Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

Jump to new
Sir Osisofliver said:
Beliefs are hard to change...I prefer ideas and thoughts...and I also think actions speak louder than words.

I do not agree with your statement above. I think your actions accusing VC of malicious intent, is about as honest as the soccer player feigning injury for sympathy. Of course I could be wrong and you genuinely think that there is a vendetta of some kind against your viewpoint.
Click to expand...
Yes! I sincerely do perceive efforts at suppressing the rights of myself (and many others) to hold to a personal viewpoint.
Perhaps you even construe my words instead of polite disagreement as being "malicious" in some way, even though that is not my intent.
Click to expand...
Not at all. When I read your post I was concerned that you may have been unaware of the full discourse between myself and VC and hence misunderstood my true motivations.

Sir Osisofliver said:
So I thought I would share something cynic...since you shared your experience of being harangued for expressing a theist viewpoint at a party.

Several years ago I'm travelling on a train, engrossed in a book when someone broke my concentration with the words "You should be ashamed of yourself." I looked around and said "Who, me?" Which was apparently all the engagement required for the mid thirties woman to claim that my choice in T-shirts was highly offensive, blathered on about how I needed to take Jesus into my life and stop hating the world and blah blah blah. (honestly I switched off after the first minute or so and just nodded and said ahuh a lot. The conversation continued till I stood up and turned around and showed the tour dates and locations for the band "Bad Religion" and told herit was the name of a band.

What's the point of my little story above? How about I ask some rhetorical questions...
Is it true? Was it even me in the story? How could I possibly validate my personal experience in a way that would meaningful impact in this discussion? How can anyone look at the above story and not think "It's a biased account."?

Cheers

Sir O
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing that.

Based upon your rhetorical questions I am now nigh on convinced that you've misunderstood my reason/s for offering my (admittedly unverifiable) personal experiences within these threads. (However, given that I cannot claim to impartiality, it would be erroneous of me to presume to know the workings of your mind, especially this early in our juncture.)

When engaging with me, please bear in mind that I make no claim to the infallibility of any belief system (not even my own). I am of course aware that this sometimes gives rise to self contradictions, particularly when I choose to oppose others' assertive claims to supremacy of creed.

By the way, I consider it a privilege that you've taken the time to offer me your perspectives in this matter.

P.S. I was greatly impressed by the manner in which you engaged SCM a couple of years back.
 
Sums it up perfectly for me.

christianity.jpg
 
cynic said:
Yes! I sincerely do perceive efforts at suppressing the rights of myself (and many others) to hold to a personal viewpoint.

Not at all. When I read your post I was concerned that you may have been unaware of the full discourse between myself and VC and hence misunderstood my true motivations.


Thanks for sharing that.

Based upon your rhetorical questions I am now nigh on convinced that you've misunderstood my reason/s for offering my (admittedly unverifiable) personal experiences within these threads. (However, given that I cannot claim to impartiality, it would be erroneous of me to presume to know the workings of your mind, especially this early in our juncture.)

When engaging with me, please bear in mind that I make no claim to the infallibility of any belief system (not even my own). I am of course aware that this sometimes gives rise to self contradictions, particularly when I choose to oppose others' assertive claims to supremacy of creed.

By the way, I consider it a privilege that you've taken the time to offer me your perspectives in this matter.

P.S. I was greatly impressed by the manner in which you engaged SCM a couple of years back.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm not being clear...

On this forum if I make the extraordinary claim that QAN will be at $150 by the end of 2014 and left it at that...I would be breaching RG176 and be accused of stock ramping. Therefore I must provide validation fory assessment so that others can determine the validity of my claims. It might be worth it to assume that the same rigour should be used for other claims.....

For example...

(please excuse my paraphrase) You've claimed that some people have replaced theist "beliefs" with an atheist scientific "faith". You've even used language like indoctrination and conditioning.

So here is my very serious question Cynic. Since I am incapable of being an expert in many different scientific fields, sometimes I must trust others expertise. When does trust and respect become belief and worship?

Cheers

Sir O
 
Sir Osisofliver said:
Perhaps I'm not being clear...

On this forum if I make the extraordinary claim that QAN will be at $150 by the end of 2014 and left it at that...I would be breaching RG176 and be accused of stock ramping. Therefore I must provide validation fory assessment so that others can determine the validity of my claims. It might be worth it to assume that the same rigour should be used for other claims.....

For example...

(please excuse my paraphrase) You've claimed that some people have replaced theist "beliefs" with an atheist scientific "faith". You've even used language like indoctrination and conditioning.

