To the Anti-Religious

[PureX]

"Emotions are not the "by product" of our brain's chemistry, they are the purpose of our brain's chemistry. Emotions didn't develop because the chemicals had nothing better to do with themselves. The chemistry developed because the emotions were useful in carrying on the organism's survival.

Thoughts, emotions, ideas, these are how the human species thrives and survives. They are the human genetic code's raison det're. And this includes the idea of God.

Quote:"

But that is just a biased opinion isn't it? And I still haven't seen any of these "universal truths" you guys are supposed to be discovering.

We can't just share them with anybody. You have to prove you're smart enough to handle such universal truths. So far .....

 

[nonbeliever_92]

We do both, because it happens simultaneously.

I disagree, there is a most infinitesmal amount of time after we perceive something that we may conceptualize it.

Cover someone's eyes and place their hand in a bowl of warmed spaghetti and ask them what it is. There must be some sort of interaction before we decide what it is, the problem is that people often decide too soon or they don't wait until they have all the evidence, or they simple ignore (whether conciously or unconciously) some evidence.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

God is not an object.

So how is the idea of "God" any less objective than the idea of a chair, or a rock?

That's because God is not an objective thing.

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Commoner]

we can't just share them with anybody. You have to prove you're smart enough to handle such universal truths. So far .....

BS, BS and some more BS.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Yes but that's not exactly what I meant. Love is a subjective concept that can't create, destroy, or alter matter. Acts of love are not love, they are simply expressions of our physical bodies trying to convey the emotion within our heads. When one claims that their god is equal to love to love they often mean that their god is an experience, and this is fine until they say that their god created the universe/ man/ earth or that their god is the universe, in which they are giving an objective description. They seem to think labeling their god as love justifies their belief, in which it really doesn't unless they specifically claim that their god is nothing more than a factor of their mind. We cannot measure the subjective with a standard, but we may measure the objective and it should be easily demonstrated. People who label their diety as a subjective concept seem to use this as a way to keep their belief in a nice little box so science can't touch it and it can't be explained. It's quite sad.

Thanks for clarifying. I agree with you.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

What the hell are you talking about?

The question assumes a fact not in evidence. To wit: That he knows.

 

[PureX]

BS, BS and some more BS.

It was a joke! Dude!

 

[PureX]

Yes but that's not exactly what I meant. Love is a subjective concept that can't create, destroy, or alter matter. Acts of love are not love, they are simply expressions of our physical bodies trying to convey the emotion within our heads. When one claims that their god is equal to love to love they often mean that their god is an experience, and this is fine until they say that their god created the universe/ man/ earth or that their god is the universe, in which they are giving an objective description. They seem to think labeling their god as love justifies their belief, in which it really doesn't unless they specifically claim that their god is nothing more than a factor of their mind. We cannot measure the subjective with a standard, but we may measure the objective and it should be easily demonstrated. People who label their diety as a subjective concept seem to use this as a way to keep their belief in a nice little box so science can't touch it and it can't be explained. It's quite sad.

You should go find one of these people and tell them how wrong they are.

 

[rageoftyrael]

well, he kind of did, if they read this forum, lol.

 

[Commoner]

It was a joke! Dude!

I just really, really disliked it.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

You should go find one of these people and tell them how wrong they are.

PureX, you are quite very wrong.

You know that made me feel better...

Anyway, to clarify even more, you don't seem to have a grasp on what objective and subjective mean. You said yourself that we view the objective and immediately subjectify (is that a word, I should get a dictionary) it. I agreed. Then you said that in order to subjectify the objective there must be some sort of matter behind it, and I agreed with you. Then you asked "What makes god any less objective than" a chair, a table, an object of some sort. Then you said that we can't study god becuase he's subjective. Clearly you can see the flaw, I don't have to point it out do I?

 

[Vile Atheist]

^ I thought you were above petty insults and snipes and just wanted an "intelligent discussion"?

 

[Commoner]

You're an idiot.

There, I feel a lot better about myself, now. I realize that it's at your expense, but well, I guess it sucks to be you.

I can see that you are hopelessly confused. And I can't really help you with that. You seem to like yourself that way, as fools always do, so I can't see any good reason to try to enlighten you because clearly you don't want to be enlightened. You just want to make yourself feel good by being rude to others.

