Gyroscopic Investing

Mountaineer,

I'm going to listen to those things...


And if you mean that "slavery" was essentially indentured servitude, you could have just said that .

moda0306 wrote: Mountaineer,

I'm going to listen to those things...


And if you mean that "slavery" was essentially indentured servitude, you could have just said that .

http://www.lutherquest.org/walther/arti ... c00135.htm

... Mountaineer

Desert wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Yeah, the search for proof of a religion's truth strikes me as a futile one. The believers don't need it, and the skeptics won't believe it. So what's the point?

Ok, I can't stay away.    I'm fully rested now, and ready to continue. 

PS, regarding this comment:  I would say that at least one believer (me) does need it.  I think my conversion was at least partially driven by some undiscardable beliefs I developed in my study of origins and bible history. 

And while I agree that skeptics might not believe it, I'd also argue that MOST skeptics haven't even looked at "it."

Part of the problem seems to arise from the fact that most of what I've seen from the faithful involves pointing skeptics at huge tomes written by theologians or hour-long lectures delivered by ministers, as though these sources are going to be remotely convincing to people who do not already support the foundations upon which they stand.

It seems an awful lot like an anarcho-capitalist gesturing at his copy of Von Mises' Human Action and snorting, "there's all the proof you'll ever need!" without bothering to try to distill it into a comprehensible form for the purpose of a discussion, or address the fact that presenting evidence from the very conclusion or school of thought that you are trying to convince people of is not likely to ever succeed.

Desert wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

Part of the problem seems to arise from most of what I've seen from the faithful involves pointing skeptics at huge tomes written by theologians or hour-long lectures delivered by ministers, as though these sources are going to be remotely convincing to people who do not already support the foundations upon which they stand.

It seems an awful lot like an anarcho-capitalist gesturing at his copy of Von Mises' Human Action and snorting, "there's all the proof you'll ever need!" without bothering to try to distill it into a comprehensible form the the purpose of a discussion, or address the fact that presenting evidence from the very conclusion or school of thought that you are trying to convince people of is not likely to ever succeed.

LOL.  Yeah, that's a good comparison.  I think you're right, actually.  I'm not sure what the solution is right now, but I'll think about it.  On one hand, I don't think it's possible (or fair) to try to condense the arguments into a pop-up book suitable for our children.  On the other hand, I agree that the argument should (and must) consist of more than "go read this list of tomes, you godless bastard, and then tearfully agree with me." 

As I'm sort of thinking out loud at the moment though, I think too many of humanity's conclusions *are* based on a cliff notes version.  We don't study enough.  We latch onto a belief that is in alignment with our needs and desires, then we casually defend it with links from Google and wikipedia.  So maybe some deep study is actually required here.

That is my thinking too; "nothing ventured, nothing gained" as the old cliche goes.  I don't know about the rest of you, but it took me a lot of study and time to somewhat master chemistry, chemical engineering, calculus, penmanship, physics, spelling, how to be a fantastic husband  etc. etc. etc.  Why should theology be any different?  I do understand the need for just enough of a summary so people can determine if they wish to read further (e.g. linked material which often gives a much better explanation than I'm capable of, or want to spend the time repeating).  I'm not an advocate of speed dating or cliff notes. 

... Mountaineer

Desert wrote:

interactive processing wrote: Careful.. you are sounding more like a Gnostic/agnostic with every post moda 

I think gnostic and agnostic, though the words sound similar, are not similar ideas.  Gnostics believe(d) in special revelation, or gnosis.  Gnostics were generally anti-materialism, while agnostics (or atheists) generally place their faith in naturalism+time = everything.  Very different belief systems.  Both incorrect. 

Here is a short summary of gnosticism (from the Greek gnosis, “knowledge”?), it's roots and some history from the Christian Cyclopedia.

http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp? ... GNOSTICISM

And some very short information on agnosticism (from the Greek for “not to know”?).

http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp? ... GNOSTICISM

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote:I don't know about the rest of you, but it took me a lot of study and time to somewhat master chemistry, chemical engineering, calculus, penmanship, physics, spelling, how to be a fantastic husband  etc. etc. etc.

I think that's it, really. I'm not gonna study chemistry or physics if I can't get a sense that it will actually be interesting or helpful to me in some way. But once I get a taste for something, I'll devour the subject (like I am for the subjects of masonry building and the chemistry of lime right now).

Pointedstick wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:I don't know about the rest of you, but it took me a lot of study and time to somewhat master chemistry, chemical engineering, calculus, penmanship, physics, spelling, how to be a fantastic husband  etc. etc. etc.

I think that's it, really. I'm not gonna study chemistry or physics if I can't get a sense that it will actually be interesting or helpful to me in some way. But once I get a taste for something, I'll devour the subject (like I am for the subjects of masonry building and the chemistry of lime right now).

+100

... Mountaineer

Desert wrote: I'm reminded of this C.S. Lewis quote:

"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."

For someone who doesn't believe, it's of no importance, and so hours of study is a waste of time.  If one actually does devote hours of study, it's probably because they are at least in the process of believing already.

I've got other things to respond toon here, but that is pretty ridiculous logic.  You could say that about any belief that anyone researches.  Any belief about the nature of morality and meaning in our lives held by millions or billions of people on this earth is extremely important.

Further, the possibility of ANYTHING being true that will leave billions of people in eternal damnation is probably the most important thing to investigate, whether it is actually true or not. Because, as HB has pointed out, we can't act on perfect knowledge of what will happen, but merely what is likely or possible to happen. Just because something doesn't happen or won't happen, it doesn't mean that we should NOT, in the face of lack of that knowledge, that we should not investigate the risk of it happening.

Investigating Christianity, for me, is simply acknowledging the possibility of its truth. I believe it is possible that it is true.  I'm surprised more people won't admit that it might be hogwash.

moda0306 wrote:

Desert wrote: I'm reminded of this C.S. Lewis quote:

"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."

For someone who doesn't believe, it's of no importance, and so hours of study is a waste of time.  If one actually does devote hours of study, it's probably because they are at least in the process of believing already.

I've got other things to respond toon here, but that is pretty ridiculous logic.  You could say that about any belief that anyone researches.  Any belief about the nature of morality and meaning in our lives held by millions or billions of people on this earth is extremely important.

Further, the possibility of ANYTHING being true that will leave billions of people in eternal damnation is probably the most important thing to investigate, whether it is actually true or not. Because, as HB has pointed out, we can't act on perfect knowledge of what will happen, but merely what is likely or possible to happen. Just because something doesn't happen or won't happen, it doesn't mean that we should NOT, in the face of lack of that knowledge, that we should not investigate the risk of it happening.

Investigating Christianity, for me, is simply acknowledging the possibility of its truth. I believe it is possible that it is true.  I'm surprised more people won't admit that it might be hogwash.

25% to 30% of the world's population are Christian.  That leaves 70% to 75% who must in some respects think Christianity is hogwash or they would be signing on.  What percentage do you think it should be for calling Christianity hogwash?

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Desert wrote: I'm reminded of this C.S. Lewis quote:

"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."

For someone who doesn't believe, it's of no importance, and so hours of study is a waste of time.  If one actually does devote hours of study, it's probably because they are at least in the process of believing already.

I've got other things to respond toon here, but that is pretty ridiculous logic.  You could say that about any belief that anyone researches.  Any belief about the nature of morality and meaning in our lives held by millions or billions of people on this earth is extremely important.

Further, the possibility of ANYTHING being true that will leave billions of people in eternal damnation is probably the most important thing to investigate, whether it is actually true or not. Because, as HB has pointed out, we can't act on perfect knowledge of what will happen, but merely what is likely or possible to happen. Just because something doesn't happen or won't happen, it doesn't mean that we should NOT, in the face of lack of that knowledge, that we should not investigate the risk of it happening.

Investigating Christianity, for me, is simply acknowledging the possibility of its truth. I believe it is possible that it is true.  I'm surprised more people won't admit that it might be hogwash.

25% to 30% of the world's population are Christian.  That leaves 70% to 75% who must in some respects think Christianity is hogwash or they would be signing on.  What percentage do you think it should be for calling Christianity hogwash?

