Freethought & Rationalism Archive

11-19-2002, 06:22 PM

"By "accepting what your mind says is the truth" I assume you mean following your feelings instead of logic.

But "to feel" or "to think" are both based on logic."

My reply : No, to me, "to feel" to use emotions, while "to think" is to use logic. I could look at a woman and "feel" that it is right to have her (whether to satisfy myself or as a wife), that will not make such act right.

To me, truth simply following what I see is necessary (I think, therefore I am), not what I feel is required (wanted) since wanting something is to feel.

"The only difference being that feelings are based on logic that hasn't been examined for possible mistakes. That is the only difference."

My reply : Sorry, emotions never based on logic, otherwise NO one will fall in love. Hell ... this world could be more peaceful.

"Based on the number of followers of the particular religion / cult. "

My reply : How does number of followers make a cult into a religion? Loud voices voicing lies doesn't make a lie true. Lies cannot be covered up and there will always be someone who wonders about it and ask why something is like this.

Kharakov · 11-19-2002, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seraphim:
Why seek the Truth IF You don't wish to find it?
Why seek the Truth IF by finding it, it means you have been deceived?

Truth comes in many forms, and can be found in many places. Truth is something that you can never get enough of- when someone says they have found THE TRUTH you know they are lying or decieved, because there are many truths that can be sought and found.

You are deceived when you believe you have found the one solitary TRUTH and stop seeking truth wherever it lurks.

Kharakov · 11-19-2002, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seraphim:
My reply : How does number of followers make a cult into a religion? Loud voices voicing lies doesn't make a lie true. Lies cannot be covered up and there will always be someone who wonders about it and ask why something is like this.

Do you admit that all religion will be found out in the end?

Anyone recall that Mark Twain quote "A lie well told is nie immortal...." or something like that?

11-19-2002, 06:30 PM

"Do you admit that all religion will be found out in the end?"

My reply : If it based on lies, it will be revealed.

Kharakov · 11-19-2002, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seraphim:

My reply : If it based on lies, it will be revealed.

I don't know if some lies can be verified to be lies.. How would we show that the red sea was not parted? All we have is information that shows that

A) children have wild imaginations and will believe crazy stories
B) parents want children to behave and are willing to tell crazy stories to frighten children into behaving
C) some people are willing to lie to manipulate other people (tribal shamans in ancient times- I can appease the lightning god ,etc.)
D) there aren't any "real" prophets or magicians in modern times to actually be put to the test

We have no information for or against the parting of the red sea. How is this lie going to be disproved or revealed? Are you saying the very absurdity of the claim that the red sea is parted reveals that it is a lie?

emphryio · 11-19-2002, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Sorry, emotions never based on logic, otherwise NO one will fall in love. Hell ... this world could be more peaceful.

I disagree but can offer no facts as to why seeing as I base my position upon observing myself. Observe yourself next time you get angry or unhappy or happy. Do you not observe the emotions arose from an attempt at logical thinking? (Which may have been a failed attempt of course/illogic.) This includes love but it takes a person who understand theirself quite well to realize it. Very few understand theirself well enough.

To clarify:
All thinking is an attempt at logic. Some thinking is just less examined therefore prone to being illogical. This type of thinking is also more likely to lead to emotions.

Quote:

How does number of followers make a cult into a religion? Loud voices voicing lies doesn't make a lie true. Lies cannot be covered up and there will always be someone who wonders about it and ask why something is like this.

Are you saying a cult is false and a religion is the truth? Then I guess they are all cults to me.

Also seraphim, directly below the reply writing space is a button for putting things in quotes. It gets a bit confusing otherwise.

[ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: emphryio ]

11-19-2002, 07:04 PM

"I don't know if some lies can be verified to be lies.. How would we show that the red sea was not parted?"

My reply : By seeing whether the geology and flora and fauna on both side match or not. Take South America and Africa continent. They split one time and it is proven so by inspecting fossils of species which was nearly identical and also geology (in form of minerals etc).

"All we have is information that shows that

A) children have wild imaginations and will believe crazy stories

My reply : That has nothing to do with wild imiginations or willingness to believe crazy stories. It has to do with children trusting thier parents and their parents' role in manipulating their undeveloped mind.

"B) parents want children to behave and are willing to tell crazy stories to frighten children into behaving"

My reply : same as stating to someone that he or she will be going to heaven or damn to hell if he or she doesn't do as what he or she been told. In both examples (parents frightening children and priest frightening followers), it is a poor example of proper religion as it is based on fear and not logic.

"C) some people are willing to lie to manipulate other people (tribal shamans in ancient times- I can appease the lightning god ,etc.)"

My reply : Why blame some people if we allow ourselves to be tricked without seeing whether it is true or not?

"D) there aren't any "real" prophets or magicians in modern times to actually be put to the test"

My reply : You want to test liars to see whether such lie is true or false? Not sure whether to laugh at this or feel pity ...

"We have no information for or against the parting of the red sea. How is this lie going to be disproved or revealed? Are you saying the very absurdity of the claim that the red sea is parted reveals that it is a lie? "

My reply : There are proof, but whether such proof is acceptable by you is the question here. I accepted that God exist because of my personal experience in 30 years of my life, but such experience doesn't hold water with you because you don't know me. In that context, there is proof but the proof is unacceptable. Does that mean I believe in a lie?

11-19-2002, 07:20 PM

"I disagree but can offer no facts as to why seeing as I base my position upon observing myself. Observe yourself next time you get angry or unhappy or happy. Do you not observe the emotions arose from an attempt at logical thinking? (Which may have been a failed attempt of course/illogic.) This includes love but it takes a person who understand theirself quite well to realize it. Very few understand theirself well enough."

My reply : Then what we have here is personal experience and perspective VS overall picture.

In my opinion, I don't associate "feelings" with chain of thought simply because I don't feel much emotions (less than normal humans ... don't ask, I'm like that) thus most of my chain of thought comes from logics (which is based on my understanding). To a person who associate "feelings" with chain of thoughts, I could be a cold hearted person.

Overall question is this - Do we discard the chain of though associate with emotion and accept logic alone? Or accept chain of thought with emotion and allow it to mix and jeapodize our logic?

"To clarify:
All thinking is an attempt at logic. Some thinking is just less examined therefore prone to being illogical. This type of thinking is also more likely to lead to emotions."

My reply : Then does emotions needed or not? Does believe in something based on Logic or based on emotions? Religion is based on logic or emotion?

"Are you saying a cult is false and a religion is the truth? Then I guess they are all cults to me."

My reply : What is false and what is truth is depend solely on your understanding itself. To you, they all cults because that is your understanding and I have no right to say it is wrong either.

"Also seraphim, directly below the reply writing space is a button for putting things in quotes. It gets a bit confusing otherwise."

My reply : Not sure I understand this. My reply comes with the starting phase "My reply: " so how come it can be confusing?

Vesica · 11-20-2002, 05:29 AM

Quote:

If you are religious, how can you philosophise? Religion gives the user a pre-defined philosophy, which must be adhered to. There is no discussion, only justification.

Religion does not necc. imply a pre-defined philosophy. For example, at heart anyone who believes that Jesus was the Messiah, Christ, Son-o-God, and that he lived and died so that individuals can have a personal relationship with the divine can call themselves a Christian. They do not need to believe that the Bible is the inerrent word of God, or even that the words of Christ are need to govern thier lives. Yet I would consider this person to have a religion.

Even within the more complex dogmas and denomonational beliefs of organized X-ianity there are many issues that are never addressed. Off hand, the mind-body debate, the essential nature of man - good or corrupt, the interplay between individual and government, the answers to social problems (well, yes the Bible does advocate providing for the poor - but with what system(s)?)

For those questions that seem to fall into the 'no discussion, only justification' category, there are still a lot of details missing there....Life after death? For Christians the answer would seem to be Yes. But I have not heard a definitive answer to how that belief should direct ones life...or what is to happen after death.

There will always be people, religious or not, that want answers handed to them on a plate so they never have to question anything themselves. These are the people that are killing true philosophy, not people with any sort of religious belief. History has given us plenty of amazing thinkers that were 'religious'...it didn't stop them from looking at the world in a new way or questioning what is.

Kharakov · 11-20-2002, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seraphim:

My reply : By seeing whether the geology and flora and fauna on both side match or not. Take South America and Africa continent. They split one time and it is proven so by inspecting fossils of species which was nearly identical and also geology (in form of minerals etc).

Parted in the literal biblical sense (some guy raises a stick, sea parts, people walk through, sea rushes back in behind them to kill lots of people). Sure, there probably are events in objective reality that correspond to a lot of the religious stories- but the stories are lies as in "This movie is an act of fiction to portray and dramatize an actual historical event".

Quote:

My reply : same as stating to someone that he or she will be going to heaven or damn to hell if he or she doesn't do as what he or she been told. In both examples (parents frightening children and priest frightening followers), it is a poor example of proper religion as it is based on fear and not logic.

What is proper religion? In my experience religion holds the whip in one hand and the hot chick in the other (note: reality seems to be this way as well).

Quote:

My reply : Why blame some people if we allow ourselves to be tricked without seeing whether it is true or not?

Definitely cool, unless you are unable to detect the trickery due to lack of ability.

Quote:

My reply : You want to test liars to see whether such lie is true or false? Not sure whether to laugh at this or feel pity ...

hmm.. I like what you have said about prophets.

Quote:

My reply : There are proof, but whether such proof is acceptable by you is the question here. I accepted that God exist because of my personal experience in 30 years of my life, but such experience doesn't hold water with you because you don't know me. In that context, there is proof but the proof is unacceptable. Does that mean I believe in a lie?