So here is my very serious question Cynic. Since I am incapable of being an expert in many different scientific fields, sometimes I must trust others expertise. When does trust and respect become belief and worship?

Cheers

Sir O
Click to expand...

My apologies for feeling the need to answer your question with a question, but, do you truly think that these words actually need to become what they (to the best of my understanding of my compact dictionary) already are?

I believe I've already opined that a recognisable similarity between human motivations and behaviours, in respect to their chosen (or impressed) theistic and non theistic belief systems, may still be seen to apply, irrespective of chosen nomenclature. However, the accommodations of such nomenclature, whilst unsurprising, are by no means crucial to the argument.

P.S. Perhaps it's just me, but I fear that we may still be viewing this matter from completely different angles. I have no desire to insult or frustrate any ASF participatants whose past contributions have earnt my respect many times over.

I am both happy and appreciative of your willingness to invest your time in continuance of this dialogue, but I'd like us to both be reasonably open and forthright here!

I'd like to know and understand what it is we are each seeking to achieve with the continuance of this dialogue, as it is my sincere belief that achievement of a mutual understanding, can only enhance our prospects of a productive outcome from our respective time investment.
 
cynic said:
My apologies for feeling the need to answer your question with a question, but, do you truly think that these words actually need to become what they (to the best of my understanding of my compact dictionary) already are?

I believe I've already opined that a recognisable similarity between human motivations and behaviours, in respect to their chosen (or impressed) theistic and non theistic belief systems, may still be seen to apply, irrespective of chosen nomenclature. However, the accommodations of such nomenclature, whilst unsurprising, are by no means crucial to the argument.

P.S. Perhaps it's just me, but I fear that we may still be viewing this matter from completely different angles. I have no desire to insult or frustrate any ASF participatants whose past contributions have earnt my respect many times over.

I am both happy and appreciative of your willingness to invest your time in continuance of this dialogue, but I'd like us to both be reasonably open and forthright here!

I'd like to know and understand what it is we are each seeking to achieve with the continuance of this dialogue, as it is my sincere belief that achievement of a mutual understanding, can only enhance our prospects of a productive outcome from our respective time investment.
Click to expand...

Have you thought about joining the 'Big Bang Theory' forum?
I'm sure you would find a multitude of people, that have similar enquiring minds.
Creating banter with people that are more inclined to politics and investments, seems an obvious waste of your talents.
Unless it actually isn't a talent, but more of a pent up ego, trying to find an outlet.
But an ego, that doesn't want to test itself, on a subject specific forum.:xyxthumbs
 
sptrawler said:
Have you thought about joining the 'Big Bang Theory' forum?
I'm sure you would find a multitude of people, that have similar enquiring minds.
Creating banter with people that are more inclined to politics and investments, seems an obvious waste of your talents.
Unless it actually isn't a talent, but more of a pent up ego, trying to find an outlet.
But an ego, that doesn't want to test itself, on a subject specific forum.:xyxthumbs
Click to expand...

+1

However, please do remember that your profound observations can be seen to be a double edged blade (i.e. they cut both ways!)
 
sptrawler said:
Have you thought about joining the 'Big Bang Theory' forum?
I'm sure you would find a multitude of people, that have similar enquiring minds.
Click to expand...
I went and had a quick look at this forum. It's filled people who indulge in way too much pop culture talking about the show and other related pop culture. I don't see any philosophy or science on here.... was your comment supposed to be a veiled insult?

If cynic is genuinely interested in other forums to expand his audience he'd be better off with something like the Phora. Beware, anything goes on there, they do not limit ideology; so if you find certain ideologies offensive you may need to work around them or stay away.

To be honest I'm not sure why people try to suggest that people would be better off if they go elsewhere.

Cynic is welcome to post what he feels necessary in these threads. That is why they call it a discussion board.
 
Ves said:
I went and had a quick look at this forum. It's filled people who indulge in way too much pop culture talking about the show and other related pop culture. I don't see any philosophy or science on here.... was your comment supposed to be a veiled insult?

If cynic is genuinely interested in other forums to expand his audience he'd be better off with something like the Phora. Beware, anything goes on there, they do not limit ideology; so if you find certain ideologies offensive you may need to work around them or stay away.

To be honest I'm not sure why people try to suggest that people would be better off if they go elsewhere.

