Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[whitetrshsoldier]

Theres that arrogance,which is of course due to your biased pre-judgement.
Oh and I wasn't "ticked off" I was only a little surprised by your response. It's kinda funny really, in a way your just proving my point.

Which is what exactly?

Probably that you're so happy to embrace ignorance when it suits your "faith".

You can never fully deny these possibilities, and yet you must in order to ask any other questions or generally function. This is the kind of deliberate ignorance I am ok with.

Just like with all religions, and the folks who embrace them, OT ... 'Ignorance is bliss', isn't it?

I don't know about ChaoticMind, but I personally am just jealous. I only wish I could be happy "fully denying" all possibilities. I only wish I could feign the "deliberate ignorance" that it takes to embrace the warm grip that religion has on your soul.

[hallam]

Which is what exactly?

Probably that you're so happy to embrace ignorance when it suits your "faith".

You can never fully deny these possibilities, and yet you must in order to ask any other questions or generally function. This is the kind of deliberate ignorance I am ok with.

Just like with all religions, and the folks who embrace them, OT ... 'Ignorance is bliss', isn't it?

I don't know about ChaoticMind, but I personally am just jealous. I only wish I could be happy "fully denying" all possibilities. I only wish I could feign the "deliberate ignorance" that it takes to embrace the warm grip that religion has on your soul.

Ignorance here is nothing more than a over-generalization of religion and religious individuals because you can't stand that we picked a different option and came to a different fundamental determination based of our own observations of the world. You can't see God so therefore those of us who can are ignorant.

The religious are not ignorant or intelligent. Religious and atheists a like both inhibit these qualities.

[OTavern]

Probably that you're so happy to embrace ignorance when it suits your "faith".

You can never fully deny these possibilities, and yet you must in order to ask any other questions or generally function. This is the kind of deliberate ignorance I am ok with.

Just like with all religions, and the folks who embrace them, OT ... 'Ignorance is bliss', isn't it?

You have to be aware, that the quote you ascribe to me above was actually posted by Alun, not me. That leads me to wonder if you really understand the points I am making or whether you have a "fixed" perspective of "religious people" that you paint over any thoughts you perceive as coming from a "religious" viewpoint.

I don't know about ChaoticMind, but I personally am just jealous. I only wish I could be happy "fully denying" all possibilities. I only wish I could feign the "deliberate ignorance" that it takes to embrace the warm grip that religion has on your soul.

Human life is a battlefield of good and evil, denying all possibilities is a mistake, but at some point you have to choose "from the depths of your soul" what truth is. That often means looking past external appearances to the deeper reality. I think the Scriptural phrase is, "deep calling to deep."

[Juice]

I find it easier to believe in God than not to believe in God.

More over I consider the works of man, those that have come to man by inspiration, which may have no other meaning than that which was inspired by the creator of the work to have.

[OTavern]

I pre-judged nothing, but your assumptions are really just pre-judgments.

Examples of your pre-judgments:

1. "Everyone has the right to choose what they believe but I think that what someone believes should be chosen through experience and earnest effort to understand."

Implying that religious people make choices from a lack of experience and without an earnest effort to understand. This is an unwarranted judgment and therefore a "pre-judgment." You don't have enough proof for the statement, nor did you supply it.

2. "This is the behavior I have a problem with, this is what is killing us as a race."

Implying that religion and religious people are at the crux of the problems with the human race. This is an unwarranted judgment and therefore a "pre-judgment." You don't have enough proof for the statement, nor did you supply it.

3. "So if I am to ever have a religion it will be a religion of asking, of striving for something new."

Implying that religion and religious people are stagnant, ask no questions and strive for nothing "new." Also, you are implying that only "new" things have value. These are unwarranted judgments and therefore "pre-judgments." You don't have enough proof for the statements, nor did you supply it.

4. "We [religious people are implied] give up when we cannot understand..."

Implying that religious people embrace religion because they have given up trying to understand. Another unwarranted judgment.

Through those four claims, you insulted my delicate nature. I am prone to taking things quite personally. Now don't go generalizing that trait to all religious people, it's just a quirk of mine.

I still think you are upset with me for challenging your unwarranted assumptions about religion and your generalizations about "religious people." I did not "pre-judge" you, I am asking you to prove your convictions about religion using convincing evidence, not just because you happen to believe these things.

My point was that people believe for reasons other than what you credit them for. When we can get an admission that your "generalizations" about religious people have been arrived at "without an earnest effort to understand," then we can move forward to discussing what other reasons might exist. We need a common ground, a standard of proof, that we can both accept. Without that there is no point in continuing. You haven't shown that your standard of proof is high enough to result in profitable discourse.

