Ok who says i need to a christian, muslim or jew to be able to forgive myself? That notion is so pathetic its not even funny anymore. I am sick and tired of religious nutbags who tell me i am immoral, cold and unable to be a normal and peaceful citizen because i follow no religion at all.

I dont need religion or a god to understand that what im doing is right or wrong.

Forgive oneself for what exactly?? That I am alive? That I have fucked up numerous times? That I have been shot down, humiliated, stripped of all rights and finances and still got back up again all without the help of some imaginary friend??

---

Jeff you are a mindless idiot.

Jeffonthenet Wrote:If I had an atomic watch it was highly unlikely that I was mistaken. Likewise, it could be that one could have a bona-fide experience of God and with it would come the certainty similar to that of having an atomic watch. I cannot produce the experience and likewise I cannot produce the watch.

The problem here is that our brains are so flawed and biased that an experience of god could never come with absolute certainty. You may believe that your experience is certain, and it may seem very real. People that hear voices in their head are also certain that they are outside influences penetrating their brain, but in reality, it is just their brain playing tricks on them.

Any personal experience of god could most likely be your brain going awry.

(July 20, 2012 at 1:24 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: I really read your post and tried to respond honestly. I am sorry if I overlooked something. I appreciate you taking the time to respond again, but I do not agree with you that you assume certain basic beliefs simply because you must do so to live your life. I think you accept these beliefs because you actually think they are true, not just because you think that they are practical to accept. Even if it is only .0000000001% of your beliefs that you accept as assumption, you must build upon this .000000001% just about every belief you hold, so it is quite significant.

By basic logical truths I mean things like the law of non-contradiction--probably the most basic of all logical laws. It states that A cannot be both A and not-A in the same time and in the same sense. It seems to me, and I believe most all philosophers agree with me that logical laws like this law cannot be demonstrated without assuming it.

You are actually more right than wrong. I feel these beliefs to be true, to an extent. They are the weakest beliefs I have, but like you said, they constitute a huge portion of my belief structure. The justification for the belief is typically the need for the belief because the belief in question is an a priori issue. Sometimes that issue is self evidence. Meanings of words, memory, perception- these are things that can't be justified.
Derrida and Rorty have ripped some foundationalist principals to shreds, being post structuralist.
Regardless, either you suppose these truths with me, or you live in the world of a radical skeptic.

(July 20, 2012 at 1:24 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: I read your post. Please stop accusing me. You keep claiming I am ignoring your points, and I am really trying to do the exact opposite, so I don't think discussing with you is really helpful for either of us so I cannot promise more responses to you.

I was being quite humble, I felt. that wasn't a challenge to your reading abilities nor your comprehension. I genuinely thought you and I had either read different things or that I simply didn't understand what you were trying to say. I still don't know.

(July 20, 2012 at 1:24 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote:

(July 20, 2012 at 1:20 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: You ignore the possibility that you could simply be mistaken. Honesty doesn't guarantee that you are correct. No skeptic is going to take only your word for anything out of the ordinary, no matter how honest he believes you to be.

If I had an atomic watch it was highly unlikely that I was mistaken. Likewise, it could be that one could have a bona-fide experience of God and with it would come the certainty similar to that of having an atomic watch. I cannot produce the experience and likewise I cannot produce the watch.

So with the possibility that you might be lying, or simply mistaken, seeing that you are unable to demonstrate your claim, why should someone who disagrees with you believe your claim?

I don't like the forgiveness principle.
I did things wrong, I remember, don't release me, remind me.

Forgiving other people is easy because they have the ability to apologize and you can decide whether or not the apology is legit regardless that it may very well not be.

That's what makes forgiving yourself so difficult. You cannot apologize to yourself and even if you could, you have the ability to know if the apology is truly sincere. On the other hand, I have been sincerely sorry for something I have done and quickly forgiven myself for my action ... which really is the kicker isn't it? You see, if we can forgive ourselves quickly for some things and yet cannot forgive ourselves for other things - that would indeed imply there is a valid reason for why you have not forgiven yourself. Sometimes you cannot forgive yourself, because you know that you would not forgive someone who did the same thing to you. What has to be overcome is the fact that you cannot know if this deceased person wouldn't have forgiven you your wrongs. They may very well have - and that might allow you to forgive yourself.

(July 20, 2012 at 8:24 am)Faith No More Wrote:

Jeffonthenet Wrote:If I had an atomic watch it was highly unlikely that I was mistaken. Likewise, it could be that one could have a bona-fide experience of God and with it would come the certainty similar to that of having an atomic watch. I cannot produce the experience and likewise I cannot produce the watch.

The problem here is that our brains are so flawed and biased that an experience of god could never come with absolute certainty. You may believe that your experience is certain, and it may seem very real. People that hear voices in their head are also certain that they are outside influences penetrating their brain, but in reality, it is just their brain playing tricks on them.

Any personal experience of god could most likely be your brain going awry.

Faithnomore, I appreciate the reasoned response. However, I would say that absolute certainty about something is not necessary to justify belief in that something. I think you also run into the danger of presupposing your conclusion as from the fact that our brains can play tricks upon us, it doesn't follow that all experience of God is a trick. It seems to me that this argument may also be used for one to be skeptical about any belief you hold as it can always be said that this belief may be false because our brains play tricks upon us.

I have resisted for almost two weeks, but I am weak.

How do I forgive myself?

A handfull of petroleum jelly and a warm bath usualy does the trick!

I must now go forgive myself for posting such a reply.

Jeffonthenet Wrote:Faithnomore, I appreciate the reasoned response. However, I would say that absolute certainty about something is not necessary to justify belief in that something.

True, or else it wouldn't be a belief. I think, however, the more extraordinary the claim, the more skepticism is required of that claim.

Jeffonthenet Wrote:I think you also run into the danger of presupposing your conclusion as from the fact that our brains can play tricks upon us, it doesn't follow that all experience of God is a trick.

I didn't mean to imply that everything should auotmatically be assumed to be a trick, but when dealing with a highly emotional issue, we tend to let our biases take hold. I subscribe to the notion that our brains are highly unreliable, and that only our most basic perceptions of reality can be taken with any certainty without outside verification.

Jeffonthenet Wrote:It seems to me that this argument may also be used for one to be skeptical about any belief you hold as it can always be said that this belief may be false because our brains play tricks upon us.

This is true, and in my opinion is the most reasonable position to take when assessing the validity of any experience of god. If you want to understand more on this concept, "The Believing Brain" by Michael Shermer is an excellent book.