Greater purposes

[ppp]

I said: Just because it is not evidence to you that does not mean it us NOT evidence to someone else.
Do you understand what I mean?

It means that you are using "evidence to you" as the justification for calling it evidence. It's simply an assertion that X is evidence of Y. No demonstration of a connection between X and Y. With a mere standard of "evidence to you" a person is self-justified in believing anything indiscriminately.

• The rooster crowing causes the sun to rise.
• Drinking alcohol can me a person intoxicated.
• Bob is the murderer because he's the butler.
• Demons are the cause of epilepsy.
• Rain can make the grass wet.

 

[Trailblazer]

It means that you are using "evidence to you" as the justification for calling it evidence.

The evidence is evidence to me because there is a clear connection between X and Y.

Atheists use "not evidence to me" as the justification for calling it not evidence.

I guess your bias prevents you from seeing what is so obvious.

It's simply an assertion that X is evidence of Y. No demonstration of a connection between X and Y. With a mere standard of "evidence to you" a person is self-justified in believing anything indiscriminately.

It's simply an assertion by atheists that X is not evidence of Y. No demonstration why there is no connection between X and Y.
With a mere standard of "not evidence to me" a person is self-justified in not believing anything.

No demonstration of a connection between X and Y.

There is a clear connection between my evidence and what I believe is true, but you would have to remove your bias in order to see the connection.

 

[Deeje]

My impression is that she loved poverty more than the poor.

I have read a bit about her attitude towards suffering.....she said that it brought one closer to God.....the more you suffered the closer to God you became....that is of course nonsense. It gave credence to Mark 10:14 as it was understood back then....."suffer the little children to come unto me".....it was discovered later that the word "suffer" in that verse meant "allow"......not the same at all...is it? There was no suffering required.

 

[ppp]

The evidence is evidence to me because there is a clear connection between X and Y.

Which is not a justification for claiming a connection. It is just an assertion that there is one because you think it is.

I guess your bias prevents you from seeing what is so obvious.

Thank you for the petty barb.

but you would have to remove your bias in order to see the connection.

Don't try to limit me to your failings. I don't have to remove biases to see connections.

 

[Deeje]

In reply to the OP....

Is there a greater purpose than personal happiness? What is that purpose? And how is it greater?

Personal happiness does not come about by giving to yourself....serving your own interests....or putting your needs ahead of the needs of others.

The Bible sums it up well I think....."there is more happiness in giving than there is is receiving".....so because we live in a "gimme" world where people are concentrating on "getting" rather than "giving", they are left wondering why they are miserable and discontented. Even those who have everything that money can buy feel empty inside. "Things" don't make you happy, "people" make you happy....work on your relationships and reach out to build more....positive ones. Lose the ones who introduce negativity.

The happiest people in the world are those who have genuine mourners at their funeral. The ones who will be sorely missed because they leave a hole that others cannot fill.

This is happiness in the sense of contentedness, or fulfillment.
"Are you happy in life?" is not asking if you are always merry. It is asking if your life is, on balance, a fulfilling one.

I heard it explained this way.....'Contentment means wanting what you have...not having what you want".....I couldn't have said it better myself.

True contentment is not the continual longing for more "things"...because, the best things in life are not "things".
We have been hoodwinked into believing that material wealth is what brings happiness and contentment, but nothing could be further than the truth. We in the west are richer than we have ever been materially, yet the epidemic of depression and suicide is proof that something is very wrong with that belief.
Suicides, senseless acts of violence and domestic abuse are not just the result of poverty.

To me following the Bible's advice to be content with what you have is the secret.....giving generously to others also brings great satisfaction if you are in a position to help.

To me it means that despite the awful things going on in the world, we can still maintain a degree of happiness, if we have a giving spirit rather than a self interested one.

 

[Trailblazer]

Which is not a justification for claiming a connection. It is just an assertion that there is one because you think it is.

Which is not a justification for claiming no connection. It is just an assertion that there is no connection because you think there is no connection.

Talk is cheap. That is all atheists have, talk. But they never have any evidence to back up their assertions, and the irony is that they say believers have no evidence.

Prove there is no connection. Otherwise all you have is a bald assertion.

I said: I guess your bias prevents you from seeing what is so obvious.
What is so obvious is that it cuts both ways, so whatever needs to be justified by believers also needs to be justified by atheists, if one cares about playing fair.

 

[ppp]

Personal happiness does not come about by giving to yourself....serving your own interests....or putting your needs ahead of the needs of others.

That is obviously not universally true.

The happiest people in the world are those who have genuine mourners at their funeral. The ones who will be sorely missed because they leave a hole that others cannot fill.

Again, Generally true, but not universally.

We have been hoodwinked into believing that material wealth is what brings happiness and contentment,

No. We haven't. Everyone has seen the assorted analogs of the Grinch who stole Christmas or the afterschool specials. Everyone knows that people generally do better with human connections and the support of community. Everyone also know that people generally do better with the security of food, shelter, and health (aka money). And everyone knows that there is some balance to be achieved.

Very few have been hoodwinked into thinking that wealth solves everything.

Suicides, senseless acts of violence and domestic abuse are not just the result of poverty.

I agree. They have several causes; including but not limited to religious shunning and shaming.

 

[ppp]

Which is not a justification for claiming no connection.

Which again is not something I claimed. You keep trying to shove words into my mouth. And will keep calling you out on it.

Don't try to limit me to your failings. I don't have to remove biases to see connections.

 

[Trailblazer]

Which again is not something I claimed. You keep trying to shove words into my mouth. And will keep calling you out on it.

You absolutely did claim there is no connection:

Trailblazer said: Just because it is not evidence to you that does not mean it us NOT evidence to someone else.
Do you understand what I mean?

Joe W said: It means that you are using "evidence to you" as the justification for calling it evidence. It's simply an assertion that X is evidence of Y. No demonstration of a connection between X and Y. With a mere standard of "evidence to you" a person is self-justified in believing anything indiscriminately.

#181 Joe W, Today at 3:46 PM

 

[ppp]

You absolutely did claim there is no connection:

No demonstration of a connection between X and Y.

Pointing out that no connection has been demonstrated is not a claim that there is no connection. It is pointing out that no connection has been demonstrated.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Is there a greater purpose than personal happiness? What is that purpose? And how is it greater?

The greater purpose for me is the way I help my grandchildren learn about nature and teaching them how to be peaceful and satisfied, kind and compassionate towards themselves and the life around them.

It makes me happy to be peaceful and satisfied with the wonderful life i have being able to help my grandchildren and my other family members. I guess that personal happiness is pretty important as well because it's hard to care about others and help others if a person is constantly miserable of their own choosing and lack purpose other than themselves and their wants and satisfaction of their bottomless ego.

Purpose is a great thing to have and personal happiness may take many forms. But they are both important for a fulfilling life.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am almost sure you can read. I quoted the only definition of truth that applied to @Trailblazer claim. It seems in your haste to be picky you missed it.

No, I can't find it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again, reading solves all your problems

Could you make a reasoned argument?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again, reading solves all your problems

I found it:
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences." The Thomas theorem.

Now can you read and understand it?
I will give you an example:
To you real is a concrete, an actual thing or fact as with evidence. That has real consequences as to how you treat believers and what you demand of them and how you rate their understanding.

Now to me real is contextual and depends on the understanding of a situation, i.e. how it is defined as understood. So to me your real is not really real, but how you use real.

So your way of reading is the real one for everybody. To me that is relative, because I understand it differently, so let us test that.

We need a bench mark to test from:
Gravity and how if we both in earth gravity tried to fly unaided high up in the air, we would both die in a free fall if our landing wasn't softened and we hit hard ground. I know you believe that to be true and real, and so do I.
So is that the only version of truth and real?
Well, no, because if you say yes and I say no, none of us dies, though we understand reality differently.