So go ahead. Knock yourself out. We are all here just to serve your emotional shortcomings.

I think my irony meter just maxed-out.

 

[Breathe]

-- Mod Advisory --

Guys, please make sure you stay on topic and be civil. Please avoid personal attacks and rule breaking.

-- End of Mod Advisory --
​

 

[PureX]

I think my irony meter just maxed-out.

I apologize for that post. And I have removed it.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

wait, was that directed at moi...? I wasn't here when it "went down." I don't remember insulting anyone... so.. guess not...

 

[themadhair]

There seems to be three equivocations in your arguments PureX that I can see:

1) Concepts of things are sometimes being equivocated with things.
2) Subjective is sometimes being equivocated with objective.
3) Logic as a prescriptor is sometimes being equivocated with logic as a descriptor.

I completely and utterly failed to understand your point regarding contradiction and paradox being commonplace. The reason we consider contradictions as a guide to flawed logic, when using logic as a descriptor for nature, is because we do not observe contradictions in nature. This certainly comes under the field of philosophy, but I don’t get what point you are trying to make when you claim contradiction is a ‘philosophical flaw’. This doesn’t make any kind of sense to me.

And for note, evolutionary theory is on a much more solid evidentiary basis than the theory of gravity. The last time you tried to bring science into the discussion you really demonstrating some serious misunderstandings. Better leave it well alone methinks.

 

[PureX]

There seems to be three equivocations in your arguments PureX that I can see:

1) Concepts of things are sometimes being equivocated with things.

They are inextricably mixed. "Things" do not exist, except as concepts in the human mind. The universe is made of energy. The energy expresses itself in some ways and not in others. The result of this limited expression are a lot of different kinds of energy events, all linked together in one big energy event that is still happening. We identify and label the various aspects of this big event each according to our idea of it. This is the human condition, not something I made up to confuse you.

2. Subjective is sometimes being equivocated with objective.

Again, welcome to the human condition. In our idea of reality: the one that exists in our heads, there is no "objective" truth. It's ALL subjective because it's ALL in our heads. There is, we believe, an actual reality, that exists apart from our idea of it, that we have very little access to. But that "reality" has no objects in it. It contains only one big energy event that is taking place. It's not static, it's dynamic. And we only have very limited access to it through our physical senses. We are limited by time, and space, and physical and mental comprehension. So when you keep stressing that the only facts we should accept as evidence are objective facts arrived at by scientific method, you are looking through a very, vary narrow window, and deliberately ignoring most of what little abilities we actually have for learning.

3) Logic as a prescriptor is sometimes being equivocated with logic as a descriptor.

Please give an example.

I completely and utterly failed to understand your point regarding contradiction and paradox being commonplace. The reason we consider contradictions as a guide to flawed logic, when using logic as a descriptor for nature, is because we do not observe contradictions in nature. This certainly comes under the field of philosophy, but I don’t get what point you are trying to make when you claim contradiction is a ‘philosophical flaw’. This doesn’t make any kind of sense to me.

Imagine two worlds. One world is the ideal world, where all that exists, exists in it's idealized form. And the other is the actual world, where nothing exists in it's ideal form, but everything exists in it's particular form. The ideal world only exists in our minds, while the actual world exists all around us. When we try to apply the one to the other, as we are always doing, we run into an endless set of disjunctions between the two.

Unfortunately, our ability to participate and interact with the actual world is limited, and is also somewhat dangerous. While our ability to access and interact with out ideal world is immediate and usually harmless. Eventually we come to forget that our ideal world, the one that exists in our minds, is not the actual world, anymore. And we begin acting in the actual world in response to ideas that exist in our idealized mental landscape. We begin to think that "chairs" and "tables" and "trees" and "mountains" are "real", and that they exist in and of themselves, and apart from our idealizations, when they don't. The matter exists, and the relationships between the matter exists, but the concepts and labels we put on them do not exist, except as an idea in our mind.

In this sense, all ideas are like the "god-idea". The physical substance being labeled is really immaterial to the value and truthfulness of the ideal (god, table, whatever).

The reason we forget this, is because the idea of a table "works" for us in the actual world. We know it works because we tried it, lots of times, and it worked lots of times. We now assume that a table is a form of truth, because we assume it's an actual event. (The truth is 'what is', remember.)