... Mountaineer

I don't think the "number of people" accepting Christianity is particularly pertinent.  I would prefer, I suppose, that if someone is going to accept something as truth, that they have a reasonable amount of empirical evidence or logical proof for it, or at least have had a meaningful subjective experience that brought them to some sort of realization.  But overall I don't think a "certain number of people" should accept Christianity, or any religion.

What I was saying is that the possibility of Christianity's truth is EXTREMELY pertinent.  Hence, it should be investigated to some degree, whether it is true or not.  Which brings me to Desert's post...

Desert wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Desert wrote: I'm reminded of this C.S. Lewis quote:

"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."

For someone who doesn't believe, it's of no importance, and so hours of study is a waste of time.  If one actually does devote hours of study, it's probably because they are at least in the process of believing already.

I've got other things to respond toon here, but that is pretty ridiculous logic. You could say that about any belief that anyone researches.  Any belief about the nature of morality and meaning in our lives held by millions or billions of people on this earth is extremely important.

Further, the possibility of ANYTHING being true that will leave billions of people in eternal damnation is probably the most important thing to investigate, whether it is actually true or not. Because, as HB has pointed out, we can't act on perfect knowledge of what will happen, but merely what is likely or possible to happen. Just because something doesn't happen or won't happen, it doesn't mean that we should NOT, in the face of lack of that knowledge, that we should not investigate the risk of it happening.

Investigating Christianity, for me, is simply acknowledging the possibility of its truth. I believe it is possible that it is true.  I'm surprised more people won't admit that it might be hogwash.

Lewis's logic or mine? 

Obviously I agree that Christianity is worth investigating.  And you might be venturing into Pascal's wager with this post, though I'm personally not real fired up about that concept.  I don't think probability applies well in deciding how to live our lives; we either decide we need to forge our own way and prove ourselves (to ourselves and others) or we decide that there is a God.  Unfortunately some of us realize that there is a God, but then let ourselves get caught up in proving ourselves and taking our arguments personally.  That's something I'm guilty of very often.  While I wish the best for all of us on this forum, I need to separate that feeling from my need for acceptance.  In other words, if you all decide I'm a complete retard, and at the same time embrace Christianity, I'm going to be a happy person.  God doesn't need me and my ramblings to work in your lives.  He might choose to use that, but it won't be because I'm a brilliant scholar. 

Now, back to my reading. 

Both to a degree.  We don't have the means to acquire whether ANYTHING is true unless we investigate it to some degree.  Probability applies hugely into how we live our life.  There is risk everywhere.  We either are going to die prematurely, or we are not.  But all we know about death is 1) general probabilities, 2) things we can do to lower the chances of premature death, and 3) the financial/organizational tools to help mitigate the risk of a premature death. 

But your point about "deciding" that there is a God is a bit false.  We might decide that we BELIEVE that there is a God, but you can't decide whether truth is truth.  I can't decide to disobey the law of gravity tomorrow.  I can't decide that the ice in my freezer is 100 degrees Celsius.

The important thing to know is that all we have is our senses to interpret reality.  We can count certain subjective traits as senses (a sense of morality or a sense of God's presence), but it's all we have.  Because of our inability to perfectly understand every cause/effect within reality, we have to acknowledge probabilities are relevant to making decisions.

Even if all I want is to be happy, understanding the major religions being presented to me as truth as having a chance of being correct is important.  Perhaps "probability" is the wrong word when we can't figure out that number.  Perhaps "possibility" is a more pertinent word.  If belief in something is abundantly important to my happiness IF a given premise is true, I should figure out whether that premise has empirical proof or even likelihood of being true.


To ask non-believers to investigate Christ's message and divinity(especially when we're told we'll go to hell for eternity if we don't accept him), and then come up with a quip about how we are already in the process of believing is kind of white-washing the implications of NOT believing.  If someone "does not believe" something, it doesn't mean they are 100% sure it is not true.  I don't believe I will die tomorrow, even if I'm wreckless about driving and/or crossing the street... but I'm going to behave carefully anyway.  "It is all a waste" if I would have lived driving and crossing the street wrecklessly?  I think not!

Mountaineer,

I listened to your first audio link.  The hosts are smart.  They do a good job of dismantling some atheist premises... or at least showing how they aren't very consistent. 

