emphryio

Of course, from personal experience we try to construct the overall picture. That is all that can ever be done.

So you can't comprehend what I'm saying very well because you haven't had much experience with feelings/emotions.

Logic and emotion are not two seperate things. All emotion stems from logic/illogic. Of course we often think better if we closely analyze our thoughts and in so doing the emotion is often removed.

I don't know. It seems emotion is needed for most.
You only believe in something based on logic/illogic. Never by emotion.

There is no emotion vs. logic. There is only logic vs. illogic. Emotion comes along for the ride with both. Just more often with illogic because illogic is more likely to be based on un-analyzed thinking.

Considering that the majority use the quote button, it can become confusing to some when you don't. But I guess you don't have to assimilate and accommodate us if you don't want to. Of course less people will want to communicate with you if you don't.


In closing:
Generally a lot of people have a very strange idea that instincts/emotions are something completely removed from attempted logical thinking.

ALL is attempted logical thinking. Lazy half hearted attempts are often mistakenly referred to as "feelings" or "instincts" as if they have nothing to do with logic.

By mistakenly seperating "feelings" from logic, the religious then champion it as superior because man's logic will always be imperfect.
And they "feel" the love of God, etc. (Actually they used logic/illogic thinking. Once this "thinking" produced God they were happy and didn't bother to analyze the thinking for any illogic.) They then refer to the "thinking" as "feelings" as if it couldn't even begun to be analyzed.

This is all ridiculous and based on a serious misunderstanding of one's self.

So when you ask a religious person why they are religious, please understand they have no idea why they are religious. It was all based on "feelings" they think, and not logic. Some may attempt to think up other reasons, (intelligent design, etc.) But they really have no idea. They thought it up, it felt good, might as well go with it. And they closed the trap door by saying it's "feelings" not logic.

Tristan Scott

How can you not? Religion is a form of Philosophy.

But there most certainly is discussion and disagreement. That is why every religion has so many sects.

Seraphim

"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".

My reply : Oh ... That one ... Not very sure what to say to Moses's spliting sea in half. Only logical (in my understanding) explaination I could think of is that Moses gathered enough mental energy to use on the water, forcing it to depart. Well ... either that or Act of God or the story been overtold by everyone.
PS : did anyone did any diving in the Red Sea? If the Eyptians were killed there, then their remains and things like armour should be still there, right?

"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). "

My reply : Exactly what a frightened children could say about his or her parents and their act of scaring him or her with stories.

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

My reply : Blame yourself for your inability to think rather than others' cunningness to fool you.
Think hard and carefully why such act could be possible and cover ALL possible reasons. If all this reasons do not explain such events, ask another who thinks as hard as you. If both cannot achieve an understanding of why it is such, then think whether or not such act was because a force greater than you. This is what Freethinkers about, NOT hiding behind science while holding hundreds of theories that doesn't hold water.

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

My reply : But do remember, not everyone is a liar nor out to fool someone for profit.

"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). "

My reply : Really? I wonder what scientific explaination could you give me when I say I could read (clearly) other people's thought just like you could hear another person's voice.
Or what scientific explaination could you give me when I say I could see spirits (laymen's term - Ghost).

Seraphim

"Of course, from personal experience we try to construct the overall picture. That is all that can ever be done."

My reply : And confusing starts when each of our overall picture is different due to our personal experience, thus new experience is born out of this confusion and that promote more overall pictures. In another words, we define our own existences by creating more and more overall pictures.

"So you can't comprehend what I'm saying very well because you haven't had much experience with feelings/emotions. "

My reply : Not necessarily. Those with logic which exceeded emotion could understand why you (who is with emotions) could do such a thing (even so the act seems to be illogical), simply because a logical person had exceeded his own emotions, but didn't discard it totally.

If you say you are in love with someone, even so I never meet you or the person you meant, I could understand what you meant simply because the feeling (love) did exist within myself once, thus understanding is not something of a matter.