Cynic is welcome to post what he feels necessary in these threads. That is why they call it a discussion board.
Click to expand...
It wasn't meant to be a veiled insult, Cynic has a very deep and thoughtfull ideas.
I was just wondering if they are given a fair airing on a stock forum.
I would have thought, after numerous attempts to answer his questions were unsuccessful, he may have to look further afield for specific answers.
That is of course unless, you can answer them?
Maybe you could PM him/her.
 
cynic said:
My apologies for feeling the need to answer your question with a question, but, do you truly think that these words actually need to become what they (to the best of my understanding of my compact dictionary) already are?
Click to expand...

What I'm attempting is to promote thoughts and discussion around this concept of "science being a theist belief". I don't feel the issue is as simple as you've painted it to be. Less absolute, more shades of grey. Hence why I asked the question. There is no right or wrong answer as it is a matter of opinion. I want your opinion on what separates a theist belief structure from trusting someone else's expertise. Where is the line in the sand...for you?
I believe I've already opined that a recognisable similarity between human motivations and behaviours, in respect to their chosen (or impressed) theistic and non theistic belief systems, may still be seen to apply, irrespective of chosen nomenclature. However, the accommodations of such nomenclature, whilst unsurprising, are by no means crucial to the argument.
Click to expand...

I think the words we use are important, because the words give concepts the proper framework. Trust is not a theist word. I am not a marine biologist, but when several of them raise the issue of coral bleaching, I trust that they are dealing in their speciality with integrity. I agree with you in part, that certainly some people display what looks from our external perspective as "faith". We however cannot see inside their heads and determine how much is non theist trust and how much is theist faith.
P.S. Perhaps it's just me, but I fear that we may still be viewing this matter from completely different angles. I have no desire to insult or frustrate any ASF participatants whose past contributions have earnt my respect many times over.

I am both happy and appreciative of your willingness to invest your time in continuance of this dialogue, but I'd like us to both be reasonably open and forthright here!

I'd like to know and understand what it is we are each seeking to achieve with the continuance of this dialogue, as it is my sincere belief that achievement of a mutual understanding, can only enhance our prospects of a productive outcome from our respective time investment.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, I'm awfully hard to offend. I hope I've clarified things for you. I'm looking for that glimpse inside your head, and hoping you'll share some interesting ideas with me.

Cheers

Sir O
 
Julia said:
I admire your stoicism in having persisted thus far.
Solipsism at its best on display here.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, when burglar deleted his post, I couldn't remember why I posted my response.

Therefore like the rest of the thread, I deleted it, as it appeared meaningless.
I think? was it? I'm not sure? What was the question.lol

Where is cynic, when you need him, he could get me back on thread, or track, or therapy.
 
sptrawler said:
Unfortunately, when burglar deleted his post, I couldn't remember why I posted my response.

Therefore like the rest of the thread, I deleted it, as it appeared meaningless.
I think? was it? I'm not sure? What was the question.lol

Where is cynic, when you need him, he could get me back on thread, or track, or therapy.
Click to expand...

Apologies!

I get a little distracted during DAX hours. If anyone has any doubts about the existence of hell just consult your nearest DAX trader, as they'll have been there once or twice this past week!

Edit: Don't worry about your forgotten question! The answer is yes! Yes! You can trust me on this!
 
burglar said:
sptrawler has exceeded their stored private messages quota and cannot accept further messages until they clear some space.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I hadn't looked there for ages.
Now all clear, open for abuse.lol
Jeez,I should have read them.
 
Sir Osisofliver said:
What I'm attempting is to promote thoughts and discussion around this concept of "science being a theist belief". I don't feel the issue is as simple as you've painted it to be. Less absolute, more shades of grey. Hence why I asked the question. There is no right or wrong answer as it is a matter of opinion. I want your opinion on what separates a theist belief structure from trusting someone else's expertise. Where is the line in the sand...for you?
Click to expand...

My line in the sand would be a circle encompassing both.

In the spirit of remaining aligned to our mutual intentions, I now offer some associated reasoning. I am of the opinion that it is far too soon for contemporary science to be asserting definitive positions on questions regarding divine existence and I sincerely hope that those engaged in scientific pursuits will conduct themselves with a healthy degree of openminded skepticism (e.g. be open to the entertainment of "paranormal" possibilites whilst maintaining a skeptical approach to the examination of any claims).

If my beliefs in divine existence are incorrect then I sincerely hope that science makes sufficient discoveries to conclusively prove that to be the case.
It may surprise some to know this, but, the knowledge that there may actually be an end to this absurd experience of consciousness would be more of a relief than an embarrassment.

