moimeme Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 If it bothers or bores you, why read the thread? It's an intellectual exercise is all. Fun just because it is. For my part, I have zero expectation that anyone will believe differently; there are too many factors at play in terms of the way cognition works. I'm just challenging the logical inconsistencies I find in the arguments of folks who don't believe. Link to post Share on other sites
VASH THE STAMPEDE Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 Originally posted by moimeme If it bothers or bores you, why read the thread? It doesn't bother me, its just going no where.It jumps from thing to thing ,at point what people post makes no sense. It's an intellectual exercise is all. Fun just because it is. For my part, I have zero expectation that anyone will believe differently; there are too many factors at play in terms of the way cognition works. I'm just challenging the logical inconsistencies I find in the arguments of folks who don't believe. So you're a Christian???I don't mind you all argue but, where is it really heading? The last few post made absolutely no sense on whats going on or what the thread is about. Oh well,if you cant beat them ,just blow them up. Join them I mean. blockhead you're a Jehovah's Witness??? You guys don't celebrate anything,not even your birth date.I had a co-worker who is a Jehovah's Witness tell me this. Why is that???? Link to post Share on other sites
jenny Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 though i still don't see this as a productive avenue, if we're going to equivocate let's do it properly. take another look at the noun form, not the verb form, of the word feeling, as that is how it was used in the original context. the definition here, as well as the root etymology of the word, can connote the perception/cognition of the event as well as the event itself. once a sensation has passed through systemized language, a rational process, how is it not a thought? on another vein; and to Blockhead specifically: my dad <who has kept faith> asked me a number of interesting questions that i wanted to ask you. this is a bit muddled but i'll clarify upon request: how is choosing to have faith useful to society? how does it serve the social/self-interest of this life, rather than the afterlife, to accept god as a narrative? is it necessary to this faith that one believes that god is real in the objective sense of the word? <that is, existing outside of human concepts of it> cheers, j p.s. I think we all have obsessive compulsive disorder. yep, a touch of the ol' OCD and debate team nostalgia for me, for sure. Link to post Share on other sites
BlockHead Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 VASH THE STAMPEDE It jumps from thing to thing ,at point what people post makes no sense.I agree. I’m not a Jehovah witness. I disagree with many their beliefs. - I don’t believe that heaven has a quota. - I don’t believe that Jesus’ second coming was 1930 or 1940 something (Can’t remember the date). - I don’t think that there is something wrong with holidays or birthdays. - I don’t like the requirements that their leaders demand. Money, time, etc. - They believe that their acts get them into heaven so it doesn’t matter how rotten a person is as long as he or she meets the requirement and beats the quota. - Too much indoctrination Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 Let's go check again; you're right, I didn't copy the entire defintion. feel·ing ( P ) Pronunciation Key (flng) n. The sensation involving perception by touch. A sensation experienced through touch. A physical sensation: a feeling of warmth. An affective state of consciousness, such as that resulting from emotions, sentiments, or desires: experienced a feeling of excitement. An awareness or impression: He had the feeling that he was being followed. An emotional state or disposition; an emotion: expressed deep feeling. A tender emotion; a fondness. Capacity to experience the higher emotions; sensitivity; sensibility: a man of feeling. feelings Susceptibility to emotional response; sensibilities: The child's feelings are easily hurt. Opinion based more on emotion than on reason; sentiment. A general impression conveyed by a person, place, or thing: The stuffy air gave one the feeling of being in a tomb. Appreciative regard or understanding: a feeling for propriety. Intuitive awareness or aptitude; a feel: has a feeling for language. http://www.dictionary.com Still not seeing 'feeling' equated with 'idea'. once a sensation has passed through systemized language a rational process, how is it not a thought? Does every sensation pass through systemized language? Is language sufficient to capture/describe 'sensation'? The fact remains that love is neither an 'idea' nor a 'thought'. Not by my definition and not by definitions in dictionaries. Link to post Share on other sites
BlockHead Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 jenny how is choosing to have faith useful to society? how does it serve the social/self-interest of this life, rather than the afterlife, to accept god as a narrative? is it necessary to this faith that one believes that god is real in the objective sense of the word? <that is, existing outside of human concepts of it>- Hygiene and disease control. During the black plague many of the Europeans, who lived like pigs, were dying in large numbers. Jew, who had some strict guidelines in cleanliness and diet, died in significantly smaller numbers. - For some people it gives them a purpose, or a goal in life. They have to incentive, the reward of going into heaven, to do some good in the world. - It also provides the idea of an ultimate form of retribution, hell, for wronging others. - That can also provide some comfort to the people who were wronged. “In the end he or she will pay for it.” - People who are lonely are comforted by the idea that they are never really alone. Do you want to add to it? moimeme Your perception of reality is based on the combination of your senses and your brain. Your sensing organs send impulses to your brain, and your brain will interpret those signals and construct a kind of virtual reality. Your sensing organs are nothing more than triggers. Could I call the perception of reality an idea? Link to post Share on other sites