However, as an agnostic, who thinks atheists are a bit to confident and quick to jump to conclusions that don't logically follow premises themselves, I was left a little disappointed that it went after people who confidently assert that there is no God, rather than those who are unsure.  The former are easier targets.  Lastly, I was a bit surprised... they are essentially wanting to use Christ as the "proof" (for lack of a better term) for God.  One of the guys overtly says, "and we know this is true because he said he was the Son of God."  I can't remember the exact wording, but it sounded without a doubt that he was saying that since Jesus claimed to be God, he was God.

He then moved on from that part of the conversations.  While these guys are pretty smart, I couldn't believe what I was hearing.  I hope I misinterpreted.

I do look forward to listening to the rest, though.

moda0306 wrote: I don't believe I will die tomorrow, even if I'm wreckless about driving and/or crossing the street

You probably won't die tomorrow if you are wreckless when driving.

Pointedstick wrote:

moda0306 wrote: I don't believe I will die tomorrow, even if I'm wreckless about driving and/or crossing the street

You probably won't die tomorrow if you are wreckless when driving.

It took me waaaay too long to get that.  I'm getting slow.

moda0306 wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

moda0306 wrote: I don't believe I will die tomorrow, even if I'm wreckless about driving and/or crossing the street

You probably won't die tomorrow if you are wreckless when driving.

It took me waaaay too long to get that.  I'm getting slow.

Hyphens rule! 

... Mountaineer

MangoMan wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

moda0306 wrote: It took me waaaay too long to get that.  I'm getting slow.

Hyphens rule! 

... Mountaineer

A hyphen would not have helped, whereas spelling reckless correctly would have. I missed that on the first read also. D'oh!

Are you feckless, reckless, or wreckless when it comes to hyphens?  After all, a feckless without the less could be unnerving. 

... Mountaineer

moda0306 wrote: Mountaineer,

I listened to your first audio link.  The hosts are smart.  They do a good job of dismantling some atheist premises... or at least showing how they aren't very consistent. 

However, as an agnostic, who thinks atheists are a bit to confident and quick to jump to conclusions that don't logically follow premises themselves, I was left a little disappointed that it went after people who confidently assert that there is no God, rather than those who are unsure.  The former are easier targets.  Lastly, I was a bit surprised... they are essentially wanting to use Christ as the "proof" (for lack of a better term) for God.  One of the guys overtly says, "and we know this is true because he said he was the Son of God."  I can't remember the exact wording, but it sounded without a doubt that he was saying that since Jesus claimed to be God, he was God.

He then moved on from that part of the conversations.  While these guys are pretty smart, I couldn't believe what I was hearing.  I hope I misinterpreted.

I do look forward to listening to the rest, though.

Glad you find the sessions worth listening to.  Regardless of where you shake out after listening, it will probably not have been time wasted.  Cheers!

... Mountaineer

For those of you wanting to beat up on Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson, here is a good sermon for you to read or listen to.  It does a good job of holding up the miror for us to peer into ... do you like what you see?  The sermon is a good example of the Word, both the Law and the Gospel, being clearly proclaimed.

Excerpt:
"It’s a good thing Matthew was not an NFL football player. If he had been, it seems he wouldn’t have had any chance of being an apostle or evangelist. We don’t like the IRS, the tax collectors, in our day and age either, but what is happening with Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson, those football players in the news so much recently, seems to be taking things to a whole new level. Some sins, it seems, are forgiveable; but what these men did is not. The hue and cry that is going up wants not only to banish them from football, but it seems, from humanity. And anyone who does not join in with the chorus of outrage and no punishment is punishment enough for what they did, is just as bad as they are. They too must be gotten rid of so we can purify our society of people like this. Self-righteous indignation is running amok."

Full Sermon:
http://www.saintathanasiuslutheran.blog ... ermon.html

... Mountaineer

For those of you who are agnostics, or discard the concept of faith in a God that cannot be proven, I have a question.  I'm making the assumption you do have "faith" in arithmetic and logic, hence my question. 

How do you reconcile the Peano Axioms and Gödel's Undecidability or Incompleteness Theorem, or said another way, how do you continue to trust math?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s ... s_theorems

... Mountaineer

Edited to repair broken link.

