Who is right? I give up

[DNB]

My Dog, and cats, Love more purely than any human I have ever met.

If there are Gods, I'll follow theirs first and foremost.

Religion isn't necessary to Love. It hinders it actually. Unless one purposely learns to drop their biases (like my way is the only way).

No, your simple and primitive dogs and cats do not love, either purely or partially. You were joking, right?

 

[The Hammer]

Yes, of course. Are you unable to take a stance on some issue or another, are you going to remain ambivalent or indecisive all your life, attempting to justify your indifference by playing the 'live and let live' card?
Make up your mind, there cannot be multiple truths when they contradict one another? Either the world is spherical or its not, either birds fly or they don't, either water is wet or its not, and there is either a God, or there is not. And, if there is a God as we know Him to be: all powerful, omnipresent, omniscient and perfect in every way, then there cannot be more than one for there would be absolutely nothing to differentiate one from the other, nor would there be a need for another, for one is entirely complete and capable on their own.

Thus, their is either a God, or there is not. The answer should be obvious (this forum is a prime example - men are spiritual)

The Cake is a lie.

 

[The Hammer]

Yes, of course

So much for Love.

 

[The Hammer]

No, your simple and primitive dogs and cats do not love, either purely or partially. You were joking, right?

No, you saying they have no concept of Love, Fear, Jealousy, Happiness, Anxiety, Anticipation......is a joke right?

You've had pets right?

You know that they feel emotions, right. I mean If they don't have emotions, why not just hit them when they do something wrong, right?

 

[The Hammer]

No, your simple and primitive dogs and cats do not love, either purely or partially. You were joking, right?

Which Emotions Do Dogs Actually Experience?

 

[rational experiences]

Are you plagiarizing me?

Do you think you apply rational answers. Humans are human we all use human consciousness. The same.

Applying science is designed by its thinker is the only I own patent a human says is my own.

 

[sayak83]

I think "objective experience" is a contradiction in terms.

A world exists external to the self, and our senses inform us about it. The objective part is out there, the experience is in here.

There are indeed various attitudes and purposes we can bring to bear when regarding a tree ─ esthetic, botanic, conservationist, clearing, timber, woodchip, and so on. What they have in common is the information, conveyed by the senses, that the tree exists as a tree in that particular part of the world external to the self.

There are also steps we can take to maximize objectivity, as eg the police do with their traffic cameras. We can also test our interpretations against the informed views of others, the consensus principle. We can design our tests involving humans to be double blind, and so on. We can require repeatable experiments where practical.

And if those procedures produce results that work in reality, that success is their justification. Gotta love the Enlightenment!

Seeing, hearing, feeling etc. are all experiences as well as thinking etc. There is nothing here other than a series of experiences. So if experiences cannot be objective, nothing can be objective.

 

[blü 2]

Seeing, hearing, feeling etc. are all experiences as well as thinking etc. There is nothing here other than a series of experiences. So if experiences cannot be objective, nothing can be objective.

That's a fundamentally different place to stand than the one where I've ended up. It seems to me to entail false conclusions, a basic solipsism, such as not believing you had parents, have children, breathe air, know the music of Schubert or can put humans on the moon.

Whereas, in my view, we're animals that have evolved to deal with, and then exploit, and now ultimately begin to understand, the domain in which all this has taken place.

 

[rational experiences]

That's a fundamentally different place to stand than the one where I've ended up. It seems to me to entail false conclusions, a basic solipsism, such as not believing you had parents, have children, breathe air, know the music of Schubert or can put humans on the moon.

Whereas, in my view, we're animals that have evolved to deal with, and then exploit, and now ultimately begin to understand, the domain in which all this has taken place.

Plastic I was psychic told began the chosen science destruction.

Electric component history. Then in war conditions and for thermal conditions.

Our human chosen science invention history of causes. For machines.

Plastics a huge list of human hormonal defects.

Science invention life destruction was human chosen is not any experience it was conscious scientific teaching to use the human condition. To think.

Let me blame pre ceding states in creation for my advice. Said the scientist.

As if creation as consciousness was to blame for human theories when you sought the advice just as a human.

It is why humans wanted to blame a God instead of theirselves.

Was the human spiritual teaching that scientists lie and coerce.

