It is currently Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:14 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Who Am I to Believe Now?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 6:17 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am
Posts: 3327
I suspect the reason I read Dr. Peterson is because it is so fascinating to me that I actually used to believe like him and thought his logic was so impeccable and accurate. It is with astonishment now that I see my own myopia as stemming from having fully accepted and read everything the man wrote when he was editor of the FARMS Review. I find much of what he says interesting. I find much of what he says maddeningly frustrating because it is so morbidly self serving and quite frankly just wrong or not well thought out. In a comment on one of his own self-serving articles which is intended to give the impression that he is usually right and no one else is in the world, he says

Quote:
There's no such thing as "my" truth or "your" truth or "their" truth.

There is the truth.


This assumption was, and is, as Dr. Peterson very well knows, entirely false. Einstein proved it. Now I know Dr. Peterson is supposed to be the well read, ever faithful anchor Latter Day Saint that others turn to and fawn over as such an intelligent man who believes, and therefore they assume man if this smart of a cat can believe, then I can too, since it must be true, but I can't possibly agree with his assumption that there is an objective truth outside of perception in our universe. Einstein fundamentally demonstrated it is based on our particular point of view and how fast we are traveling in relation to everyone else. Truth and point of view is relative, not absolute as Dr. Peterson appears to me to claim it to be. Perhaps I misunderstand both Einstein and Peterson, which is why I think he needs to clarify his claim. After all, that's one of his favorite tactics, saying everyone misunderstands what he says.

_________________
"Isn't it ironic that a church that depends so much on a fictional book being actual history has done so much to revise, cover up and ignore real history?" - Fence Sitter

"Science believes in accountability here and now. Religion believes in it in the hereafter." - Maksutov


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Who Am I to Believe Now?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:01 am 
The Outcast
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:52 am
Posts: 16918
Location: on the verge
DCP wrote:
There's no such thing as "my" truth or "your" truth or "their" truth.

There is the truth.

That's rich, especially coming from **Tapir** Dan.

_________________
It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, ... that Negroes...are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time.
LDS First Presidency, 8/17/1949

"without evidence what you say is worthless"-Philo Sofee, 7/16/2017


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Who Am I to Believe Now?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:10 am 
God

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:01 am
Posts: 6374
I’ve found that Apologists, such as Mr Peterson, cannot define what they mean by “true”.

_________________
“A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact.”
― Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Prize Winner, 'Thinking, Fast and Slow'


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Who Am I to Believe Now?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:21 am 
The Outcast
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:52 am
Posts: 16918
Location: on the verge
Truth is most certainly relative, to the receiver of the message.

Suppose I am in the military and low, low level security information is to be passed to me. The info in this example is the value 5. The sender tells me "10". Is it true to me? The code is that I am to multiple by "10" by 3, and then divide the result by 6. So when "10" is communicated to me, because I know the code, it is interpreted by me to be 5, the value that the sender intended. As the receiver, I understood correctly what was being communicated. That is true for me, a receiver with the code.

But an eavesdropper who hears "10" and does not have the code, gets a false value of "10" when the correct value is 5.

When a parent talks to an infant baby, perhaps mentioning that the parent's favorite author is Faulkner--a truth to the parent, Faulkner is indeed the parent's favorite author--the baby perceives that the parent likes the baby because the parent smiled and had a nice, friendly tone of voice when mentioning Faulkner as the parent's favorite. Indeed, the parent likes the baby, but that was not the truth of what the parent was voicing, which was that Faulkner was the parent's favorite author.

Truth is a function of language. Verbal and numeric symbols for objects, actions and ideas. When strung together into a sentence, for example, it functions to communicate a relationship between certain objects, actions and/or ideas. As a function of language, truth is only present when their has been an accurate communication of objects, actions and/or ideas--or the relationship between certain ones of them.

For "horse" in the Book of Mormon, it is false. If that is the word that appeared above the rock in JSjr's hat, then E/J/HG were not communicating to 19th, 20th and 21st Century readers the animal in Nephite times that the readers understand to be a "horse". The use of the word "horse" in the Book of Mormon is false. If the animal being described was a tapir, then the truth--the true word--was "tapir".

"Tapir" Dan is a smart enough man to know better than all this LDS gibberish and nonsense. His spouting it just makes him look disingenuous if not downright devious and deceptive (which is antithetical to truth).

_________________
It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, ... that Negroes...are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time.
LDS First Presidency, 8/17/1949

"without evidence what you say is worthless"-Philo Sofee, 7/16/2017


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Who Am I to Believe Now?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:40 am 
First Presidency
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:48 pm
Posts: 811
sock puppet wrote:
Truth is most certainly relative, to the receiver of the message.