These are the "preliminaries" we have to dispense with before proceeding.

NOTE: A generalization is an inference from a part to a whole. In the examples above you move from "some religious people are X", to, therefore "all religious people are X." Your generalizations were unwarranted and lacking proof, therefore involved "preliminary judgments" or pre-judgments.

I am not being a hypocrite, just asking you to demonstrate your claims.

Theres that arrogance,which is of course due to your biased pre-judgement.
Oh and I wasn't "ticked off" I was only a little surprised by your response. It's kinda funny really, in a way your just proving my point.

I am still waiting for you to tell me what your point is, exactly.

Was it that "religious people" don't pursue truth? Was it that "religious people" form judgments without enough evidence? Was it that "religious people" don't try hard enough to understand the opposite position? Was it that "religious people" are arrogant because they want to be convinced of the truth before proceeding? Or perhaps that we don't ask enough questions?

[Alun]

I think all questions should always be asked and answered to the best of our abilities, no matter how pointless or inconceivable they may seem.

Well, I am not saying the questions themselves are inconceivable, and definitely not pointless. Think of it this way:

How would you show that, "A and not A cannot be true in the same sense under the same conditions at the same time"? (Where A is a universal like "Gravity pulls objects with mass toward one another.")

If you don't accept the above proposition, then you've essentially lost identity as any human can understand it. E.g. it no longer means anything to say, "I like cheese," because that also means, "I don't like cheese." Without identity, you cannot show anything--much less the principle of identity itself.

So basically the above is a type of proposition without which we cannot even meaningfully ask other questions, much less answer, and yet to answer the question, "Can A and not A be true in the same sense...?" You have to just take it as an axiom; you have to hold that answer to be true just because you want it to be. In my view, this is the basis of all faith.

However, I do agree in the sense that we shouldn't totally forget that we've made these subjective assumptions. Doubt is healthy.

[ChaoticMindSays]

Ignorance here is nothing more than a over-generalization of religion and religious individuals because you can't stand that we picked a different option and came to a different fundamental determination based of our own observations of the world. You can't see God so therefore those of us who can are ignorant.

The religious are not ignorant or intelligent. Religious and atheists a like both inhibit these qualities.

I'm not calling all religious people ignorant, they are certainly not, I am only referring to people who use God to remain ignorant. What I am saying is that when your faith gets in the way of what Is obvious and you discard what is obvious because it is just easier to believe in God there is a problem.
About a month ago I met a person who didn't believe that dinosaurs existed....(example)
It only makes you ignorant when you use it as the comfort blanket I was talking about. We all have the choice to not throw it over our heads but we can still keep it with us to keep warm with.
The reason I said that Religion pertaining to God promotes ignorance is because in most said religions it is expected of you to have absolute faith and NOT to wonder about what could possibly be.

[ChaoticMindSays]

OTavern,

Which is what exactly?

Probably that you're so happy to embrace ignorance when it suits your "faith"

whitetrshsoldier hit it on the head.

1. "Everyone has the right to choose what they believe but I think that what someone believes should be chosen through experience and earnest effort to understand."

Implying that religious people make choices from a lack of experience and without an earnest effort to understand. This is an unwarranted judgment and therefore a "pre-judgment." You don't have enough proof for the statement, nor did you supply it.

2. "This is the behavior I have a problem with, this is what is killing us as a race."

Implying that religion and religious people are at the crux of the problems with the human race. This is an unwarranted judgment and therefore a "pre-judgment." You don't have enough proof for the statement, nor did you supply it.

3. "So if I am to ever have a religion it will be a religion of asking, of striving for something new."

Implying that religion and religious people are stagnant, ask no questions and strive for nothing "new." Also, you are implying that only "new" things have value. These are unwarranted judgments and therefore "pre-judgments." You don't have enough proof for the statements, nor did you supply it.

4. "We [religious people are implied] give up when we cannot understand..."

1. I was speaking of people that I HAVE had experience with and was NOT making a generalization about all people falling under God. Therefor the statement is not unwarranted, it is only what it is.
2. You took me out of context, in no way was I referring to people of religion.
3. All things that do not change eventually become stagnant. I'm not implying that new things have more value, I am only implying that what could be new may have a higher quality than what is old. Which is proven through history, we change and grow, the quality of living rises, when oppression (The anti-new) is introduced civilization begins to crumble.
4. Come on now, I'm arguing AGAINST God why would I include myself (we means you AND I) if I was referring strictly to people of religion?

