Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Newme]

Some people , just like to believe in the beliefs of those who believe. This may sound dumb but just think about doxastic logic , and take this as a strange variation of a modest reasoner the stable reasoner . See for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxastic_logic . A modest reasoner \forall_p : B(Bp-> p) -> Bp here the kripke structure then implements the believe in the Believe of thos who believe . \forall_p : B(Bp)->Bp as a formulation the stable reasoner.

Do you mean herd mentality - tribalism?

More than this a philosophical attitude, that is expressed formally in doxastic logic. The kripke Structure here plays an interesting role in this, the worlds are here ordered in a graph like in elementary probality theory , where events take place , and the word changes . For example if you toss a coin.

Start
| |
head numbers

So the Belief includes always in doxastic logic a graph structure of reality at the beginning of the Graph the coin wasn't tossed. In the next level
the result is either head or numbers. This is included in the word belief and the logical operator that acts on this structure is the Belief -operator .

The Kripke-structure consists of:

Clarke et al.[3] define a Kripke structure over AP as a 4-tuple M = (S, I, R, L) consisting of

a finite set of states S.
a set of initial states I ⊆ S.
a transition relation R ⊆ S × S such that R is left-total, i.e., ∀s ∈ S ∃s' ∈ S such that (s,s') ∈ R.
a labeling (or interpretation) function L: S → 2AP.

Which can be the previously defined scenario. The evaluation of the variables of doxastic logic and the belief operator are done locally on the set of states where variables and the operator act after the scenario.

Thank you. Are you suggesting determinism or that life is based on chance, not free will? I’m especially wondering about how this applies to the psychology of people individually compared to when in groups.

[AmericanKestrel]

If you are religious, which one do you practice?

Can you define religious?
Per my definition it is about belonging to an organization, attending services, belief in and worship of a deity, following certain rituals, celebrating feast, and most importantly defining yourself by your religion. More or less.
In that sense I am not religious.
I consider myself an Advaitist, a non-dualist. It is a way of being based on the Vedas/scriptures of Hinduism, not necessarily religious as I define it. There are no Advaita temple as such, for instance.
I do believe in a deity but that deity is within me, not outside of me. So when I pray or worship, which I do, I pray to him who is within me. I study the Vedantic texts and meditate on what I study. This is how I practice my religion.

Ditto to some extent.

I am a dualist though and see it in everything.

I see yin and Yang as complimentary and not oppositions. More like front and back. Different but not necessarily equal.

For instance, evolution. It is a lot more good/Yin, than the bit of evil/Yang, done to the losers of the competitions

Without both, we would go extinct.

What do you see where you do not see it's opposite or complimentary other side?

Regards
DL

There is no other side. There is no evil, there is no hell that is outside of you.

[Greatest I am]

Thank you for explaining that & for giving me more to consider. If I understand correctly, you & Gnosticism do not dismiss matter - rather that the temptation to focus too much on matter - especially animalistic/worldly/lower drives - ideally, is overcome.

Overcome, perhaps, if there is a misuse. Generally, we think that life and it's pleasures, even physical, are a gift from nature and should be enjoyed to the fullest, like any gift.

Given that we are not supernatural god believers, we recognize that the only sentient god we can ever know is ourselves. God here I define as the best rules and laws to live by. There is no guy in the sky god.

The idea you quoted or Christ teaching seeking until finding - especially through self awareness - is right on! This seeking seems to be of God but ironically how Christianity has evolved - that seeking is shamed. To question human sacrifice scapegoating - no matter how insane it obviously is - to them who have been indoctrinated - is a big no-no. It pains me to see so clearly what many around me do not. Generally, I cherish basic Christian ideas while abhorring immoral & destructive aspects that many embrace as if good.

I to like the odd Christian doctrine and teaching but when you add up the good and evil in Christianity, I condemn it to hell. Not that there is one.

As a female, why are you not doing so, given that their misogynous ways have made women their longest lived victims of discrimination without a just cause.