That is it. That is the absurd test of truth and real. You treat one version of truth as the only truth and I use different kinds of truth depending on context.

So here it is: I don't demand of you that you should believe in God. I demand of you that you understand that you are not the universal, objective or only real and true judge of that. How? Because your standard for judging that is as subjective as my belief in God. And that you demand that you are able to decide which standard to use, is not true or real as an actual thing. It is nothing but an idea in your mind and not objective as having reality independent of the mind.

Remember: "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences." That applies to us all. That you don't understand you do it too, and not just us as religious, is your problem and not mine. I don't have a problem with real. I have a problem only in so far as that you apply a double standard, when it comes to our subjectivity. You get mine, but you don't get your own as the same as mine. You take yours for granted as the real, true standard and not really subjective.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, I can't find it.

I do not know where Christine got it but here it is:

"A fact or belief that is accepted as true."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I do not know where Christine got it but here it is:

"A fact or belief that is accepted as true."

Notice accepted. Truth is mental, in the brain/mind and there is in practice no one single, universal truth.

 

[ChristineM]

non-physical reality

What

I am not playing with dictionary definitions anymore...

And here confusion lies

No, it is knowledge and I got it from what Baha'u'llah wrote.

I believe it, but that does not mean it is not knowledge.

You therefore have knowledge of what Baha'u'llah wrote. No knowledge of the unknown and unknowable

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What



And here confusion lies



You therefore have knowledge of what Baha'u'llah wrote. No knowledge of the unknown and unknowable

So let us play your beloved game of definitions:
Physical level one definition as per Google:
-relating to the body as opposed to the mind.
So according to this definition there is more than the physical, because there is the mind.
-relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
So here is the word "elephant". What the sign as a word is about is tangible or concrete.

We will do physical as scientific if we need and that is level 2, but there is how confused you apparently are:
is a sign. What is the sign about? It is about being confused and confused is not tangible or concrete. Confused is in your mind. So you use the non-physical yet you are apparently not aware of it.
The referent(the thing in the world that a word or phrase denotes or stands for) of your emoji, which is a sign like a word, and doesn't stand for a physical thing. It stands for a mental state in your mind. The referent doesn't met the requirements of being objective (Definition of OBJECTIVE 1A, 2A, 2B) or does it met the requirement for being physical as given above.

The word "confusion" is not physical nor objective and the confusion is in you. It is you, who apparently don't understand the meaning of mental as relating to the mind.

So here is what you do. You have a mental rule, that you require us to use, but you don't do it yourself.
I demand evidence for the truth of and you can't because it is not physical nor objective.
Stop using a double standard.

 

[ChristineM]

So let us play your beloved game of definitions:
Physical level one definition as per Google:
-relating to the body as opposed to the mind.
So according to this definition there is more than the physical, because there is the mind.
-relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
So here is the word "elephant". What the sign as a word is about is tangible or concrete.

We will do physical as scientific if we need and that is level 2, but there is how confused you apparently are:
is a sign. What is the sign about? It is about being confused and confused is not tangible or concrete. Confused is in your mind. So you use the non-physical yet you are apparently not aware of it.
The referent(the thing in the world that a word or phrase denotes or stands for) of your emoji, which is a sign like a word, and doesn't stand for a physical thing. It stands for a mental state in your mind. The referent doesn't met the requirements of being objective (Definition of OBJECTIVE 1A, 2A, 2B) or does it met the requirement for being physical as given above.

The word "confusion" is not physical nor objective and the confusion is in you. It is you, who apparently don't understand the meaning of mental as relating to the mind.

So here is what you do. You have a mental rule, that you require us to use, but you don't do it yourself.
I demand evidence for the truth of and you can't because it is not physical nor objective.
Stop using a double standard.

< Ignored />

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

< Ignored />

That is mental and not physical. You are proving my point.