I could name about twice as many ways that you have prejudged me and what I have said but I honestly don't see much use in it, or even in continuing this conversation. It will just go in loops...
*sigh*
Maybe you should look more closely at what you are saying and doing before you go around cutting down others.

[ChaoticMindSays]

Alun said

Well, I am not saying the questions themselves are inconceivable, and definitely not pointless. Think of it this way:

How would you show that, "A and not A cannot be true in the same sense under the same conditions at the same time"? (Where A is a universal like "Gravity pulls objects with mass toward one another.")

If you don't accept the above proposition, then you've essentially lost identity as any human can understand it. E.g. it no longer means anything to say, "I like cheese," because that also means, "I don't like cheese." Without identity, you cannot show anything--much less the principle of identity itself.

So basically the above is a type of proposition without which we cannot even meaningfully ask other questions, much less answer, and yet to answer the question, "Can A and not A be true in the same sense...?" You have to just take it as an axiom; you have to hold that answer to be true just because you want it to be. In my view, this is the basis of all faith.

However, I do agree in the sense that we shouldn't totally forget that we've made these subjective assumptions. Doubt is healthy.

The question is for the now and the answer is for the future. There is undoubtedly some kind of answer, we may just not have the means to answer it. So by answering other difficult but solvable questions we may eventually fall upon the means.
Knowledge works in layers.

[ChaoticMindSays]

Juice said

More over I consider the works of man, those that have come to man by inspiration, which may have no other meaning than that which was inspired by the creator of the work to have.

What do you mean? What do you consider this to be?

[ChaoticMindSays]

What a clever "being" you are,not too limited as a "substance"!

A few days ago I posted a comment to dear "ape",I'd rather to repeat a part of it here to be read!
I hope it can help us to continue the discussion.

A few months ago I was invited to a "funeral" to give a lecture!After several days suffering from "coma",one of my friends were dead,I was invited to give a "deFINition" of the dead friend!

I'm a nonsense author,so my friends too seems be a little nonsense!!!

Looking at the people in ceremony I got confused! I didn't know what I was supposed to say!A group of flys were crying the nonsense ants were celebrating the birthday of a butterfly!

NOTE:If the "flys" were celebrating the "birthday" they wouldn't be nonsense!
But the "nonsenseness" emerged for the laughing ones were the unflayable ants!!!!!!!

Yes;the nonsense friend of mine was an ordinary "worm",sharing his "funeral" with the birthday of a "butterfly"!!

The butterfly and the worm are the same entity.

It should be known too,if the changing substance is related to the substances of the other people with different identities not so similar to mine!?

Group consciousness?

...I'm afraid if I'll be a "horsefly" at the end?!Or just the insane donkey,in the previous posts I've mentioned!

I hope to be a nonsense "horsefly" at the end;it is a shame for a "donkey" to be just a "mule" or "ass"!! even though the "horseflys" are not honorable as the "eagles" are!!!

I'm happy for you.You seem to become either a "PERFECT HUMAN" ,or even a "god" at the end!

Though...the "MAIN Eternal Original GOD" remains UNtouchable!

Yes;everything is being changed.
No way to give for a "thing" a "fixed" absolute "definition"!

What makes think that you will be a horsefly? What is the significance of the horsefly and donkey?
And what makes you say,"I'm happy for you.You seem to become either a "PERFECT HUMAN" ,or even a "god" at the end!"

Ape said

The only problem is the Belief in Hate and in the Belief in Hate with which either belief or any belief in anything is believed!

Isn't this going against the idea that all equals are opposites? If hate and love are one in the same...Unless you are claiming that hate is not the opposite of love but created from love? That love is the base of all things.

[BlessedLunaticWiseman]

Dear "ChaoticMindSays" from Pluto!
Greetings;

Though you forgot to name me in your present post,but I'm sure I'm the same "entity" in my previous comments!!So as you see the insane donkey and the horsefly are the same "entity" as a "changing substance"!

You may say the same about the worm and the butterfly:

The butterfly and the worm are the same entity.

Suppose you're watching me as a swimming donkey in a red jar!!!!!!

Suppose I'm a green donkey who love to swim in the waters!!!!!

Well,I'm still in the jar swimming,coming to your beautiful eyes to be picked up by your camera!
I'm swimming in the jar still,in a constant journey too,to sit on your beautiful retina!

What a lovely fish I'm;looking like a donkey!!!

