path to truth

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Edit: “The truth is that even if we gather our thoughts together we can all be wrong about what is, and isn't.”

No.
The truth is that when we gather our thoughts together, we see quite easily whose subjective beliefs are accurate herenow and are a part of a viable herenow theory of reality, and whose subjective beliefs are not validated herenow as ...[text shortened]... ou are shown (strictly by means of hermeneutics) you are wrong, you have to stand corrected.
😵

"This is false.
Even according to the Christian dogma,..."

I would assume being a Christian would allow me to speak about what I believe is true as
a Christian, I didn't know I had to run my beliefs through an Atheist.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
"This is false.
Even according to the Christian dogma,..."

I would assume being a Christian would allow me to speak about what I believe is true as
a Christian, I didn't know I had to run my beliefs through an Atheist.

If he simply will not accept that what you believe is true, you could just stop talking to him.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You are calling out specific doctrine as blind faith, can we do the same with theories no one has witnessed in any setting?

No we cannot.

Because all the scientific theories of reality (the ones evaluated as viable herenow, and the ones evaluated as proved in practice herenow, and the ones evaluated as non-viable and thus discarded herenow by the scientific community) are strictly provisional and constantly reevaluated, revised and updated.

Therefore, as such, they have nothing to do neither with the three religious blind beliefs I noted earlier, which must be accepted strictly on the basis of Faith alone grounded on a religious doctrine, nor with the blind beliefs in pseudoscientific theories as is the case with the theory of Creationism, which is grounded strictly on blind religious beliefs.

In addition, there is another serious reason why we cannot evaluate the scientific theories of reality as equal to all kinds of specific and general religious doctrines😵

Originally posted by @kellyjay
"This is false.
Even according to the Christian dogma,..."

I would assume being a Christian would allow me to speak about what I believe is true as
a Christian, I didn't know I had to run my beliefs through an Atheist.

When did I say you have not the right to comment on your religious beliefs and to discuss freely any issue you want to discuss?
When did I refuse to hear you carefully and discuss with you in fairness?

Of course you are allowed to speak about whatever you believe is true as a Christian, and you perfectly well know I stand for the right of everyone to express freely her opinions. Your reply is not related to my side, but to your own mind😵

Originally posted by @kellyjay
"This is false.
Even according to the Christian dogma,..."

I would assume being a Christian would allow me to speak about what I believe is true as
a Christian, I didn't know I had to run my beliefs through an Atheist.

No, you do not have to run your beliefs through this atheist, sure thing. I understand. Perhaps, if and when you will feel up to, you could address my specific point.

I know you felt offended and I am very sorry because this is not my intention, so I rephrase as following:

“Even according to the Christian dogma, the immovable Faith of the Christian in Logos alone is the sole factor that gives a perceivable by the mind of the fallen man shape of the transcendental and thus unconceivable divine Absolute Truth of Logos, which in turn forms the non-transcendental core concept of the Christian religion as it is expressed strictly in Jesus’ Word by Grace.
Furthermore, in fact you walk out in strict accordance to the non-transcendental concept of the Christian religion (since the divine Absolute Truth remains unconceivable by the mind of the fallen man, and since Faith on Jesus’s Word is the sole way, through the full acceptance of the Man Jesus, that the fallen man can follow by G-d’s righteousness in order to unite with G-d by Grace), and whenever you are shown (strictly by means of Faith grounded on specific hermeneutics) you are wrong because you do not conduct G-d’s righteousness, you have to stand corrected.”

Methinks this is the exact case as regards the Christian religion, but I could be wrong;

If you do not want to address my point, so be it😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
No we cannot.

Because all the scientific theories of reality (the ones evaluated as viable herenow, and the ones evaluated as proved in practice herenow, and the ones evaluated as non-viable and thus discarded herenow by the scientific community) are strictly provisional and constantly reevaluated, revised and updated.

Therefore, as such, they ha ...[text shortened]... ientific theories of reality as equal to all kinds of specific and general religious doctrines😵

Oh really, evaluated as viable...lol

That is funny, really, you think this is viable therefore its okay, you don't think that is viable
and therefore here now it isn't. I guess it helps your non-faith starting point doesn't have
a creator in it so 'reality' can only mean somethings are, not others. Belief in theories that
validate your views are viable, those that don't are not, that is your reality

The "truth" of these things you evaluate if true will be regardless of your views,
evaluations, or if you think they can only be real by blind faith, your assumptions about all
of this is as I have been telling you between your ears, not necessarily a reflection upon
what is and isn't real.

We walk around on a planet whose age started at a certain point regardless of what we
think it is, it began when it began. That is reality, the opinions of why it is this or that are
not reality, they are opinions, valid, viable, or blind it doesn't matter.

Originally posted by @black-beetle
No, you do not have to run your beliefs through this atheist, sure thing. I understand. Perhaps, if and when you will feel up to, you could address my specific point.

I know you felt offended and I am very sorry because this is not my intention, so I rephrase as following:

“Even according to the Christian dogma, the immovable Faith of the Christi ...[text shortened]... Christian religion, but I could be wrong;

If you do not want to address my point, so be it😵

I think your "reality" isn't as real as you believe it to be.

Originally posted by @black-beetle
No, you do not have to run your beliefs through this atheist, sure thing. I understand. Perhaps, if and when you will feel up to, you could address my specific point.

