The Top Ten and Only Reasons to be a True Believer

[_Themis]

stay on point.
your example spoke about if you loved someone yesterday and then did not today. Your love for them was true yesterday just as your lack-of-love for them was true today. Point being the feeling was true.
the determination of death is not the only truth available. the truth i was speaking about was the truthfulness of my sorrow.

Please do stay on point. This discussion is about objective truth claims, not subjective ones.

i think you mis-read.....i a masking you for proof of your claim....i did not make one....burden is on you....i will wait.

I said if you think I am wrong, then I am open to being shown that. Good luck. My position I have said is based on my observation of myself and others over my lifetime.

so, you are proposing a subjective truth for proof of an objective truth?...seems hypocritical at this point don't it?

Not at all. I do not base them on feelings, and I have not claimed them to be scientific, or to be absolutely true. I do notice you avoiding the subject though.

i also look at a lot of people who make "gut feelings" and succeed...with finances, with playing poker, with business deals, decisions about which line to get in at the bank, etc....
usually you hear people regret not acting on their feelings...
like "something told me not to do that"
or "i had a feeling that was it"
or "why did i second-guess my gut reaction"

My position has always been that gut feelings, feelings, are not very reliable in determining objective truths. That does not mean I don't use them, but I do say we should not ignore other things like the physical which have a better track record of success. I doubt most successes are done through gut feelings alone, and those feelings are probably physical ques we receive from the environment to our sub-conscious minds. In realizing the church is not what it claims, I had to first understand that the spiritual is not very reliable in regards to objective truth claims, and also see that the church's truth claims are clearly not favored by the physical evidence available.

[_subgenius]

Please do stay on point. This discussion is about objective truth claims, not subjective ones.

are you drunk? you introduced that example

I said if you think I am wrong, then I am open to being shown that. Good luck. My position I have said is based on my observation of myself and others over my lifetime.

first - read Drifting's signature line about burden of proof
second - "based on your observation" is rather subjective ain't it?...see your comment above about what the discussion is "about".

i also look at a lot of people who make "gut feelings" and succeed...with finances, with playing poker, with business deals, decisions about which line to get in at the bank, etc....
usually you hear people regret not acting on their feelings...
like "something told me not to do that"
or "i had a feeling that was it"
or "why did i second-guess my gut reaction"

My position has always been that gut feelings, feelings, are not very reliable in determining objective truths.

aside from not refuting my examples (understandable) exactly what do mean by "reliable in determining"?
i think you may be in the-pot-calling-the-kettle-black trouble

.... the physical which have a better track record of success.

as i requested before...prove this (objectively of course)

I doubt most successes are done through gut feelings alone,

as i requested before...prove this (objectively of course)

and those feelings are probably physical ques we receive from the environment to our sub-conscious minds.

as i requested before...prove this (objectively of course)
...the spiritual is not very reliable in regards to objective truth claims[/quote]
as i requested before...prove this (objectively of course)
(aside from the glaring comparing apples to oranges flaw, i am interested in how you put this conclusion together - objectively)

and also see that the church's truth claims are clearly not favored by the physical evidence available.

as i requested before...prove this (objectively of course)

[_Drifting]

Sub, my signature line has changed.

[_subgenius]

Sub, my signature line has changed.

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed"

[_SteelHead]

Have we made it past the 1st reason yet?

[_Drifting]

Sub, my signature line has changed.

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed"

So is the onus on the Church to prove that it is true?

[_Themis]

are you drunk? you introduced that example

You introduced the first subjective example. I am only trying to state that the discussion is really about objective truth claims.

first - read Drifting's signature line about burden of proof

Then you would know you need to be backing up your claims, which you never have.

i also look at a lot of people who make "gut feelings" and succeed...with finances, with playing poker, with business deals, decisions about which line to get in at the bank, etc....

Show me any poker player who is successful solely on gut feelings. The successful ones know the math, and other non-gut feeling strategies to be successful. The same goes for these other ares. People who invest simply on gut feelings end up broke. I think you know this, but in this discussion I am not sure you would admit it.

usually you hear people regret not acting on their feelings...
like "something told me not to do that"
or "i had a feeling that was it"
or "why did i second-guess my gut reaction"

Hind sight. Things did not work out, or they missed an opportunity and they then analyze it away. It still does not mean they did not use other more physical means to look at it first. Again, I think if we were not discussing LDS issues here you would agree with what I am saying. I have gone with my gut and won and lost many times. I lament not following it sometimes based on hind sight, but then I remember the many times I did follow my gut and lose. Are you suggesting your gut feeling is always right?

aside from not refuting my examples (understandable) exactly what do mean by "reliable in determining"?
i think you may be in the-pot-calling-the-kettle-black trouble

Since I don't put to much trust in gut feelings I can't be the pot calling the kettle black. It's unreliable in that people use it to come up with different and conflicting results. FLDS use it to conclude Warren is God's prophet, while many other use it to conclude things about their religion which conflict with others. People use to to believe big foot is real, or the lost continent of Atlantis. It's not that I don't use the gut feeling, but I also know it's not very reliable, so I shouldn't ignore other more reliable evidences if they are conflicting with it.

as i requested before...prove this (objectively of course)

I just look at the sciences. Now I know the gut feelings is cannot be separated from people discoveries, but I think we both know when it comes to our physical sense there is far more agreement on it. An example would be whether one uses their gut to get someplace or a map.The map will have a better success ratio.

as i requested before...prove this (objectively of course)

So you think successful people who use their gut feelings in poker, finances, etc use it alone? Sorry but I doubt even you believe this.

as i requested before...prove this (objectively of course)

How many religions are there? :)

as i requested before...prove this (objectively of course)

This forum is a good place to start, but then I have seen more then enough of your posts to know you are way to biased. I was at one time as well.

[_subgenius]

So is the onus on the Church to prove that it is true?

of course...and they have supported their claim, even though, arguably, it is not a claim er se, but a revelation.
nevertheless, there is ample evidence put forth to support the church's "claim".

(for example: http://www.LDS.org/general-conference/1 ... rue+church)

[_Themis]

of course...and they have supported their claim, even though, arguably, it is not a claim er se, but a revelation.

So have so many other religions.

[Guest]

Subgenius,

You still don't get the scope of my critique.

Yes, it's all about revelation.

But, the question is how do we tell a true revelation from a false one without circularly appealing to an exclusive set of revelations which are presumed to be true?

You've stated that it is possible for a revelation to be self-evident and therefore, the revelation serves as an acceptable starting point from which to reason fallaciously.

The question is not whether a revelation can be self-evident, but how do we tell which are?

Concerning this question, you do reason fallaciously. You can't appeal to any standard of distinction which doesn't presuppose certain revelations are true and others are not, begging this question.

The only way to make sense of any revelation is to blindly presuppose only a some are true, for no better reason than any contrary revelation could be presupposed as true.

It's clear that you're reluctant to address the wider scope of the argument. You know that there's no way to differentiate revelations in a way that meets the Mormon burden of proof if any revelation is in question. Your belief system requires begging the question at every level, including the level at which we determine whether begging the question is valid at all.