Would you buy it?

[Meow Mix]

The box contains a George Foreman Grill, and I already bought it.

Haha Pete. I have one and it's bliss in a box, indeed.

Have you tried ground turkey? Take some ground turkey, mince some onions... put the onions in the turkey. Make patties and grill 'em for 6 minutes. They make perfect burgers, I kid you not.

 

[Walkntune]

Incorrect. You can have pleasure without pain: consider that a child when firstborn smiles when they see their mother. They are experiencing pleasure before they've ever experienced pain. It's conceivable to think of a logically possible world where pain does not exist but pleasure does without logical contradiction as well, so your dualism is false.

Usually giving birth itself is painful for the mother and the child as they usually come out crying. If not the doctor used to smack there bottom or pinch them(don't know if they still do) in order to make them cry and make sure the lungs function properly.
Many great pleasures come from sacrifice and pain.The very pleasure of love always ends in pain.
Unless you can become one and in harmony with everything in existence and stay there, there will always be separation.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

People will believe in theism whether there is justification or not, but I was referring to your dualisms regarding theism/atheism and pleasure/pain. In both cases one isn't required for the other; in both cases one can exist even if the other does not.

Are you saying positive one (+1) can exist without negative one (-1)?

Please: is theism justified, or not?

I was never answering that question, as I have said before. And also as I said before, the question is irrelevant. What is, is. What is not, is not. That is not for us to figure out.

 

[Meow Mix]

Usually giving birth itself is painful for the mother and the child as they usually come out crying. If not the doctor used to smack there bottom or pinch them(don't know if they still do) in order to make them cry and make sure the lungs function properly.
Many great pleasures come from sacrifice and pain.The very pleasure of love always ends in pain.
Unless you can become one and in harmony with everything in existence and stay there, there will always be separation.

Indeed in the universe we're familiar with there is both pain and pleasure and we must find a middle ground -- but logically, one is not required for the other. So, this doesn't really address my point other than to show that in this world both exist. It doesn't prove any necessity between the two, though.

 

[Meow Mix]

Are you saying positive one (+1) can exist without negative one (-1)?

Bad question to ask a math/physics person. Yes, +1 can exist without (-1). It doesn't in this world but it's logically possible for it to be that way, yes.

I was never answering that question, as I have said before. And also as I said before, the question is irrelevant. What is, is. What is not, is not. That is not for us to figure out.

Actually it is indeed for us to figure out if we are to form beliefs about things.

If you really believe what you said above, then you must literally believe everything: smurfs exist, seamonkeys exist, square-circles exist. In fact you can't even be sure that anything that you think is "true" since the very concept of truth relies on our capacity to "figure" things "out."

Let's be realistic here: to be rational we must justify our beliefs. If you're admitting that theists can't justify theism, then you're essentially giving up the ghost and saying theism is irrational.

That's fine: if someone doesn't value reason, they can indeed believe without justification. They just shouldn't expect to be taken seriously by rational people afterward.

 

[Walkntune]

Indeed in the universe we're familiar with there is both pain and pleasure and we must find a middle ground -- but logically, one is not required for the other. So, this doesn't really address my point other than to show that in this world both exist. It doesn't prove any necessity between the two, though.

Not sure I understand.If you want the pleasure of a child, you go through the pain of carrying it and childbirth or at least the sharp end of a needle.
If you want the pleasure of a nice figure than you go through the pain of exercise or use of will power. No pain no gain!
Many instances where one is required for the other.
Even if you are talking about eating ice cream there is a work involved to get to this ice cream.
Come to think of it I am not sure if there is a pleasure that comes without sacrifice.
The very separation between you and what you want is a pain until the needs our met.
Its a self created resistance.
You might not consider it a torturous pain but it is a pain none the less.
It is even a necessity in our body to keep us healthy for without it we would not have the pleasure of health or survival.
You can't have life without death.

 

[Meow Mix]

Not sure I understand.If you want the pleasure of a child, you go through the pain of carrying it and childbirth or at least the sharp end of a needle.
If you want the pleasure of a nice figure than you go through the pain of exercise or use of will power. No pain no gain!
Many instances where one is required for the other.
Even if you are talking about eating ice cream there is a work involved to get to this ice cream.
Come to think of it I am not sure if there is a pleasure that comes without sacrifice.
The very separation between you and what you want is a pain until the needs our met.
Its a self created resistance.
You might not consider it a torturous pain but it is a pain none the less.
It is even a necessity in our body to keep us healthy for without it we would not have the pleasure of health or survival.