I remember the stories wrote by Arthur Conan Doyle in Sherlock Holmes (which I read and memorized). Holmes (being unemotional and logical person ... something like myself ) is potraited as a fascinating person to Watson (who is has his emotions). While Holmes seems to be extra intelligence, it is nothing but simple act of logical deduction over emotional thoughts (which Watson was incapable of doing so at the being of the 1st edition - till Holmes's "death").

"I don't know. It seems emotion is needed for most.
You only believe in something based on logic/illogic. Never by emotion. "

My reply : Why do you think emotion is needed the most? I believe logic is needed more because most of the problems in the world is cause by emotions.

"There is no emotion vs. logic. There is only logic vs. illogic. Emotion comes along for the ride with both. Just more often with illogic because illogic is more likely to be based on un-analyzed thinking."

My reply : I disagree here. Illogical occurs with influence of emotions while logic occurs with absence of emotion. With emotional person, he or she attend to put emotions first in thinking about a certain matters rather than thinking it through logically. In that opinion, it is Logic VS illogical + Emotions.

"Considering that the majority use the quote button, it can become confusing to some when you don't. But I guess you don't have to assimilate and accommodate us if you don't want to. Of course less people will want to communicate with you if you don't."

My reply : I really don't see where is the confusing part is. Maybe you should show me the phrases so I could understand better.

"In closing:
Generally a lot of people have a very strange idea that instincts/emotions are something completely removed from attempted logical thinking."

My reply : Instinct is needed since it deals with certain part of the Mind (or Soul) which I believe is beneficial for survival. Emotions however is not needed because in my opinion, it is something we acquired throughout our life since birth, and not necessary for our survival.

"By mistakenly seperating "feelings" from logic, the religious then champion it as superior because man's logic will always be imperfect.
And they "feel" the love of God, etc. (Actually they used logic/illogic thinking. Once this "thinking" produced God they were happy and didn't bother to analyze the thinking for any illogic.) They then refer to the "thinking" as "feelings" as if it couldn't even begun to be analyzed."

My reply : Feeling associate with emotions, thus is it the person need to feel something above him. Does it make a person more holier if he could feel God?
I don't think so, even so there is varies logics that suggested that God exists. To me, if a person said he need to "feel" God to believe in him, then he stated he need to fool himself in believing in God. Thus act is self-deceiving and stupid and has no place to be called faith.

"This is all ridiculous and based on a serious misunderstanding of one's self. "

My reply : Based on above statement, I agree.

"So when you ask a religious person why they are religious, please understand they have no idea why they are religious. It was all based on "feelings" they think, and not logic. Some may attempt to think up other reasons, (intelligent design, etc.) But they really have no idea. They thought it up, it felt good, might as well go with it. And they closed the trap door by saying it's "feelings" not logic. "

My reply : Agree with above statement. Most people believe in God not because there is one, but because they fooled themselves in thinking that they could feel it.

Kharakov

Cool idea.

I was describing the way religion appears to me as someone who has never had the misfortune of being indoctrinated into religion.

If someone is taken advantage of because they lack the ability to reason, it is not their fault, the blame is on those who take advantage of the weak. Your attempt to switch the blame is a common ego dissolving tactic that cults and religions engage in.

For the rest of your comment- you can always make an assumption that some powerful force is raised against you- especially if you are prepared to be indoctrinated into a cult that is willing to cultivate your paranoia in order to control you.

Sure. Not everyone is in religion.

If you could demonstrate your abilities to me in a believable manner I would be willing to look into scientific explanations for the phenomena.

Another option is to say "How much does it cost and do you have an extra dose"?

Otherwise I have to assume that you have schizophrenia or some other mental illness (possibly organic drain bamage?).

Or you could be lying . <--- added

[ November 20, 2002: Message edited by: Kharakov ]</p>

Seraphim

"did anyone did any diving in the Red Sea? If the Eyptians were killed there, then their remains and things like armour should be still there, right?"

Cool idea.

My reply : People been going over the deep ends (as in diving in the sea) for ages now, how come no one thought of diving into the Red Sea to see whether there are remains (or traces of remains) of such thing as those described in the Bible?

"I was describing the way religion appears to me as someone who has never had the misfortune of being indoctrinated into religion."