I can pass through the glass to reach your eyes;as well as the other eyes who are watching me!...I'm waving as the photons "everywhere" to be picked up suddenly by a curious camera at the distance!

What about the time when the jar is green!? (You may remember I'm a green donkey!!)!

No way to pass the green glasses for a green ass!!!
Though-I'm not sure,but...-a blind color "may" let me to pass!

As a green donkey I may start to type!
I'm thinking through my mind,through my brain,through my nerves,through my muscles,through my hoofs ,through the keyboard,through the wires,through the processor,through the wires,through the waves,through the antennas,through the plugs,through the wires,through the processors,through the wires,through processors,through the wires,through monitors,through eyes,through nerves,through occipital lobes,through parietal and temporal lobes,through the minds!

I'm sitting in the different heads!!
BUT:
How many bodies are there for me!?
How many "meaning" for what I "mean"!?

I type for example this word:"OX"
Several minds,several brains,but just ONE MEANING!


Now let be back to the questions you asked me,without addressing my name of course!

What makes think that you will be a horsefly?

What is the significance of the horsefly and donkey?

the same significance which you can see in the phosphate of a sacrificing fertilizer and the carbon in a grown flower!

Though burning the donkey and the horsefly the result would be carbon dioxide;but no need to do this!The honorable live donkeys even, are producing carbon dioxide to serve the trees!

Note:The walnut trees should be praised too,as the hypocrite trees who help the donkeys to kill themselves,in the honor of the other trees who are producing oxygen instead!!!!!!!!!!

And what makes you say,"I'm happy for you.You seem to become either a "PERFECT HUMAN" ,or even a "god" at the end!"

Posting to the other threads,I called ourselves the "Thinking Toilets'!Though carrying a lot of "dung" in our paunches we are supposed to be instead the "Loving Lavatories"!!

I may add in the present post,that there's no way for the "dung" to be "elevated" too Heaven,but through the paunches of HUMAN BEINGS.

To be expanded as the Thinkers and the Lovers,is not the duty of donkeys!The Capacity belongs just,to the expanded humans who are going to swallow the God's creatures as the "beloved science" at end!!!

....and,don't forget please to call me by my honorable "Blessed" name,honoring me to be "Lunatic Wiseman"!As a beloved donkey I'm a little jealous!!!


To be contd. ...God Willing/
Yours/"Blessed Lunatic Wiseman"(the nonsense/serious/humorous)!

[hallam]

Ignorance here is nothing more than a over-generalization of religion and religious individuals because you can't stand that we picked a different option and came to a different fundamental determination based of our own observations of the world. You can't see God so therefore those of us who can are ignorant.

The religious are not ignorant or intelligent. Religious and atheists a like both inhibit these qualities.

I'm not calling all religious people ignorant, they are certainly not, I am only referring to people who use God to remain ignorant. What I am saying is that when your faith gets in the way of what Is obvious and you discard what is obvious because it is just easier to believe in God there is a problem.
About a month ago I met a person who didn't believe that dinosaurs existed....(example)
It only makes you ignorant when you use it as the comfort blanket I was talking about. We all have the choice to not throw it over our heads but we can still keep it with us to keep warm with.
The reason I said that Religion pertaining to God promotes ignorance is because in most said religions it is expected of you to have absolute faith and NOT to wonder about what could possibly be.

I have to disagree with your last statement. Most faiths tell you to question the principles to see why they exist and why they should be followed. Most religions expect you to think and be active in expressing those thoughts. IMO, God helps people wonder about what could possibly be. Your opinion here only applies to very few people. And using the big R religion only makes it an over-generalization/simplification of what is really going on.

[James S Saint]

If you believe in God please explain why.

Not to interrupt, but I believe in God because God told me to.

Of course you ask, "how do you know that was God?". But then I have to ask, how do you know it wasn't? And more importantly, why should I believe you. God sense to make sense, you seriously don't. I go with what makes sense.

[rationalist griggsy]

I declare that since God's attributes are incoherent and contradict each other, that He cannot exist, and even the arguments for Him are meaningless. This is the ignostic argument, the great argument against this married bachelor or square circle!
Without a meaningful definition, one can hardly believe in something, and one cannot by definition instantiate any entity!
However, for the sake of argument, the Razor shows Him uselessly redundant, Alister McGrath, Dawkins's nemesis, notwithstanding. Furthermore, the arguments beg the question.
And the begged question of faith [ Articulett] cannot instantiate Him.
So, how could I, a rationalist, fall for this sophistry?



At some sites, I'm ignostic morgan.