Mountaineer wrote: For those of you who are agnostics, or discard the concept of faith in a God that cannot be proven, I have a question.  I'm making the assumption you do have "faith" in arithmetic and logic, hence my question. 

How do you reconcile the Peano Axioms and Gödel's Undecidability or Incompleteness Theorem, or said another way, how do you continue to trust math?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s ... s_theorems

... Mountaineer

Edited to repair broken link.

Really looking forward to reading these....

http://allafrica.com/stories/201409240829.html

Liberia: Dead Ebola Patients Resurrect?

Those poor villagers falling for a good parlor trick. Need to get some Christians in there to teach them the difference between real and fake resurrections. I kid, sort of. Then again, maybe 2000 years from now we'll be worshiping these folks.

Mountaineer wrote: For those of you who are agnostics, or discard the concept of faith in a God that cannot be proven, I have a question.  I'm making the assumption you do have "faith" in arithmetic and logic, hence my question. 

How do you reconcile the Peano Axioms and Gödel's Undecidability or Incompleteness Theorem, or said another way, how do you continue to trust math?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s ... s_theorems

... Mountaineer

Edited to repair broken link.

Does anyone wish to comment?  My question concerned why some pick and choose an "unseen" entity or object or unprovable idea to have faith in and not pick others?  What is the foundational principle upon which you decide such things?  Or, maybe I misunderstood Gödel's work ... if so, could someone explain it.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer,

I'm trying to reconcile those links wih a phenomenon that my philosophy professor mentioned that challenged the usefulness of inductive logic and the validity of deductive logic. The best answer I can give you is that no system of understanding reality is perfect, and even deductive logic requires its premises be true.  So we have two options...

1) act as if we don't know anything about reality.

2) try to use the most reliable systems that our senses are showing us to interpret and induce/deduce reality.

That's as close as I can get to an answer for ya.  I don't have a philosophy degree. 

moda0306 wrote: Mountaineer,

I'm trying to reconcile those links wih a phenomenon that my philosophy professor mentioned that challenged the usefulness of inductive logic and the validity of deductive logic. The best answer I can give you is that no system of understanding reality is perfect, and even deductive logic requires its premises be true.  So we have two options...

1) act as if we don't know anything about reality.

2) try to use the most reliable systems that our senses are showing us to interpret and induce/deduce reality.

That's as close as I can get to an answer for ya.  I don't have a philosophy degree. 

Thanks Moda, I appreciate the time you took to reply.  Your answer (2) is somewhat similar to the way I go about trying to interpret and induce/deduce reality.  The very curious/interesting thing to me is the "why" do some after getting to the 95+% that can be proven on any given subject shake out so differently than others on interpreting or understanding that last +-5%.  Especially on the really important stuff.  Strange ......  I think I'll have to ask God this question when I meet Him since the forum brainiacs, other than you of course, are not weighing in ... yet. 

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote: How do you reconcile the Peano Axioms and Gödel's Undecidability or Incompleteness Theorem, or said another way, how do you continue to trust math?

I continue to trust math because it always works reliably for my necessary purposes every time I need it even though I have no clue who Mr. Piano or Mr. Goodell is, except for the one who runs the NFL.

God and the Bible, not so much.

The water temperature continues to rise.  How long before the frog boils? 

... Mountaineer

Germany considering doing away with incest laws

October 1, 2014 by Gene Veith
The German Ethics Council, an official government agency, is recommending that the law against incest between adult brothers and sisters be repealed.  Furthermore, the ruling defined “sexual self-determination”? as a “fundamental right.”?  Words from the ruling quoted in Germans May Approve Incest:

“Incest between siblings appears to be very rare in Western societies according to the available data but those affected describe how difficult their situation is in light of the threat of punishment. They feel their fundamental freedoms have been violated and are forced into secrecy or to deny their love.The majority of the German Ethics Council is of the opinion that it is not appropriate for a criminal law to preserve a social taboo.In the case of consensual incest among adult siblings, neither the fear of negative consequences for the family, nor the possibility of the birth of children from such incestuous relationships can justify a criminal prohibition. The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination has more weight in such cases than the abstract protection of the family.”?