But all along the table was just energy, doing what energy does. And the "table" was just an idea made up in our minds and applied to actuality; that worked. Just like the god-idea.

I'm sorry that this is confusing. I'm sorry that our limited grasp of actuality leads to so much contradiction and paradox. I'm sorry that the ideal world that we all carry around in our heads is not the world we actually live in. And I'm sorry this is all so complex.

But that's just the way it is.

 

[rageoftyrael]

really? you are so certain of this? well, i just read your spiel and i'd have to say you are just making crap up as you go. you want to live in a fantasy land where nothing can be proven, more power to you. Don't, however, act as if your idea for how things work is the one and only truth. Oh, wait, religious people do that all the time, don't they?

 

[themadhair]

"Things" do not exist, except as concepts in the human mind.

I just want to clarify that you have not misspoken or made a typo here and that you really do believe this inanity before I respond.

Again, welcome to the human condition.

This is a rather poor excuse for you to equivocate such.

It's ALL subjective because it's ALL in our heads.

Steaming pile of bs. What you think does not alter what reality is or is not. What I think does not alter what reality is or is not. This entire line of argumentation is simply a sidestep to avoid addressing the myriad of problems that have been pointed out to you, and Dunemeister, in this very thread. Good luck with pursuing this vacuous line of reasoning.

But that "reality" has no objects in it. It contains only one big energy event that is taking place. It's not static, it's dynamic. And we only have very limited access to it through our physical senses. We are limited by time, and space, and physical and mental comprehension.

This looks like a steaming pile of waffle that doesn’t have any sense to it. Irrelevant verbiage to avoid actually addressing the central points.

So when you keep stressing that the only facts we should accept as evidence are objective facts arrived at by scientific method, you are looking through a very, vary narrow window, and deliberately ignoring most of what little abilities we actually have for learning.

You’re a hypocrite PureX. You have made references to science and scientific reasoning in attempt to draw parallels to your theology. When the deficiencies of those parallels get pointed out, and largely exist due to you not having much of a clue about science and scientific methodology, you then turn around and make the accusation above. Give me a break.

Please give an example.

Your claim that contradiction and paradox are commonplace is just such an example. You are essentially arguing that using logic prescriptively is insufficient to rule out contradictions in reality (which is true), but you have ignored that it is through using logic as a descriptor that we conclude such contradictions don’t exist. You have conflated the two in this strawman.

In this sense, all ideas are like the "god-idea". The physical substance being labeled is really immaterial to the value and truthfulness of the ideal (god, table, whatever).

The descriptors (that is the concepts we have created to describe what we find in reality) are determined by a combination of our cognitive faculties combined with the qualities and traits that we are trying to describe. So the concept I have of a tree is determined by both the accuracy of my senses and the actual traits and qualities possessed by that tree. The key thing to note here is that my five senses are independent of each other, and are independent of the senses of other people – which all work as a means of assessing accuracy of the tree’s qualities through empiricism. When you try and draw the distinction between this tree concepts with your god idea then entire line of reasoning you are using falls apart. The “god-idea” is not a concept based upon using our senses to perceive an object like the tree. I’m actually astounded that I have to spell this obvious difference out to you.

And the "table" was just an idea made up in our minds and applied to actuality; that worked. Just like the god-idea.

Can you show me a single instance, a single solitary theoretical example, wherein the concept of treating/assuming a given table is a real object in space has ever failed for any person? Because I am living proof of an example where the god-idea failed. The problem you have is that real things which really exist always ‘work’ in this sense (it is a necessary trait for existence), and it is here that the differentiation can be seen. The concept of a table has real physical thing upon which that concept is based – you have nothing even remotely close to this for your “god-idea”.

Also – didn’t you once argue that you used god as a descriptor for mystery? There are some serious inconsistencies here.

I'm sorry that this is confusing. I'm sorry that our limited grasp of actuality leads to so much contradiction and paradox. I'm sorry that the ideal world that we all carry around in our heads is not the world we actually live in. And I'm sorry this is all so complex.

Have you ever considered the much simpler explanation here? That maybe the reason these contradictions and paradoxes exist in your theology (because they don’t really exist in anything else proposed on this thread) is because your theology isn’t an accurate reflection of reality? Just saying. If you have to argue for the impossibly of accurately perceiving reality in order to defend your idea, then maybe your idea isn’t correct.