Re: your thought experiment… what I see often depends so much on my state of mind. But I try to see things as they are - not better or worse, so I escape denial & despair. Yet I try to lean toward positive potential - hope for better.

Heaven and hell are just states of mind.

What you mentioned about this is the best of all possible worlds reminds me of Leibniz. Do you like his &/or Voltaire’s ideas? What do you mean about it based on entropy & the anthropic principle? Do you not see how at least in some significant ways, conditions have improved?

Things have indeed improved and hopefully that will continue as modernization kills the vile mainstream genocidal god loving religions.

My" best of all possible worlds" involves or speaks of the past to the present moment. All else we might want to improve the present Earth with can only start now.

What, would you suggest, is some good Gnostic lit I could read?

I started way back when with Elaine Pagels. She has a book titled Adam, Eve and the Serpent.

It made me think a hell of a lot more than Christianity ever did and wonder how people could have accepted all the lies and immoral theology that the religions were selling.

It happens that I was born Catholic and I owe the church a debt that I try to repay by chastising them for their more immoral ways.

The immoral tend not to like correction. They prefer to continue discriminating against women and gays without a just cause.

The net has added a lot on Gnostic Christianity of late and I have no here, so to speak, other than those I quote.

The main points I would highlight is that my type holds no supernatural belief and that is partly why we focus on morals and why we are not afraid to call Yahweh some pretty vile names.

I tend to try to stick with the logos of both Christianity and Gnostic Christianity because we do not need 2,000 year old myths that we can no longer interpret well to tell us what to do.

This does not mean they are without value though.

Who said that no myth ever happened, but they are all true.

I like that you talked more to issue than to the myths.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I agree a lot with you!

You are brighter than most then. Kidding of course, but----

If only the Bible was taken as just a tool for more dialogue (word/logos) rather than worshipped in its literal state.

A couple things you mentioned make me curious. Yahweh is considered vile - which seems to mean the Judaic Old Testament - & yet a Rabbi from before Jesus is said to dismiss so much of it. What do you make of Judaism (including the Talmud) - then and now?

I posted this above that shows some of what you request.
Re: What do you believe?
Post by Greatest I am » June 24th, 2021, 7:00 pm

From that Jewish source as well as this link, it seems that I would fit into Jewry hand in glove as they, in their Oral Tradition that rules the Torah and other holy books, --- put man above god.

Strange how the world thinks they are literalists.

A few are but they are mostly not that stupid.

In scriptures, Jesus asked, have ye forgotten that ye are god?

Most have but not Gnostic Christians.

The pertinent but long explanation on putting man above god starts at about the 15 min mark.

Pls google --- The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus - NehemiasWall

Sorry I cannot just drop a link.

Regards
DL

[Newme]

…Given that we are not supernatural god believers, we recognize that the only sentient god we can ever know is ourselves. God here I define as the best rules and laws to live by. There is no guy in the sky god.

I like that definition - reminds me of Tillech defining God as one’s ultimate concern. Still, I consider God more - like the highest truth and good that requires believing in something higher and beyond me.

Not to be nit-picky… hopefully you respond like a tennis match - but when you stated “we” rather than “I,” a dogmatic red flag went up. I grew up lds with a list of articles of faith all beginning with “WE believe…” Group thought tends to mean no thought. I hope that you don’t blindly accept all in any belief package, including Gnosticism.

I to like the odd Christian doctrine and teaching but when you add up the good and evil in Christianity, I condemn it to hell. Not that there is one.

As a female, why are you not doing so, given that their misogynous ways have made women their longest lived victims of discrimination without a just cause…

Heaven and hell are just states of mind.

Lol But what about pain? Reading your response, I sit here with horrible menstrual cramps that indicate pain is not all in my mind - it’s real! In debating Nihilism, someone suggested that since pain is undoubtedly undeniable - what is its opposite? And wouldn’t that be as real?

True that some parts of scripture have pissed me off - not just how women have been disrespected but other immoral aspects that are deemed written in stone as if from God. As you mentioned, there are good aspects too. No need to toss the entire thing out. This is life - sorting through the rubble for pearls.

Things have indeed improved and hopefully that will continue as modernization kills the vile mainstream genocidal god loving religions.

My" best of all possible worlds" involves or speaks of the past to the present moment. All else we might want to improve the present Earth with can only start now.

I started way back when with Elaine Pagels. She has a book titled Adam, Eve and the Serpent.

It made me think a hell of a lot more than Christianity ever did and wonder how people could have accepted all the lies and immoral theology that the religions were selling.

It happens that I was born Catholic and I owe the church a debt that I try to repay by chastising them for their more immoral ways.

The immoral tend not to like correction. They prefer to continue discriminating against women and gays without a just cause.

The net has added a lot on Gnostic Christianity of late and I have no here, so to speak, other than those I quote.

The main points I would highlight is that my type holds no supernatural belief and that is partly why we focus on morals and why we are not afraid to call Yahweh some pretty vile names.

I tend to try to stick with the logos of both Christianity and Gnostic Christianity because we do not need 2,000 year old myths that we can no longer interpret well to tell us what to do.

This does not mean they are without value though.

Who said that no myth ever happened, but they are all true.

I like that you talked more to issue than to the myths.

Regards
DL

What I like about Catholicism is the honoring of a personification of female deity in Mary and some Saints/Mothers. And I also kind of like how it’s a bit polytheistic - though not as organized as Hindu gods. And without Catholicism (& Constantine/councils redoing it) Christianity - with all its good and bad - wouldn’t exist. But the dogma, corruption, etc seems to be most powerful. Anyway, each religion offers some good, mixed with bad.

I actually made a list once about examples of how so many religious ideas are cognitive distortions (&/or logical fallacies) so it’s no wonder that so many - especially lds - suffer from depression, anxiety etc. There are a lot of screwed up things in scripture but since you brought up homosexuality - I do see it as appropriately warned against. Medically it’s harmful (anus is exit only) & statistically as well - with STDs/AIDS, & children tend to suffer when raised under it. These are facts that propaganda like “the Overhauling of Straight America” try to silence - probably because of depopulation goals. I wouldn’t be surprised if me just stating this pisses you off & you throw your metaphorical tennis racquet down, as others have. (Sorry if I underestimate you.) When I was in junior high school, I stood up against bullies harassing my guy friend who had feminine manners… now the bullies seem to have switched sides to bullying anyone who questions homosexual dogma.

I can’t imagine you hate all of the Old Testament - what about Proverbs? Or what about the symbolism. Eg., you know the donkey talking to Balaam story? Donkeys carry humans like women do - thus represent women. Since you gave me some to look up - & I thank you - I’d suggest at least taking a peek at Jordan Peterson’s Bible series. It addressed the issues behind the myths rather than focusing on the usual dogmatic interpretation.

[Newme]

Better morals than the scapegoat ridders.

Which god do you believe in?

Define/describe it a bit.

Great question or request!
In a way, it may seem like I am polytheistic, because I love nature & feel & see it as Intelligent Design that’s often soothing to my soul. I recognize that all I experience, including God, “Satan” etc - is within me, & yet believing in beyond me helps me experience more than otherwise, so I pray often - mostly try to listen or sense higher ways.

Now, may I ask you to answer? What do you believe spiritually? Do you believe in some type of karma, cause-&-effect, since you don’t believe in human scapegoating either?

[Newme]

Don’t misinterpret me - I’m not atheist. To me, it makes more sense & is more helpful to believe in God.

Why, when the mainstream gods are such immoral, homophobic, misogynous an and satanic characters?

Regards
DL

I don’t go by any one religion’s or group’s idea of God. Rather, like an intuitive cook, take a pinch here and there… & am always looking to improve the recipe.

I answered more in another post.

[Greatest I am]

Don’t misinterpret me - I’m not atheist. To me, it makes more sense & is more helpful to believe in God.

Why, when the mainstream gods are such immoral, homophobic, misogynous an and satanic characters?

Regards
DL

I don’t go by any one religion’s or group’s idea of God. Rather, like an intuitive cook, take a pinch here and there… & am always looking to improve the recipe.

I answered more in another post.

That is a Gnostic Christian trait.

We are perpetual seekers and keep raising the bar of excellence even when we think something is the best.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Better morals than the scapegoat ridders.

Which god do you believe in?

Define/describe it a bit.

Great question or request!
In a way, it may seem like I am polytheistic, because I love nature & feel & see it as Intelligent Design that’s often soothing to my soul. I recognize that all I experience, including God, “Satan” etc - is within me, & yet believing in beyond me helps me experience more than otherwise, so I pray often - mostly try to listen or sense higher ways.

Now, may I ask you to answer? What do you believe spiritually? Do you believe in some type of karma, cause-&-effect, since you don’t believe in human scapegoating either?

I am more in tune with nature as it can answer all the pertinent question via our evolution.

To believe in the supernatural is not the best way to think.

I think we live and evolve where the forces of nature force us to do evil.

Karma, if you think of it, is victim blaming, in the sense that something evil will happen to someone, and we say that they must have earned it in some other life. Victim blaming.

I have a TLDR on this for believers.

---------------------

Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by putting forward their free will argument and placing all the blame on mankind.
That usually sounds like ----God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy. Such statements simply avoid God's culpability as the author and creator of human nature.

Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all do evil/sin by nature then, the evil/sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not do evil/sin. Can we then help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil and sin is all human generated and in this sense, I agree with Christians, but for completely different reasons. Evil is mankind’s responsibility and not some imaginary God’s. Free will is something that can only be taken. Free will cannot be given not even by a God unless it has been forcibly withheld.

Much has been written to explain evil and sin but I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created. Without intent to do evil, no act should be called evil.
In secular courts, this is called mens rea. Latin for an evil mind or intent and without it, the court will not find someone guilty even if they know that they are the perpetrator of the act.

Evil then is only human to human when they know they are doing evil and intend harm.

As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil, at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, you should see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us. Wherever it came from, God or nature, without evolution we would go extinct. We must do good and evil.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

This link speak to theistic evolution. ---The Pope Would Like You to Accept Evolution and the Big Bang

If theistic evolution is true, then the myth of Eden should be read as a myth and there is not really any original sin.

Doing evil then is actually forced on us by evolution and the need to survive. Our default position is to cooperate or to do good. I offer this clip as proof of this. You will note that we default to good as it is better for survival.

youtube --- Magazine - Can Babies Tell Right From Wrong? | The New York Times

Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

…Given that we are not supernatural god believers, we recognize that the only sentient god we can ever know is ourselves. God here I define as the best rules and laws to live by. There is no guy in the sky god.

I like that definition - reminds me of Tillech defining God as one’s ultimate concern. Still, I consider God more - like the highest truth and good that requires believing in something higher and beyond me.

Not to be nit-picky… hopefully you respond like a tennis match - but when you stated “we” rather than “I,” a dogmatic red flag went up. I grew up lds with a list of articles of faith all beginning with “WE believe…” Group thought tends to mean no thought. I hope that you don’t blindly accept all in any belief package, including Gnosticism.

I to like the odd Christian doctrine and teaching but when you add up the good and evil in Christianity, I condemn it to hell. Not that there is one.

As a female, why are you not doing so, given that their misogynous ways have made women their longest lived victims of discrimination without a just cause…

Heaven and hell are just states of mind.

Lol But what about pain? Reading your response, I sit here with horrible menstrual cramps that indicate pain is not all in my mind - it’s real! In debating Nihilism, someone suggested that since pain is undoubtedly undeniable - what is its opposite? And wouldn’t that be as real?

