it though

[theVOID]

So you believe in some form of the Abrahamic god, but with a Muslim leaning?

Why do you believe in this god?

Do you believe that Jesus was god?

[Violet]

Answer to theVOID and Minimalist's question-which God I believe in.
The One God, God of everything, The same God that sent Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, etc.
I am a submitter (as mentioned on my profile). It is the English translation for Muslim. My religion- submission to God or Islam. Hope you are rational enough to deal with that. By the way, don't confuse my beliefs with popular Muslim beliefs. You'll learn more, if you do care about it.

1: What form does this god take, if indeed any form?

2: Does this god do anything with us when we "die"?

3: Does this god mandate tribute in any form (ie: sacrifice, bloodletting, belief).

4: Why do you call this belief 'submitter'?

5: Do you enjoy bacon? ^_^

[therationalist]

Theism can be as rational as anything can be rational...

---

It depends which kind of theism you have dealt with before. There are two kinds of theism, rational and irrational.

---

Thanks a lot everybody for the warm welcome.
Honored to be here in the forums with open-minded people like you.

I thought I gave you a miserable welcome

... must try harder next time...

I'm also not open minded. I'm shut on the entire idea of religion. I'll still go through the motions of discussing it though

I forgot to mention you as an exception, you did give me a very wild welcome
It's unfortunate if you are not open minded about the entire idea of religion. But, I understand. If someone comes to you and says that he believes in God and the reason is just faith- a rational person like you will get annoyed. But I may have different reasons for my belief.

[theVOID]

(Looks up epistemology on wikipedia... scoffs and existential scoff that sounds like a cough)

Precision does not imply accuracy. Every measurement you have access to might consistently show you x, when the reality is y. I don't mean to undermine the importance of the scientific method, but it is hardly a negligible problem associated with it. I accept the precision of said method to also be accurate, but I would be a fool to say I did not do so out of my strong bias in a 'material' and measurable world.

Every measurement you have access to is ALL that you have access to, coming to the rational and consistent conclusion based on that information is what matters, not what your conclusion would be given some information that you simply do not have access to.

Justification is all I am concerned with, eliminating my biases, using information and considering the types of information and the reliability of the methods that yielded that information I have to come to the rational conclusion. If you do not have that you do not have a rational belief, end of story. Truth and knowledge is a complete after thought, absolutes are of no concern. We can only say that given the information we have it is most likely that x and if you cannot show that which you believe is the most likely explanation you do not have an epistemological justified belief.

That one sees fewer biases present in a thing does not mean it is any more true or false. Bias is irrelevant to truth.

Fuck absolutes, what we want is justification. Biases are absolutely critical in coming to an epistemically rational conclusion.

What bias does is cloud one's ability to adapt to new perceptions of the truth. You and I are heavily biased that our perception of the universe is 'true'. Ultimately it is not, but truth makes no difference to us while it is our perceptions of the world that are even remotely useful to us.

Your terminology is entirely confused, biases do not affect your ability to "adapt to new perceptions of the truth" (a statement that is nonsensical) they impact the weight you place on standards of evidence, the weights that ultimately dictate how information is perceived and what the model of reality looks like post consideration - A bias can lead to an entire body of evidence being mis-considered and cause you to arrive at an irrational conclusion - Epistemology is anti-bias, working from a sound and valid epistemology is by far the best way to eliminate biases and thus puts you in a position with the greatest tenancy towards truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iloTS0wU9...ideo_title

I agree that science is open to questioning and refutation, and I believe that this is perhaps the single strongest point in its status as a unifying factor for us. Religious or otherwise 'personal' viewpoints require a common frame of reference to understand well, and many of us simply lack these 'spiritual' experiences (ie: some of us like me believe they do not exist).

You are equating science and epistemology, that will be a fatal flaw in your ability to comprehend the subject.

It is hardly difficult to create one, if this indeed were the case.

That is untrue, there is only one theory of justification that is ultimately true, discovering what that is can be easily considered one of the most important intellectual pursuits that we will ever engage in, were we to discover and then consistently implement this epistemology we would necessarily have the most effective methodology for arriving at true beliefs.

If he considers his belief to be justified, then that's it. You don't have to accept the same justifications, nor do I, for him to be 'justified' in believing something.

You clearly have next to no comprehension of what you are talking about.

You mean like many already irrationally wave over his head?

It's one thing to let the masses think you are a moron. It's another thing to create a self-fulfilling prophecy of ensuring all of them think you are a moron always.

If he operates from a flawed epistemology then he is doomed to reach irrational conclusions, how many irrational conclusions depends entirely on how flawed his epistemology is and how consistent he is at applying it.

[therationalist]

So you believe in some form of the Abrahamic god, but with a Muslim leaning?

Why do you believe in this god?

Do you believe that Jesus was god?

You're almost correct. I do believe that Islam is the religion of Abraham as mentioned in Quran. Unfortunately most Muslims don't. To them Mohammed is the most important prophet. To me all prophets are equal.

I believe in this God, because this God has provided me with substantial evidences that He is the One God.

And, I don't believe that Jesus was god, neither do I believe in the Trinity. I believe that Jesus was a prophet. And so was Mohammed.