I know you felt offended and I am very sorry because this is not my intention, so I rephrase as following:

“Even according to the Christian dogma, the immovable Faith of the Christi ...[text shortened]... Christian religion, but I could be wrong;

If you do not want to address my point, so be it😵

Faith is something we believe in, it is an act. We are saved by grace through faith, it is
something we believe in, God loves us is something we believe in. The earth is round
I believe, the things I'm told about the how and why we are here are all just opinions,
thoughts, beliefs, brought about by several different means and none of us know for sure
so we pick the one that fits our evaluation and walk out our lives accordingly in the faith
of what we think is true, we believe is true, because we most certainly do not know.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Oh really, evaluated as viable...lol

That is funny, really, you think this is viable therefore its okay, you don't think that is viable
and therefore here now it isn't. I guess it helps your non-faith starting point doesn't have
a creator in it so 'reality' can only mean somethings are, not others. Belief in theories that
validate your views are viab ...[text shortened]... is this or that are
not reality, they are opinions, valid, viable, or blind it doesn't matter.

Edit: “That is funny, really, you think this is viable therefore its okay, you don't think that is viable and therefore here now it isn't.”

What I evaluate as viable herenow is indeed viable to me herenow, and what I think is not viable herenow, it is not viable to me herenow. It is funny, sure thing😵


Edit: “I guess it helps your non-faith starting point doesn't have a creator in it so 'reality' can only mean somethings are, not others. Belief in theories that validate your views are viable, those that don't are not, that is your reality.”

Your guess is ill-considered and your assumption just false. I told you repeatedly I do not hold blind beliefs of any kind. So, what you describe is strictly your reality –not mine😵

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Oh really, evaluated as viable...lol

That is funny, really, you think this is viable therefore its okay, you don't think that is viable
and therefore here now it isn't. I guess it helps your non-faith starting point doesn't have
a creator in it so 'reality' can only mean somethings are, not others. Belief in theories that
validate your views are viab ...[text shortened]... is this or that are
not reality, they are opinions, valid, viable, or blind it doesn't matter.

Edit: “The... ...upon what is and isn't real.”


Your false assumption is, for one, a distortion of what I keep up repeating in the whole thread. Since I argue that there are as many realities as are the sentient beings that conceive them as true, how did you come to conclude that if whatever I believe is true, then this has to be objectively true for anyone and accepted by everybody?

For two, your approach is absurd; for there is no way for one to know if something is “true” if it is not evaluated subjectively and properly as “true” by oneself. Even your own religious system is based on the full acceptance of Logos on the basis of Faith alone. If you think this is not the case, kindly please explain how and by what means the specific above mentioned acceptance could be ever carried out by a Christian without the forced subjective evaluation of the mind according to which it corresponds perfectly well to the transcendental Absolute Truth of Logos and G-d’s Law as is expressed in the Word, whose Absolute Truth is grounded also on a blind religious belief that must in turn be accepted strictly on the basis of Faith in the Scripture alone?
😵

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Oh really, evaluated as viable...lol

That is funny, really, you think this is viable therefore its okay, you don't think that is viable
and therefore here now it isn't. I guess it helps your non-faith starting point doesn't have
a creator in it so 'reality' can only mean somethings are, not others. Belief in theories that
validate your views are viab ...[text shortened]... is this or that are
not reality, they are opinions, valid, viable, or blind it doesn't matter.

Edit: “We walk... ...it doesn't matter.”

No. If you have the impression the Earth is 6,000 yo, your belief is proven untenable in practice. This is reality, not one’s untenable blind belief that this reality is a part of some kind of Absolute Truth on the basis of the Scripture😵

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I think your "reality" isn't as real as you believe it to be.

My reality is merely the reality my mind evaluates as such herenow. No big deal😵

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Faith is something we believe in, it is an act. We are saved by grace through faith, it is
something we believe in, God loves us is something we believe in. The earth is round
I believe, the things I'm told about the how and why we are here are all just opinions,
thoughts, beliefs, brought about by several different means and none of us know for sure
s ...[text shortened]... the faith
of what we think is true, we believe is true, because we most certainly do not know.

If Faith is indeed something you believe in, what exact part of your bodymind other than your own mental apparatus comes to believe whatever you happen to believe and thus act accordingly?
What exact agent other than your own mind conducts the act of Faith, how exactly and by what exact means?

As regards the rest of your post, kindly please feel free to believe as true whatever you wish.
So, kindly please feel free to believe that the Earth is round; instead, I know that herenow the Earth is round.
Feel free to choose that none knows for sure; instead, I surely know exactly when and why I have to stop in front of the traffic light when I see it turning red. I also know for sure when I have to eat, amongst else.
Feel free to pick on the basis of Faith what you think and believe is true, since you assume you most certainly do not know; instead, I discard this approach because I certainly know it is not a path to my truth herenow😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
If Faith is indeed something you believe in, what exact part of your bodymind other than your own mental apparatus comes to believe whatever you happen to believe and thus act accordingly?
What exact agent other than your own mind conducts the act of Faith, how exactly and by what exact means?

As regards the rest of your post, kindly please feel fr ...[text shortened]... instead, I discard this approach because I certainly know it is not a path to my truth herenow😵

I should have said faith is acting on our beliefs. It is not the thing I believe in.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I should have said faith is acting on our beliefs. It is not the thing I believe in.

Kindly please clarify and explain
what exact part of your bodymind is responsible for your beliefs in general,
what exact part of your bodymind is triggered by faith so that faith is acting on your beliefs,
and how and by what means this mysterious mechanism is in total separation from your own bodymind and thus your subjectivity, turning your purely subjective sensemaking process into an objective sensemaking process and, as a consequence, turning the products of your own subjective sensemaking apparatus into products which are part of some sort of ...objective (as you mean it, that is) truth😵