Suppose I am in the military and low, low level security information is to be passed to me. The info in this example is the value 5. The sender tells me "10". Is it true to me? The code is that I am to multiple by "10" by 3, and then divide the result by 6. So when "10" is communicated to me, because I know the code, it is interpreted by me to be 5, the value that the sender intended. As the receiver, I understood correctly what was being communicated. That is true for me, a receiver with the code.

But an eavesdropper who hears "10" and does not have the code, gets a false value of "10" when the correct value is 5.

When a parent talks to an infant baby, perhaps mentioning that the parent's favorite author is Faulkner--a truth to the parent, Faulkner is indeed the parent's favorite author--the baby perceives that the parent likes the baby because the parent smiled and had a nice, friendly tone of voice when mentioning Faulkner as the parent's favorite. Indeed, the parent likes the baby, but that was not the truth of what the parent was voicing, which was that Faulkner was the parent's favorite author.

Truth is a function of language. Verbal and numeric symbols for objects, actions and ideas. When strung together into a sentence, for example, it functions to communicate a relationship between certain objects, actions and/or ideas. As a function of language, truth is only present when their has been an accurate communication of objects, actions and/or ideas--or the relationship between certain ones of them.

For "horse" in the Book of Mormon, it is false. If that is the word that appeared above the rock in JSjr's hat, then E/J/HG were not communicating to 19th, 20th and 21st Century readers the animal in Nephite times that the readers understand to be a "horse". The use of the word "horse" in the Book of Mormon is false. If the animal being described was a tapir, then the truth--the true word--was "tapir".

"Tapir" Dan is a smart enough man to know better than all this LDS gibberish and nonsense. His spouting it just makes him look disingenuous if not downright devious and deceptive (which is antithetical to truth).


I vote for downright devious and deceptive. I was reading FairMormon the other day and came across this passage found here at the bottom of the page: LINK

Quote:
Question: Are gunpowder, pistols or firearms mentioned in the Book of Mormon?
There is no mention of "gunpowder" or firearms, or anything like them, in the Book of Mormon

It is claimed that the Book of Mormon mentions "gunpowder," and "pistols and other firearms," which are clearly anachronisms.

The claim is false. There is no mention of "gunpowder" or firearms, or anything like them, in the Book of Mormon.


Has anyone ever made the obviously false claim that gunpowder, pistols or firearms are mentioned in the book of Mormon? It seems like the claimed anachronism is there for other purposes as it is too idiotic for so called anti-mormons to make. It is obviously false. So, something else must be going on with the unfair folks at Fair. If one remembers the concepts of primacy and recency, people tend to remember the first and last a lot better than the middle. It seems that putting this nonsensical "anachronism" claim at the end had as its purpose to say that "See? Those antis will say anything to throw off God's people from the truth. The other so-called anachronisms must be like this one. Nothing to see. Continue on paying, praying, and obeying."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Who Am I to Believe Now?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:54 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 4902
Quote:
There's no such thing as "my" truth or "your" truth or "their" truth.

There is the truth.

I dare Peterson to truthfully explain how Anubis in Facsimile No. 3 is a slave. I dare Peterson to logically and rationally attempt to explain Joseph Smith's truths regarding the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3. Do you think Peterson is up to that task? I'm willing to bet he is not. I'm willing to bet he hasn't a clue on how to defend Joseph Smith's truths.

Flush Peterson down the toilet. He's mad.

_________________
"Say what you like. The figure which Joseph Smith identifies as the "slave" is not an image of Anubis, nor is it functioning as Anubis in the image that is displayed." (zerinus)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Who Am I to Believe Now?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:28 am 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:07 pm
Posts: 12042
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Philo Sofee wrote:
Quote:
There's no such thing as "my" truth or "your" truth or "their" truth.

There is the truth.

This assumption was, and is, as Dr. Peterson very well knows, entirely false.

With the greatest of respect, I agree 100% with Dr. Peterson on this one.

Quote:
Einstein proved it.

Einstein proved that our perception of time varied according to our speed relative to the speed of light. He didn't prove that truth itself was relative, since the varying time perceptions between two people traveling at different speeds are calculable.

Besides, I rather doubt Dr. Peterson had Einstein in mind specifically when he (DCP) made that comment.

Quote:
. . . I can't possibly agree with his assumption that there is an objective truth outside of perception in our universe.

Why not? It may indeed be extremely difficult to be 100% certain of how close to objective truth we can get using only our perception; but that doesn't mean objective truth doesn't exist. I for one certainly think it does.