 

[sayak83]

That's a fundamentally different place to stand than the one where I've ended up. It seems to me to entail false conclusions, a basic solipsism, such as not believing you had parents, have children, breathe air, know the music of Schubert or can put humans on the moon.

Whereas, in my view, we're animals that have evolved to deal with, and then exploit, and now ultimately begin to understand, the domain in which all this has taken place.

Are you claiming that you have access to anything other than your own experiences (be it sensory, mental etc.)?

 

[blü 2]

Are you claiming that you have access to anything other than your own experiences (be it sensory, mental etc.)?

I claim that my senses are capable of informing me about the world external to myself.

Are you claiming that yours can't?

 

[Mock Turtle]

No, your simple and primitive dogs and cats do not love, either purely or partially. You were joking, right?

I think you need to look into this because this view seems to come from lack of knowledge more than anything else, or because of some religious belief alone.

 

[sayak83]

I claim that my senses are capable of informing me about the world external to myself.

Are you claiming that yours can't?

I am claiming all this information are exclusively from my experience stream, which are private and personal by their very nature. So if you claim that all experiences are subjective then there remains no objective information left anywhere.

 

[Yazata]

Can someone tell me plainly if their religion is the actual correct one? You see, I’m trying to figure it out, but I’m just about burnt out investigating. thanks!

I'm reminded of that story (which originated in India?) of the blind men and the elephant. They all touch different parts of the elephant and conclude that it is very different things.

The way I conceive of it is that the divine kind of transcends human conceptual powers. Or if one is an atheist and doesn't like the concept of the divine, then call it the ultimate nature of reality or something like that. Basically the same idea.

So we have all of these human traditions, ranging through the various religions, philosophies and sciences, all trying to learn about and make sense of what is ultimately real. Since human beings are the story-telling animal, there are no end of stories told about what it supposedly is and how it supposedly works. Some of the stories are very old and traditional in whole civilizations. Others are the latest scientific hypotheses. But probably none of them capture the true essence.

How does one choose among all the babel of competing stories?

My own suggestion might be pragmatically. Which ones work?

The stories that science and engineering tell are clearly the best at keeping airplanes from falling out of the sky. Others of the religious traditions might be better at helping people achieve beauty, peace and happiness.

I expect that different religions will work better for different people, depending on their personality types, what they are looking for in life, and their cultural background. It probably isn't a one-size-fits-all deal.

So I question whether there is an "actual correct one". Literally speaking probably none of them are entirely correct. Probably none fully capture that which cannot be captured in human words and concepts.

But some of them might prove to be better paths than others for particular people. Perhaps there's no way to know that except to commit yourself to a path and then decide if it works for you.

 

[blü 2]

I am claiming all this information are exclusively from my experience stream, which are private and personal by their very nature. So if you claim that all experiences are subjective then there remains no objective information left anywhere.

Of course all experiences are personal and subjective. That's why consensus, as well as maximizing objectivity, are major parts of skeptical reasoned enquiry, including science.

The justification for skeptical reasoned enquiry is that it works better than any presently known alternative when it comes to exploring, describing and explaining reality, the world external to the self.

It seems very odd to be having a conversation with you by way of a modern computer with terabytes of capacity, highly efficient modems, hi-tech cabling and broadcasting, and possibly satellite relays, all of which will be obsolete in a few years because of advances in science and technology, while you say we know nothing about that world.

 

[DNB]

So much for Love.

So much for any sense?

 

[DNB]

No, you saying they have no concept of Love, Fear, Jealousy, Happiness, Anxiety, Anticipation......is a joke right?

You've had pets right?

You know that they feel emotions, right. I mean If they don't have emotions, why not just hit them when they do something wrong, right?

Well, then maybe you should marry one, and then see how fulfilling and reciprocal the relationship is.

 

[DNB]

Which Emotions Do Dogs Actually Experience?

It's not love.

 

[DNB]

Do you think you apply rational answers. Humans are human we all use human consciousness. The same.

Applying science is designed by its thinker is the only I own patent a human says is my own.

'The same.' is not a sentence. You need to learn how to write, speak and think.

 

[The Hammer]

Well, then maybe you should marry one, and then see how fulfilling and reciprocal the relationship is.

It's not love.

'The same.' is not a sentence. You need to learn how to write, speak and think.

If you're just gonna be rude, I'm not talking to you.

Have a good night

Edit: Christians: Animals