Again, you're basing your argument off of this world. However pain isn't necessary for pleasure logically.

Especially if an omnipotent/omniscient being exists.

Consider a universe where someone eats spinach for a while and is fine with it. They've never experienced any form of pain whatsoever. Suddenly they're presented with watermelon, which tastes amazing to them. They experience pleasure from eating it. Since no pain preceded this pleasure, your premise that pain is necessary for pleasure is false.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Bad question to ask a math/physics person. Yes, +1 can exist without (-1). It doesn't in this world but it's logically possible for it to be that way, yes.

Missed the point again...

Actually it is indeed for us to figure out if we are to form beliefs about things.

Yes it is. But did I say we were forming beliefs about anything?

If you really believe what you said above, then you must literally believe everything: smurfs exist, seamonkeys exist, square-circles exist.

Would it matter if they did?

In fact you can't even be sure that anything that you think is "true" since the very concept of truth relies on our capacity to "figure" things "out."

Now we're getting some where.

Let's be realistic here: to be rational we must justify our beliefs. If you're admitting that theists can't justify theism, then you're essentially giving up the ghost and saying theism is irrational.

One step forward, three steps back.
Consider what you said here:

In fact you can't even be sure that anything that you think is "true" since the very concept of truth relies on our capacity to "figure" things "out."

Then you say:

Let's be realistic here: to be rational we must justify our beliefs. If you're admitting that theists can't justify theism, then you're essentially giving up the ghost and saying theism is irrational.

 

[Walkntune]

Again, you're basing your argument off of this world. However pain isn't necessary for pleasure logically.

Especially if an omnipotent/omniscient being exists.

Consider a universe where someone eats spinach for a while and is fine with it. They've never experienced any form of pain whatsoever. Suddenly they're presented with watermelon, which tastes amazing to them. They experience pleasure from eating it. Since no pain preceded this pleasure, your premise that pain is necessary for pleasure is false.

The pleasure of eating the spinach comes from the work of eating it.
A little sacrifice but still a sacrifice.
If there is no energy put forward there will be no gain.
Without the work of energy there is no benefit of energy.

 

[Gloone]

...are you trying to vote "troll" on yourself?

Or do you want to discuss this in a mature fashion?

I get that you're uncomfortable with the object of the analogy being a box. That's missing the point, but fine -- I can accomodate you by skipping the analogy and simply asking a basic question.

What evidence is there that Abrahamic religion is true; be it empirical or metaphysical? What justifies belief in a god with Abrahamic attributes?

Once that is addressed, maybe I can help you understand the purpose of the analogy by asking: in what way are the justifications you may or may not have provided for an Abrahamic deity different from justifications a believer in the box might give?

Hopefully this is becoming more clear now.

It is easy to point out the fallacy in another’s argument, and I’m sure I could point all of yours out as well. However, if I spent my entire life pointing out other peoples flaws I would never realize my own. That is the point of an Abrahamic religion at its core, and people build upon that. There are plenty of things you could find fault with about Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. I could make a list and start counting, but I would rather take the time to understand something before I criticize it. So if you want to call it empirical or metaphysical you certainly can. There is a point where people continue to study a religion, to reach a point of enlightenment, which would be the one of the ultimate goals of any Abrahamic religion. For some it comes naturally and for others it can be a little more involved before they ever reach the first point of understanding.

Enlightenment [FONT=&quot]can refer to many different concepts. In a secular or non-Buddhist context, the word enlightenment often means "full comprehension of a situation". Spiritual enlightenment means to obtain a spiritual revelation or deep insight into the meaning and purpose of all things, to communicate with or understand the mind of God, to achieve some other type of profound spiritual understanding, or to achieve a fundamentally changed level of existence whereby one's self is experienced as a nonchanging field of pure consciousness. Some scientists believe that during meditative states leading up to the subjective experience of enlightenment there are actual physical changes in the brain.[/FONT]

Then in an Abrahamic religion, there are people who reach a point of Divinity or enlightenment that is beyond a regular person understanding and they can become known as prophets, messiah, a voice for god, a messenger, one of god’s people, etc. In Christianity, we are all gods people, but not everyone is a person of god because they don’t always fully acknowledge it, or make that connection.

So if you think religion is just a makeshift faith, then you haven’t even made a scratch in its surface.

Now, lets further this concept and talk about some cultures and relate it to America. People, who are born as Americans, granted are born with freedoms, liberties, individual rights,things that most people would risk an arm and limb for. People had to make struggles and sacrifices before America became what it is today, in its short history. Now, the same underlying principles can be found and seen in Abrahamic religions, they did not just appear or come into existence overnight, and fall out of the sky onto a silver platter.