I would except empirical data as proof. Hearsay about a religious experience will lead me to believe that
A) hallucinogens
B) drain bamage
C) proper technique employed to control the brain (meditation, repetitive tasks such as prayer) triggered the region of the brain associated with religious experience
D) other
lead an individual to have the religious experience.

Unless the experience has objective reality, it might as well be a personal (subjective) experience that cannot be communicated to another person because it is only in the heart of the person who has had it (the experience).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-19-2002, 06:22 PM	#11
Seraphim Guest Posts: n/a	"By "accepting what your mind says is the truth" I assume you mean following your feelings instead of logic. But "to feel" or "to think" are both based on logic." My reply : No, to me, "to feel" to use emotions, while "to think" is to use logic. I could look at a woman and "feel" that it is right to have her (whether to satisfy myself or as a wife), that will not make such act right. To me, truth simply following what I see is necessary (I think, therefore I am), not what I feel is required (wanted) since wanting something is to feel. "The only difference being that feelings are based on logic that hasn't been examined for possible mistakes. That is the only difference." My reply : Sorry, emotions never based on logic, otherwise NO one will fall in love. Hell ... this world could be more peaceful. "Based on the number of followers of the particular religion / cult. " My reply : How does number of followers make a cult into a religion? Loud voices voicing lies doesn't make a lie true. Lies cannot be covered up and there will always be someone who wonders about it and ask why something is like this.

11-19-2002, 06:30 PM	#14
Seraphim Guest Posts: n/a	"Do you admit that all religion will be found out in the end?" My reply : If it based on lies, it will be revealed.

11-19-2002, 07:04 PM	#17
Seraphim Guest Posts: n/a	"I don't know if some lies can be verified to be lies.. How would we show that the red sea was not parted?" My reply : By seeing whether the geology and flora and fauna on both side match or not. Take South America and Africa continent. They split one time and it is proven so by inspecting fossils of species which was nearly identical and also geology (in form of minerals etc). "All we have is information that shows that A) children have wild imaginations and will believe crazy stories My reply : That has nothing to do with wild imiginations or willingness to believe crazy stories. It has to do with children trusting thier parents and their parents' role in manipulating their undeveloped mind. "B) parents want children to behave and are willing to tell crazy stories to frighten children into behaving" My reply : same as stating to someone that he or she will be going to heaven or damn to hell if he or she doesn't do as what he or she been told. In both examples (parents frightening children and priest frightening followers), it is a poor example of proper religion as it is based on fear and not logic. "C) some people are willing to lie to manipulate other people (tribal shamans in ancient times- I can appease the lightning god ,etc.)" My reply : Why blame some people if we allow ourselves to be tricked without seeing whether it is true or not? "D) there aren't any "real" prophets or magicians in modern times to actually be put to the test" My reply : You want to test liars to see whether such lie is true or false? Not sure whether to laugh at this or feel pity ... "We have no information for or against the parting of the red sea. How is this lie going to be disproved or revealed? Are you saying the very absurdity of the claim that the red sea is parted reveals that it is a lie? " My reply : There are proof, but whether such proof is acceptable by you is the question here. I accepted that God exist because of my personal experience in 30 years of my life, but such experience doesn't hold water with you because you don't know me. In that context, there is proof but the proof is unacceptable. Does that mean I believe in a lie?

11-19-2002, 07:20 PM	#18
Seraphim Guest Posts: n/a	"I disagree but can offer no facts as to why seeing as I base my position upon observing myself. Observe yourself next time you get angry or unhappy or happy. Do you not observe the emotions arose from an attempt at logical thinking? (Which may have been a failed attempt of course/illogic.) This includes love but it takes a person who understand theirself quite well to realize it. Very few understand theirself well enough." My reply : Then what we have here is personal experience and perspective VS overall picture. In my opinion, I don't associate "feelings" with chain of thought simply because I don't feel much emotions (less than normal humans ... don't ask, I'm like that) thus most of my chain of thought comes from logics (which is based on my understanding). To a person who associate "feelings" with chain of thoughts, I could be a cold hearted person. Overall question is this - Do we discard the chain of though associate with emotion and accept logic alone? Or accept chain of thought with emotion and allow it to mix and jeapodize our logic? "To clarify: All thinking is an attempt at logic. Some thinking is just less examined therefore prone to being illogical. This type of thinking is also more likely to lead to emotions." My reply : Then does emotions needed or not? Does believe in something based on Logic or based on emotions? Religion is based on logic or emotion? "Are you saying a cult is false and a religion is the truth? Then I guess they are all cults to me." My reply : What is false and what is truth is depend solely on your understanding itself. To you, they all cults because that is your understanding and I have no right to say it is wrong either. "Also seraphim, directly below the reply writing space is a button for putting things in quotes. It gets a bit confusing otherwise." My reply : Not sure I understand this. My reply comes with the starting phase "My reply: " so how come it can be confusing?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.