_________________
Thanks again Dr. Shades for having the patience of a Rabbi at a Nazi rally.

--Doctor CamNC4Me, 03-14-2017


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Who Am I to Believe Now?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:32 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:40 pm
Posts: 7572
Location: What does the fox say?
I think there exist absolute truths. Mathematical proofs for example.

_________________
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Who Am I to Believe Now?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 1:47 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 4902
What is truth? Truth is relative and can only be really defined when it is observed.

If you cannot observe and prove the truth with a collective mindset of facts then truth defined has slipped through your fingers.

For example: Nightlion believes he is a prophet. In his mind he believes it. Therefore, to him, he really is a prophet. But to the rest of us, he is a false prophet. Nightlion observes things in his way and the rest of us observe differently.

_________________
"Say what you like. The figure which Joseph Smith identifies as the "slave" is not an image of Anubis, nor is it functioning as Anubis in the image that is displayed." (zerinus)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Who Am I to Believe Now?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 1:49 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 4902
SteelHead wrote:
I think there exist absolute truths. Mathematical proofs for example.


That might depend on what universe you're in and what laws are in operation therein. Mathematics in a yonder universe may be a song and a dance. It might even be pure chaos.

_________________
"Say what you like. The figure which Joseph Smith identifies as the "slave" is not an image of Anubis, nor is it functioning as Anubis in the image that is displayed." (zerinus)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Who Am I to Believe Now?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:15 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:40 pm
Posts: 7572
Location: What does the fox say?
That is true. But they are objectively true for this universe.

1 + 1 = 3 for very large values of 1.....

_________________
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Who Am I to Believe Now?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:45 pm 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:07 pm
Posts: 12042
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Shulem wrote:
What is truth? Truth is relative and can only be really defined when it is observed.

Truth is not relative, otherwise it wouldn't be "truth."

Quote:
For example: Nightlion believes he is a prophet.

That right there is an example of objective truth. Nightlion does, indeed, believe he is a prophet.

_________________
Thanks again Dr. Shades for having the patience of a Rabbi at a Nazi rally.

--Doctor CamNC4Me, 03-14-2017


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Who Am I to Believe Now?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:08 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 4902
Dr. Shades wrote:
Truth is not relative, otherwise it wouldn't be "truth."


If someone looks at a colored ball through a lens of a different color than the ball while someone else looks at the same ball through a different colored lens, what color is the ball?

What color is the ball for a color blind person who does or doesn't look through a colored lens?

Tell me, do all see the same color? What is color other than part of the light which is white?

_________________
"Say what you like. The figure which Joseph Smith identifies as the "slave" is not an image of Anubis, nor is it functioning as Anubis in the image that is displayed." (zerinus)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Who Am I to Believe Now?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 6:39 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm
Posts: 25677
Location: Off the Deep End
What do you mean "Whom am I to believe now?"

Believe yourself, Philo Sofee. Believe what your heart and mind tell you about a thing. And if you find yourself to be wrong, start again.

The journey's the thing, Philo Sofee.

_________________
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb


Stay close to the people who feel like sunlight ~ Arsu Shaikh


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Who Am I to Believe Now?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:08 pm 
Hermit
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm
Posts: 7485
Location: Cave
Quote:
There's no such thing as "my" truth or "your" truth or "their" truth.

There is the truth.


It kind of depends on what day it is and who is on his radar that day. He's a big fan of "That Noble Dream".

Here is one reference to the book on his blog:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... 25627.html

TND wrote:
All history is present history in the sense that the concerns of the present are bound somehow to affect the way history is studied and written. All history is also personal, since it is impossible to avoid the influence of one’s own opinions and prejudices on the selection and emphasis of one’s historical material


Migdley chimes in making fun of "Truth":

Quote:
This is shocking. The next thing I will discover is that history is a form of autobiography,and hence rests on personal hopes, fears, desires, as well as acquired categories, understandings and explanations. And I thought that history was a science and that it could be folded snugly into the Truth that we should now all be worshiping.


If you want a clearer statement as to what That Noble Dream is trying to say, let FARMS explain it:

http://www.aliveonline.com/ldspapers/introvigne.htm

Quote:
Novick is representative of a whole school of theoretical historiography claiming that "objective truth" for the historian is an objectivistic prejudice, a "noble dream" never to be achieved


Maybe next week you'll be hearing, "There's no such thing as the truth, only "my" truth or "your" truth or "their" truth".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Craig Paxton, cwald, Doctor CamNC4Me, Doctor Steuss, DrW, Fence Sitter, kairos, Mittens, moinmoin, RockSlider, Stem and 47 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group