I guess when you hear people say something like God is an all loving god, people are just trying to describe god as they know god. If you think god is non-existent then that is just the way you “know or see” god. If you see god as a box, what does that box represent? My answer is not much of anything. What is yours?

 

[Willamena]

However pain isn't necessary for pleasure logically.

That's true. Logic has nothing to do with it.

Edit: That pain is placed opposite pleasure is a matter of aesthetics, not logic.

 

[blackout]

To "justify" doesn't mean to just give a motivation behind something in the epistemic sense... justification means demonstration that something is true or has warrant to be believed.

That being said, "because I like the idea" isn't a justification. Nobody's telling you that you have to explain your motivation for why you like something, but I am requesting for evidence that theism is true so I can understand it if it exists.

Well my Theism has nothing really to do with "truth" at all
beyond me, being "true" to my Own Self.
You can "evidence" the "truth"(ie, existence) of my theism
in the 'cast' (shaping/coloring/role filling etc etc) of my Own Reality.

As belief goes?
There is not a thing that my theism requires me to "believe",
though I find it very important to take a stance of belief in my Self,
and I am sometimes very enriched and even empowered
'believing' (things) in mySelf.

A cornerstone of my theism
is that I
"believe completely,
without believing at all".

I prefer though to call this
the "suspension of disbelief",
as "hardwired belief"
has nothing at all to do with it.

This is something I do with purpose and intent
and under some particular Set of conditions.
Kind of like "Setting a Stage" for a play or enactment,
or "Preparing a Chamber" for an experiential experiment.

I suppose you could say that I am just very eccentric,
but it certainly LOOKS like some Occultic Theism or another.
It would to an outsider,
and I mySelf do consider it a Theism
in that My Life IS My Own Personal My'thology.

 

[Thief]

Yes you are indeed correct faith does not need to be proven.

Of course if it could be proven you wouldn't need to have faith in it now, would you?

Let's face it no matter how you spin it, you are saying "stop thinking, start believing"

Which is why your argument will not make me believe in god.

-Q

I am not concerned that you lack faith.
But to say my faith is invalid because you don't believe?

I think that's arrogance.

That you have failed to rationalize a faith doesn't mean it's a false practice.
It is only that you failed.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I am not concerned that you lack faith.
But to say my faith is invalid because you don't believe?

I think that's arrogance.

That you have failed to rationalize a faith doesn't mean it's a false practice.
It is only that you failed.

I'm not saying your faith is invalid because i don't believe.

I'm saying it is invalid because it does not stand up to the standards of proof.

Look don't get me wrong i respect your right to believe what you want. I would even fight for that right.

But until you don't have to turn off intellect and thought before you can believe, i ain't going to respect you beliefs.

-Q

 

[Midnight Pete]

People will believe in theism whether there is justification or not, but I was referring to your dualisms regarding theism/atheism and pleasure/pain. In both cases one isn't required for the other; in both cases one can exist even if the other does not.

Anyway, I know I've mentioned before that when asking people bluntly and directly for justification for theism that all I ever get is a bunch of red herrings, off topics, and beating around the bush.

Please: is theism justified, or not?

Obviously, you're not going to let anyone tell you that it is. So why even ask?

 

[Willamena]

Obviously, you're not going to let anyone tell you that it is. So why even ask?

That would be one of those red herrings she mentioned.

 

[Midnight Pete]

That would be one of those red herrings she mentioned.

Exactly what I'm talking about. Meo Mix has all the answers and she is never wrong, so what's the point?

 

[Willamena]

Exactly what I'm talking about. Meo Mix has all the answers and she is never wrong, so what's the point?

The point is that she wants to hear justifications so that she can judge them. It's not about rejecting or accepting, believing or ******* people off.

 

[Midnight Pete]

The point is that she wants to hear justifications so that she can judge them. It's not about rejecting or accepting, believing or ******* people off.

Whatever. I'm done with this thread.

 

[Willamena]

I'm not saying your faith is invalid because i don't believe.

I'm saying it is invalid because it does not stand up to the standards of proof.

Look don't get me wrong i respect your right to believe what you want. I would even fight for that right.

But until you don't have to turn off intellect and thought before you can believe, i ain't going to respect you beliefs.

-Q

If one carries the benefit of assumption, ones arguments needn't "stand up to the standards of proof." Validity (and, necessarily, intellect) does not rest with logic.