My reply : Then you appear as someone with too much fear and anger toward that fear, to me. Were you the only child in your family OR surrounded by adults where you couldn't related to those who are older than you? Just a guess ... no need to answer if you don't want to.

"If someone is taken advantage of because they lack the ability to reason, it is not their fault, the blame is on those who take advantage of the weak. Your attempt to switch the blame is a common ego dissolving tactic that cults and religions engage in. "

My reply : Now you being childish. If you are a 10 years old and you say such, I could understand since you have yet to learn a lot of things which could contribute to reasoning. If you are an adult, however, it is time you think like one.
If someone tries to fool you, it is your part to reason with yourself instead of switching the blame to the person who tricked/tricking you or to some unknown force.

"For the rest of your comment- you can always make an assumption that some powerful force is raised against you- especially if you are prepared to be indoctrinated into a cult that is willing to cultivate your paranoia in order to control you."

My reply : If someone who claimed to say he is a prophet and that God is angry with me for not following him (the prophet), I will tell him to go to hell. In matter of faith, I follow no one but myself. I lead myself through path I choose myself and whether I reach my destination or fall half way, that is my burden to carry.

And don't think this is just some brave words that hold no water. Living in Malaysia, I always receive "you are Kafir who is going to hell" from Muslims or "Jesus is savior, follow him if you want to be saved" messages, sometimes from my own teachers who came to teach other subjects such as History etc.

"Sure. Not everyone is in religion."

My reply : Is that mean everyone in a religion is a Liar?

"If you could demonstrate your abilities to me in a believable manner I would be willing to look into scientific explanations for the phenomena. "

My reply : Demonstration? Hmm ... How to demonstrate across the screen? If we are staring face to face, then I could easily tell you what you are thinking by just looking at your eyes or touching your hands. Or I could tell you who gave you a certain present by simply touching it.

"Another option is to say "How much does it cost and do you have an extra dose"?"

My reply : I don't understand.

"Otherwise I have to assume that you have schizophrenia or some other mental illness (possibly organic drain bamage?)."

My reply : I'm well with NO apparent brain damage, nor do I have any mental illness. My family have NO history of such sickness either, except for my late elder brother who had nervous breakdown ONCE. However, my grandmother (she was a Hindu) from my mother's side used to be a ... a person who does into trance. They said that such ability is not present in everyone and only a certain people has it. My mother has it and I have it. If such is scientific explaination, then that the best you will get.

"or you could be lying . &lt;--- added"

My reply : I DO NOT lie.

[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: Seraphim ]</p>

Kharakov

Quite the opposite, no and no.

I am one of those who does not fear enough, so I sometimes get in trouble when I push the limits, although I generally act in a rational manner despite my lack of fear.

I get along with people of all ages, from babies to octogenarians. Of course, I &lt;slightly&gt; change the way I relate to someone depending on what age category they fall into. I am a bullshiter- I fish for a topic of conversation that appeals to the group and make everyone feel included in the conversation.

That is a needless ad hominem.

I was bringing up the fact that the blame switching trick is one that is used in cults to were down the ego of the individuals that the cult is attempting to convert. It is also used by cult leaders to justify their actions against weak minds (like Jimmy Baker accepting donations).

There are reasons we lock up individuals who con older/younger people who don't know any better. If you cannot understand the reasons, and instead switch the blame to the people who cannot take care of themself, you are not someone I want around the children or older members of society.

Who else can you trust?

Nope.

This is a funny discussion to have but: If you actually had these powers, you would be able to go to a lab and demonstrate them. People would then have a solid basis to request funding for additional research on phenomena such as you describe. Information about your "powers" would be in scientific journals, and your "powers" would be put to the test, confirmed if they are real.

Of course, I do not take your word at face value, because you have not gone to an actual lab and demonstrated your powers in such a way that makes your claims believable.

Is your claim that you do not knowingly lie or that you (or your word) are the ultimate arbiter of truth?

If you are saying that you do not knowingly lie, the statement "I DO NOT lie" is a lie, because you cannot truthfully say that you know that you have never told an unintentional falsehood.

If you are claiming that you (or your word) are the ultimate arbiter of truth, than you are lying, because there are many truths that are created and destroyed every day that you have no knowledge of.

Either way, someone claiming that they do not lie should be looked upon with suspicion or humor (depending on whether they are trying to gain something or in the humorous case if they actually believe it, hehehe).

Calvan

Seraphim asks: Here's a question for you guys ... What is the difference between a Religion and a Cult?

Bible Humper answers: About 500 members or so.

I ask: Given the following premises:

1. Some cult leaders have been known to kill some or all of their members or others.
2. This behavior has occurred subsequent to when (a) their followers become more deeply brain-numbed by the leaders indoctrination and (b) when there arises a struggle for control with other existing threatening authorities over sources of wealth and power such as land.

Is it fair TO conclude that Islam is a cult? And/or that Christianity is a cult? And/or that there is no essential difference between the two religions as far as being adversaries in pursuit of the same sources of power and wealth, namely the minds and hearts of the entire human population and the land and resources that accrue?

Calvan

emphryio

With all due respect, your reading comprehension needs serious work. Possibly your English isn't quite there yet.

I didn't say emotion was needed most. I said most people seem to need emotion. I personally have no useful thoughts about the level of important of emotion.

And I have been telling you over and over again that THERE IS NO LOGIC VS EMOTION! There is only logic vs illogic. Emotion comes along for the ride with both but slightly more often with un-analyzed thoughts which are more likely to result in illogic.

If anything the closest thing there is to this incorrect idea of yours, "emotion vs logic", is "lazy haphazard un-analyzed thinking" vs "analyzed thinking".


Based on your lack of reading comprehension and confusing incorrect use of quotes I quit reading after that.

Irishbrutha

Hmmmmm, it is possible to lack a "dogma" as you call it? All positions are belief, regardless of how many basic propositions are inherent in that belief. The atheist believes there is no God. Even the agnostic believes in the inability to be certain. This would fall under the category of dogmatic to me. Albeit under the guise of "unwillingness to commit".

Don't misunderstand me, I admire the agnostic, and in my own philosophical pursuit have no assertions to make at this point. I learn for the sake of learning. And if it sounds agreeable I hold on to it. Now, as far as my criterion for agreeable, I would say that the believing Christian is on no worse ground than the believing atheist, or the believing agnostic. The set of experiences which led to my belief include a God, while yours do not (shrug). It is only natural that both of us will attempt a rationale of our positions.

The only difference is that there has been a definite aggregate of positive supernatural experience of which the Christian can say supports their belief in God. While the atheist can only say that there has been a continual lack of that experience. And unless one can argue why it is necessary for the God who exists to be the God who reveals Himself to every single person, then I have no problem with that.

All are believers, and you would be rare indeed if you did not find more pleasing that philosophy which gave credibility to your preconceived conclusions. But this does not mean that one cannot benefit from philosophy or even "do" philosophy because of their preconception. Illumination of that preconception will hopefully be a byproduct of one's study of philosophy. It does not even mean that one's preconception will not be changed by philosophy. Many pre-philosophic Christians accept doctrinal unorthodoxy due to philosophic pursuits, while many atheists (in the strict sense) adopt a more moderate form of agnosticism due to their study of skepticism.

Hopefully, no one would fear that to truly study philosophy would somehow endanger one's own belief, and so fearing would not pursue that discipline of rationale with honesty. On the other hand we can never separate ourselves from our experiences and the reactionary beliefs that we hold due to them. It all comes down to intellectual honesty.

To conclude that the religious holds his belief regardless of the arguments, presupposes that the arguments against Christianity are conclusive. They obviously are not. Just as outside the realm of religion, philosophy has many positions, all simultaneously being held by many different people, so does philosophy as it pertains to religion. And if a Randian(not sure how to say that to be honest) Objectivist can be called intellectually honest alongside the Humean Subjectivist, then the Thomist Theist deserves the same treatment.

-Shaun

[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: Irishbrutha ]</p>