EnigmaXOXO Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 Given my personal experiences, I must say that I have been given sufficient evidence which supports my believe in the existence of a ‘higher power,’ although my interpretation does not fit the conventional view of what others may define as “God.” Religion, in my humble opinion, is a different theory all together. Here is an interesting interpretation of the later that I happened to stumble upon. I think it best fits my own ideas concerning faith and religion. I’d be curious to learn if others may agree in whole or in part. http://www.partnumber.com/personal/ideas/god/index.html Link to post Share on other sites
HokeyReligions Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 Your Views on Religion? Post: 1 | Quote: I'm starting this thread to continue a discussion that was started in a thread where it wasn't appropriate. What are your views on religion? I am against any kind of organized religion. It has been the reason for so much killing that has gone on through the ages. I am unsure if a Diety or Dieties exist. I do respect each persons right to worship and believe as they so desire, so I wouldn't say I'm really against organized religion, but I think that much of today's organized religions have strayed far and wide from the original intent of the practice when first formed. It seems that many churches focus on self rather than God, but disguise that fact rather well. That has been my experience anyway. If there is a God (I'm still searching for my answer to that one) why would he want people to kill in his name, when one of the commandments is "Thou shalt not kill?" Don't do as I do, do as I say? If we look to God as a parent figure (Heavenly Father) then we need to consider ourselves as children and children are not allowed to do all of the same things that parents are allowed to do. As a society or race we have not matured enough to take on adult, or in this case Godly, responsibilities without the parent (God) telling us to do so. I have never thought God was all that merciful, but rather vengeful and violent. I never saw or read anything that states that God is non-violent. The Bible is full of what I would consider hideous acts. Incest, torture, murder, destruction, etc. that consume the "innocent" as well as the "guilty". Does that mean that God is not all powerful and cannot stop terrible things from happening? Or that He doesn't care what or who gets swept up in the turmoil as long as His goal is reached? So called religious people are hypocritical, and judgemental. Yet, if you look into their lives, you would find them to be no better than those they preach against. Ah, there's the rub. "preach against" Isn't "preaching" or "witnessessing" supposed to mean spreading the word of God? Spreading the message in the hope that someone will reach out and accept God themselves and through God, find the strength to improve their lives and serve God themselves? I thought that there was no "against" in witnessessing or in preaching. But I do know what you mean. I've been to churches or Christian groups who spend more time trashing others and their beliefs and not promoting their God. Somehow I don't think that is what their God intended. I've been the victim of (and it did feel like being victimized to me) Christians who said that their God is good and wonderful and will do so much for me, but they almost always seemed to follow that with what will happen to my immortal soul if I don't follow God. I've run into some people who truly believe themselves to be better then me because they are such Devout Christians. Their mouths say "I'm no better than you, just an ordinary sinner is all I am" but their attitude is something else! Reminds me of political ads. They bash the other fellow to make themselves sound better and get more votes. Christian mud-slingers. I have no answers to the secret of life, and I never pretend I do. Unlike those "religious" people think all the answers lie in a book. Everyone seems to interpret this book to fit their own circumstances. So it seems the rules it preaches are not set in stone. How do you feel about it? I don't think there are any answers - look at this thread! The whole logic of existence conversation. I think therefore I am. I believe in God therefore He exists. It's interesting, but it doesn't change anything. Some people believe, some don't, some question, and it doesn't matter at all. Some people claim they can "feel" God in their life and in their hearts. The same way we feel love, or anger, or any other emotion. They put a name to that feeling and call it God. Just because I don't believe in it, does not negate the validity of their feelings. Maybe those feelings of God are generated by an outside force, or God, and not simply a product of the brain. I don't know. That's how I feel about it. Link to post Share on other sites
jenny Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 i don't even understand why the love analogy is useful yet; i'm not going obfuscate into questions of language when i could be learning stuff about religion. just a little further down on dictionary.com: feeling \Feel"ing\, n. 1. The sense by which the mind, through certain nerves of the body, perceives external objects, or certain states of the body itself; that one of the five senses which resides in the general nerves of sensation distributed over the body, especially in its surface; the sense of touch; nervous sensibility to external objects. 2. An act or state of perception by the sense above described; an act of apprehending any object whatever; an act or state of apprehending the state of the soul itself; consciousness. 3. The capacity of the soul for emotional states; a high degree of susceptibility to emotions or states of the sensibility not dependent on the body; as, a man of feeling; a man destitute of feeling. 4. Any state or condition of emotion; the exercise of the capacity for emotion; any mental state whatever; as, a right or a wrong feeling in the heart; our angry or kindly feelings; a feeling of pride or of humility. 5. That quality of a work of art which embodies the mental emotion of the artist, and is calculated to affect similarly the spectator. --Fairholt. i'm not negating your usage. i'm just saying the other one is correct as well and cannot be rejected from the proof. and i thought we already established the term love partly originates from the word for believe ? giggles - i feel like i'm in the middle of a divine multiplication of red herrings- i am so confused. Link to post Share on other sites