True that some parts of scripture have pissed me off - not just how women have been disrespected but other immoral aspects that are deemed written in stone as if from God. As you mentioned, there are good aspects too. No need to toss the entire thing out. This is life - sorting through the rubble for pearls.

Things have indeed improved and hopefully that will continue as modernization kills the vile mainstream genocidal god loving religions.

My" best of all possible worlds" involves or speaks of the past to the present moment. All else we might want to improve the present Earth with can only start now.

I started way back when with Elaine Pagels. She has a book titled Adam, Eve and the Serpent.

It made me think a hell of a lot more than Christianity ever did and wonder how people could have accepted all the lies and immoral theology that the religions were selling.

It happens that I was born Catholic and I owe the church a debt that I try to repay by chastising them for their more immoral ways.

The immoral tend not to like correction. They prefer to continue discriminating against women and gays without a just cause.

The net has added a lot on Gnostic Christianity of late and I have no here, so to speak, other than those I quote.

The main points I would highlight is that my type holds no supernatural belief and that is partly why we focus on morals and why we are not afraid to call Yahweh some pretty vile names.

I tend to try to stick with the logos of both Christianity and Gnostic Christianity because we do not need 2,000 year old myths that we can no longer interpret well to tell us what to do.

This does not mean they are without value though.

Who said that no myth ever happened, but they are all true.

I like that you talked more to issue than to the myths.

Regards
DL

What I like about Catholicism is the honoring of a personification of female deity in Mary and some Saints/Mothers. And I also kind of like how it’s a bit polytheistic - though not as organized as Hindu gods. And without Catholicism (& Constantine/councils redoing it) Christianity - with all its good and bad - wouldn’t exist. But the dogma, corruption, etc seems to be most powerful. Anyway, each religion offers some good, mixed with bad.

I actually made a list once about examples of how so many religious ideas are cognitive distortions (&/or logical fallacies) so it’s no wonder that so many - especially lds - suffer from depression, anxiety etc. There are a lot of screwed up things in scripture but since you brought up homosexuality - I do see it as appropriately warned against. Medically it’s harmful (anus is exit only) & statistically as well - with STDs/AIDS, & children tend to suffer when raised under it. These are facts that propaganda like “the Overhauling of Straight America” try to silence - probably because of depopulation goals. I wouldn’t be surprised if me just stating this pisses you off & you throw your metaphorical tennis racquet down, as others have. (Sorry if I underestimate you.) When I was in junior high school, I stood up against bullies harassing my guy friend who had feminine manners… now the bullies seem to have switched sides to bullying anyone who questions homosexual dogma.

I can’t imagine you hate all of the Old Testament - what about Proverbs? Or what about the symbolism. Eg., you know the donkey talking to Balaam story? Donkeys carry humans like women do - thus represent women. Since you gave me some to look up - & I thank you - I’d suggest at least taking a peek at Jordan Peterson’s Bible series. It addressed the issues behind the myths rather than focusing on the usual dogmatic interpretation.

A bright guy that I usually agree with.

"I do see it as appropriately warned against."

What should be the criteria or major element to the warning?

Homophobes are poorly adjusted, IMO, because they put sex above love.

To deny a woman a life long loving partner because she has no dick is idiotic.

Put love first, and there in no warning necessary or useful.

If you think being gay is a choice people make, you would be wrong.

I cannot choose to be gay. Can you?

That was rhetorical. Of course there is no choice in such an issue.

Regards
DL

[detail]

Some people , just like to believe in the beliefs of those who believe. This may sound dumb but just think about doxastic logic , and take this as a strange variation of a modest reasoner the stable reasoner . See for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxastic_logic . A modest reasoner \forall_p : B(Bp-> p) -> Bp here the kripke structure then implements the believe in the Believe of thos who believe . \forall_p : B(Bp)->Bp as a formulation the stable reasoner.

Do you mean herd mentality - tribalism?

More than this a philosophical attitude, that is expressed formally in doxastic logic. The kripke Structure here plays an interesting role in this, the worlds are here ordered in a graph like in elementary probality theory , where events take place , and the word changes . For example if you toss a coin.

Start
| |
head numbers

So the Belief includes always in doxastic logic a graph structure of reality at the beginning of the Graph the coin wasn't tossed. In the next level
the result is either head or numbers. This is included in the word belief and the logical operator that acts on this structure is the Belief -operator .

The Kripke-structure consists of:

Clarke et al.[3] define a Kripke structure over AP as a 4-tuple M = (S, I, R, L) consisting of

a finite set of states S.
a set of initial states I ⊆ S.
a transition relation R ⊆ S × S such that R is left-total, i.e., ∀s ∈ S ∃s' ∈ S such that (s,s') ∈ R.
a labeling (or interpretation) function L: S → 2AP.

Which can be the previously defined scenario. The evaluation of the variables of doxastic logic and the belief operator are done locally on the set of states where variables and the operator act after the scenario.

Thank you. Are you suggesting determinism or that life is based on chance, not free will? I’m especially wondering about how this applies to the psychology of people individually compared to when in groups.

Well chance is something subjective, in fact even if life is s.th. deterministic , probability together with a filtation then just describes the absence of knowledge. The kripke structure itself , proposes in fact not a measure on the tree of the events called probability , but just the possible outcomes of certain events partially existent in the future, which have an effect on the evaluation of the certain logical variables.

[Slavedevice]

I believe that I am definitely NOT a Sin of Abraham

[Newme]

…To believe in the supernatural is not the best way to think.

... Evil is mankind’s responsibility and not some imaginary God’s.
…Evil then is only human to human when they know they are doing evil and intend harm.

…Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

Maybe God is within us all (as written in Luke 17:21, likely borrowed from Buddhism). So who does the punishing? Good & evil are within us all - & when we take appropriate responsibility - that seems to breed more good than evil.

You make a lot of good points - most of which I’m not highlighting. But I disagree about evil - I believe evil is significant the lack of awareness - ignorance. Someone suggested the word e-vil is “energy veil” - like a veil over their efforts’ cause & effect. The most evil is persistent willful blindness along with attempts to make others pay for the lack of responsibility.

If you define supernatural as beyond your natural abilities - why wouldn’t belief in that be a better way to think? Eg., It’s said that when Einstein came to a difficult problem that he couldn’t solve - he’d let it go, sleep on it & often the idea would come to solve it.

[Newme]

…Homophobes are poorly adjusted, IMO, because they put sex above love.

…If you think being gay is a choice people make, you would be wrong.

Homophobes? Why did logic suddenly fly out the window here? Because appeal to emotion rules with homosexuality/transgender bs. “A man FEELs like a woman - oh - that magical feeling dust makes his reproductive anatomy go poof!”

“Oh, and you think he’s still a man even if he doesn’t feel that way? You must fear him - that’s the ONLY reason why you wouldn’t consider a man who feels like a woman - a woman.”

Are you seriously buying into this?

Homosexuality is not chosen like anorexia is not chosen - yet both are delusional ways of regarding reality. And statistically, both are harmful (especially for men in the 1st case) & warrant help rather than placating to delusions just out of FEAR of being called “homophobe.”

Ad hominem.

[Newme]

Thank you. Are you suggesting determinism or that life is based on chance, not free will? I’m especially wondering about how this applies to the psychology of people individually compared to when in groups.

Well chance is something subjective, in fact even if life is s.th. deterministic , probability together with a filtation then just describes the absence of knowledge. The kripke structure itself , proposes in fact not a measure on the tree of the events called probability , but just the possible outcomes of certain events partially existent in the future, which have an effect on the evaluation of the certain logical variables.

I suppose chance, determination - practically every judgment - is subjectively perceived to some degree. Ideally, many facts and possibilities are considered before drawing conclusions - but there’s no way to see it from every possible angle.

What do you mean “events partially existent in the future”?