During a time of desperate need I sought an answer from divinity. The answer I received was not the answer I'd hoped for, but my question was answered nonetheless.

Voila! Fifteen years later, I'm still here! I invite those annoyed by my presence to take the matter up with the divinity that told me "no exit"! If you manage to convince Her to change Her mind I'd be eternally grateful! Failing that, a definitive proof of Her non existence and my insanity would be equally beneficial.

In the interim, I continue to hope that science starts to uncover sufficient evidence to alleviate some of the antagonism experienced by myself, and others, on account of personal subscription to (as yet scientifcally unproven), mystical beliefs.
Sir Osisofliver said:
I think the words we use are important, because the words give concepts the proper framework. Trust is not a theist word. I am not a marine biologist, but when several of them raise the issue of coral bleaching, I trust that they are dealing in their speciality with integrity. I agree with you in part, that certainly some people display what looks from our external perspective as "faith". We however cannot see inside their heads and determine how much is non theist trust and how much is theist faith.
Click to expand...

Again I'll offer some of my opinions, although I must warn you this may seem repetitious. The fact that a word is often seen to have been used to describe an object or action by specialised practitioners doesn't necessarily specialise the use of the word, nor does it quarantine the word from general use.
I do understand that our language may eventually evolve to correlate general definitions with long standing fashions in regard to their popular usage by specialists. However, the contemporary definitions of the words under discussion, are, to the best of my understanding, accommodative of all belief systems, irrespective of theistic context or absence thereof.

To further elaborate on this I invite you to consider a word that is often associated with theism: "pray"

Throughout much of my life I've engaged in acts of prayer. Many of these prayers were directed towards divinity, and as such, could be seen as evidence of my subscription to theism. Others were directed towards my GP and could be viewed by many to be of a non theistic context. Had my GP not answered my prayers over the past several years, I very much doubt this post would ever have eventuated. Likewise, if divinity had not answered one very specific prayer, this post certainly would not have eventuated. The fact that I believe what I am saying here doesn't mean that others are under any obligation to amend their beliefs. It is simply my experience as I understand it and believe it to be. The fact that I believe I have communicated with divinity doesn't mean that I am correct in my understanding and beliefs regarding the existence of said divinity. Having experienced fallibility of former beliefs of which I was once confident, I consider it prudent to continually entertain the possibility that my fallibility persists. However, until I come to recognise additional failings, I cannot claim with any certainty as to whether or not this remains the case.(A wise man once told me that I was "a failure as a failure". He then went on to explain that I couldn't even manage to fail properly!)
Sir Osisofliver said:
Don't worry, I'm awfully hard to offend. I hope I've clarified things for you. I'm looking for that glimpse inside your head, and hoping you'll share some interesting ideas with me.

Cheers

Sir O
Click to expand...
Thanks for your assurances.

I would love nothing more than for you to be able to have some brief experiences of the contents of my mind.

However, before embarking upon a quest for that which is potentially unknown, it is prudent to be prepared for unexpected eventualities

Bearing in mind that this may be my vanity speaking again, I offer the following caution. Based upon past experience of the general populace, glimpses of certain aspects of my mind have proven troubling for some. There is always the potential for new information and/or experiences to impact one's life in unexpected ways. If one's life experience is more satisfactory than not, then one might want to consider whether or not the acquisition of knowledge truly warrants the acceptance of any associated risks.This caution may be largely irrelevant to a person of such experience and intelligence as oneself, however, I have chosen to alert one to this possibility, no matter how remote it may seem, as I believe it would be negligent for me to do otherwise.
 
cynic said:
Thanks for your recommendations Ves.
Click to expand...
Cynic, further to this, and it's probably really important for the context of Plato / Socrates and the theory of forms.

The German transcendental idealists, especially Kant's concept of the thing-in-itself and further discussions by Schopenhauer (especially in the World as Will and Representation), directly relate to discussion of the theory of forms and how they relate to the senses, perception and knowledge.

Then of course there's Hume and Descartes and many others who all had different angles of discussions and conclusions about these issues.

The main hurdle with these sorts of discussions is that they need to be framed within the context of historical discussion (ie. you need to go over all of the old ground to determine how best to define certain concepts) before you can build on them or disagree with them. Which in itself can take a life time of dedication - that's the main reason I see it as an on-going dialogue - not so much providing "answers" to "questions" (as sptrawler deemed it).

There's a life-time of learning here and that's how it is best approached. I won't pretend to know much except the very, very, very basics about some of these philosophers.
 
Top