BlockHead Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 Post #110 Like I said before, the bible has many authors with different agendas, and they are targeting different audiences. Tell me, who has a problem with meat? Who has a problem with a divorce? Different authors have different beliefs.Post #136 LadyX argued that many Christians are hypocrites who also abuse their power, and because of that, she thinks Christianity is illegitimate. I think that there are people in this world that will abuse and corrupt everything within their power and this includes religion, science, political power, and other people. One can argue that because a few people associated with a religion are evil, then the whole religion is evil. You can throw out the religion, but in doing so, you could also throw out something valuable in the process.Post #153 I can think of two certainties in life. Death and taxes. There is a great deal of uncertainty and that also applies to science. If I am remembering correctly, even Einstein acknowledged that he would be proven wrong someday. Link to post Share on other sites
jenny Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 i definitely feel more respectful toward the rational process of religion as a result of this debate. Do you want to add to it? mmm... lists. weirdly, i do want to add. i think religion can also provide a sense of unity to a culture, as well as a sense of history (or historiography) to those unwilling to posit national/racial origins as roots. both of these qualities can contribute to a sense of accountability, which i must always admire. so far, nothing on our list is contigent on god's objective existence, is it? Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 Could I call the perception of reality an idea? You can call it a turnip if you like Your question goes to the root of this current tangent away from the original question; semantics. One of my big life lessons was translation class; there'd be 40-minute discussions over the real meaning of a single paragraph. You see, people imbed meaning, nuance, etc. in words based upon their own experiences. It's great and makes life interesting, however, until participants in a discussion ensure that they have agreed on the definitions of the terms under discussion, the discussion is moot. My question about proving that love exists has become a semantic exercise in whether or not love is a thought or idea. We don't all agree exactly on what constitutes either - each term has nuances for every hearer. But the reason for the tangent, which itself is now hopelessly mired in failure to agree, has derailed my question. Since the definition of 'love' has not been nailed down, it is pointless to debate its existence and therefore my challenge remains unanswered. i don't even understand why the love analogy is useful yet Jenny, this is why: A. The original proposition which I am challenging is the following: The case was made that, given the assumption: Tangible things can be empirically proven to exist, we can deduce: Only things which can be empirically proven to exist do exist. God cannot be empirically proven to exist. Therefore, God does not exist. B. Using the same logic, then, Similarly, and in the understanding that love is not tangible; Only things which can be empirically proven to exist do exist. Love cannot be empirically proven to exist. Therefore, love does not exist. It is my contention that if you subscribe to proposition A, you are obliged by logic to subscribe to proposition B. Jenny brought up the 'from ignorance' fallacy. That is not my argument, nor is it that of the interlocutors in this discussion. Nor is 'uncertainty until proven existence' on the part of Ryan. If it were, then we'd agree Link to post Share on other sites
jenny Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 but this: Tangible things can be empirically proven to exist: Only things which can be empirically proven to exist do exist. is an error. X can also be rationally proven to exist. sorry, to be more clear, it is not your error, it is the error of whomever you are arguing against. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 Jenny - it isn't my proposition, nor do I believe in it. I am restating the proposition that I am debating. Link to post Share on other sites
jenny Posted October 20, 2003 Share Posted October 20, 2003 sorry, i just realized i was not clear ah; i get this now, i think. this proof works against someone who does not beleive in god empirically but does believe in love empirically? once realizing that they believe in at least one abstraction that does not empirically exist they must release belief in all others; so they then accept belief in anything? weird, but neat. who does this work on to convince? i want to give it a try. Link to post Share on other sites
Ryan Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 This is borderline defensive maneuvering to avoid being proven wrong.....ad nauseum. Use whatever word you like to stand for the broad category of "things which are created and exist in the mind." I use idea, since it is used as such in every single philosophical discussion I've ever read or participated in. A mind performs one action - it thinks. The things it thinks about are ideas. I really don't care if you rename thinking as having faith, believing, pondering, contemplating, participating in, being cognizant of...WHATEVER. It doesn't MATTER. Emotions, thoughts, feelings, ideas, notions, states of mind....use whatever damn words you like to as well. It doesn't change that they ALL are created and exist in the mind. NONE of them exist outside of a mind. This is self-evident and not subject to question. If anyone does not understand why, I suggest you contemplate the creation and existence of any of these. I'm not going to teach rudimentary concepts. Now I'm going to restate this without using any CONTROVERSIAL terms and a few rather ridiculous phrases (since any alternatives will beget more defensive posturing). Any thing that exists in a mind exists IF AND ONLY IF a mind thinks (or whatever verb you like) of that thing. Love is a set of things that exist in a mind. Therefore, love exists IF AND ONLY IF a mind thinks (or whatever verb you like) of it. I think (or whatever verb you like) of love. Therefore, love exists. And that's it. I'm not explaining this anymore. You either understand the proof...or you don't. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 this proof works against someone who does not beleive in god empirically but does believe in love empirically? once realizing that they believe in at least one abstraction that does not empirically exist they must release belief in all others; so they then accept belief in anything? No, it works against one who claims to believe in love despite lack of empirical proof that it exists but claims not to believe in God BECAUSE lack of empirical proof that He exists. If your claim is that you need empirical proof that something exists in order to believe that it exists, then you cannot believe in love, for which there exists no empirical proof. Either you must require empirical proof of something's existence before you agree to believe in it or you do not. If there is a logical construct that allows for 'some of each', I'd be interested to see it. Ryan, I fully understand the proof as you have stated it, however I disagree with your basic premise that love is a construct of the mind. Your saying that it is 'self-evident and not subject to question' does not make it so, I'm afraid. This is why the rest of the debate is futile. Link to post Share on other sites
jenny Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 ok, i want to try one more time: if love cannot now be empirically proven, by your own admission, how do you prove it to yourself? through your own experience and through comparisons to others experiences. you prove it to yourself *rationally*. you consider the idea of love in comparison and in relation to your own experiences and conclude that this is indeed love. this is the proof that was provided. you issued a challenge and it was answered within the bounds of rational thinking. weirdly i don't even understand the problem that remains here. within your own construct love is something that cannot be measured empirically, which means it must seek another system of proof - i.e. rationalism. proof of god can be, and has been by various authors, supplied in the same way. if we believe it, it is so; if we do not, it is not so. He might exist for you but he simply does not for me. the only relevant evidence is your experience and your thinking. i accept that you, Blockhead, Vash, Hokey, and Enigma have a god. i do not. there is no contradiction or problem here unless someone insists that there is an objective <empirically measurable, or existing outside of rational thought> god. nor is there a problem with the rational proof of love unless someone is insisting on the empiricism of a intangible concept, which your own proof has properly shown the uselessness of. i don't think that this is irresolveable. there is just nothing else to fight about. in this gap, i want to learn about the practical reasons one might want to choose to believe in religion, or the history of religion, or whatnot. nothing can be proven here, but we can still learn. or we could start another thread where people could tear apart traditional defenses of atheism; <occham's, pascal's, etc, and no proper author is relying on empiricism so you wouldn't have to do that all over again, moi > that might also be fun. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 how do you prove it to yourself? I don't. I haven't. Your error is in having inferred that I have done so or that I claim to have done so. I make no such claim. you consider the idea of love in comparison and in relation to your own experiences and conclude that this is indeed love. Nope. You may not recall that I said that exactly: There is something I have felt that, according to my comparison with the stories of others who have felt it, should be defined as 'love'. That is as much proof as I have, which, admittedly, is pretty much none at all. Link to post Share on other sites
TheDonny Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 My views on religion are as follows: I do not believe in god in any way shape or form. I believe all of creation is something of a different, undiscovered science. I believe religion was invented to cure widespread fear created by those who tried to understand the universe. But religion was manipulated and turned into a group of stories to subconciously insert rules and regulations ( aka the bible). But once in a great while I will be faced with a great tragedy, and I will find myself praying to god. I don't know if this is because I want to believe or what. But I will leave you with a quote by a great man. One of the greatest tragedies in human history was the hijacking of morality by religion. -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke Link to post Share on other sites
jenny Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 o, ok, i misunderstood. you had a feeling that you thought related to the concept of love. this is not sufficent proof unless you think it is. and it is exactly the way i feel about religion, actually. sometimes i have the intense wonder at the unknown and at beauty/complexity, but this feeling is insufficent experience for me to prove the existence of a organizing entity to myself. i do believe in love, however, because my experience with love is sufficient for me to be able to rationally accept it. Link to post Share on other sites
CaterpillarGirl Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 Originally posted by jenny i do believe in love, however, because my experience with love is sufficient for me to be able to rationally accept it. I pretty much "irrationally" accept both love and religion, based solely on my experiences. Of course, as they say, "ignorance is bliss." Link to post Share on other sites
jenny Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 I pretty much "irrationally" accept both love and religion, based solely on my experiences. Of course, as they say, "ignorance is bliss." o! no! if you are using evidence of your own experience, that is rational proof! that's exactly what inductive rational thought is! i think people who believe in god are very lucky, actually, and i have some degree of longing for it. but i don't know how or why to get there. Link to post Share on other sites
CaterpillarGirl Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Not if your experiences are irrational. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts