NationStates Jolt Archive

Why, when there is no proof, do people believe in things with such ferocity? I can understand why people would believe in a god. They have been indoctrinated to that affect. However agnostics choose to go against the mainstream w/o proof and are often the fiercest defenders of their beliefs. I just think that it's all arrogant. Thoughts?

What kind of proof do you want for agnosticism?

Why, when there is no proof, do people believe in things with such ferocity? I can understand why people would believe in a god. They have been indoctrinated to that affect. However agnostics choose to go against the mainstream w/o proof and are often the fiercest defenders of their beliefs. I just think that it's all arrogant. Thoughts?

Umm, I think that your argument--poor as it is--is directed at the wrong group. Agnostics don't really take a position on the existence of God per se. They're more along the lines of "the answer is unknowable and I'm cool with that."

Why, when there is no proof, do people believe in things with such ferocity? I can understand why people would believe in a god. They have been indoctrinated to that affect. However agnostics choose to go against the mainstream w/o proof and are often the fiercest defenders of their beliefs. I just think that it's all arrogant. Thoughts?

Agnosticism's entire viewpoint is that since there is no proof, the issue of the supernatural is irrelevant. The fact that there is no "proof" to support agnosticism is irrelevant.

Why, when there is no proof, do people believe in things with such ferocity? I can understand why people would believe in a god. They have been indoctrinated to that affect. However agnostics choose to go against the mainstream w/o proof and are often the fiercest defenders of their beliefs. I just think that it's all arrogant. Thoughts?

Where are you finding these radical agnostics? :p In any case, not every religious person has been 'indoctrinated,' as many convert late in life, depart from their 'original' religion, etc. It doesn't make much sense that an agnostic would give you much of an argument, unless you're including the more stubborn class of 'ignostics,' as some call them, who refuse to participate in any sort of discussion.

Agnosticism's entire viewpoint is that since there is no proof, the issue of the supernatural is irrelevant. The fact that there is no "proof" to support agnosticism is irrelevant.

No. Atheists say there is no proof. Agnostics say there can be no proof. And that is a much harder argument to make, yet you never see agnostics making it.

Agnostics say there can be no proof.

I love it when people tell me what I think.

Go on, do it again; obviously you know best.

No. Atheists say there is no proof. Agnostics say there can be no proof. And that is a much harder argument to make, yet you never see agnostics making it.

Atheism is a belief that there is no higher power. Agnosticism is based on there being no proof. A positive belief in their being no evidence to prove that God exists is strong agnosticism.

Why, when there is no proof, do people believe in things with such ferocity? I can understand why people would believe in a god. They have been indoctrinated to that affect. However agnostics choose to go against the mainstream w/o proof and are often the fiercest defenders of their beliefs. I just think that it's all arrogant. Thoughts?
You surely mean atheism; that is arrogant, as religious belief can be also. Agnosticism is not arrogant. Ignorant yes, but not arrogant.

Not everyone who believes in a God does so due to indoctrination. Many have thought it throught and felt the reality of God.

I love it when people tell me what I think.

Go on, do it again; obviously you know best.

That's the way it is mate. You don't get to call yourself Chinese if neither you nor your ancestors have ever been there.

Believe there has been no proof of God offered? You're an atheist. You are not convinced by the theistic proposition that God exists.

Believe no proof of God can ever be offered? You're an agnostic. You are not convinced by the gnostic proposition that God is knowable.

Agnostics say there can be no proof.

Not necessarily.

You surely mean atheism; that is arrogant, as religious belief can be also.

How is atheism "arrogant"?

Many have thought it throught and felt the reality of God.

And atheists, of course, haven't thought it through and necessarily haven't felt that the universe is empty (of a deity, anyway)?

Not that that sort of "feeling" is very good evidence anyway.

Why, when there is no proof, do people believe in things with such ferocity? I can understand why people would believe in a god. They have been indoctrinated to that affect. However agnostics choose to go against the mainstream w/o proof and are often the fiercest defenders of their beliefs. I just think that it's all arrogant. Thoughts?

ummm..agnostics go against nothing.
maybe you are thinking of atheism.
If you can understand why people believe in a god than why don't you understand why people don't believe in a god?
Both theists and non-theists are fierce defenders equally and there is nothing arrogant about it.

That said..I think for myself. There is no proof either way and I will not alter my beliefs because it is 'mainstream'.

You surely mean atheism; that is arrogant, as religious belief can be also. Agnosticism is not arrogant. Ignorant yes, but not arrogant.

Not everyone who believes in a God does so due to indoctrination. Many have thought it throught and felt the reality of God.
Yes, i did mean atheism. Not sure what I was thinking. Any way to change title of thread?

i think some people dont really know what an agnostic is....
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/agnostic

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>
- ag·nos·ti·cism /-t&-"si-z&m/ noun

this is the def, they dont believe either way....they just dont know....so why the hate?

Yes, i did mean atheism. Not sure what I was thinking. Any way to change title of thread?

god damn, u posted at the same exact time as me, my bad i get it now....

Yes, i did mean atheism. Not sure what I was thinking.

We all act on judgments without proof, and we do it all the time.

I have no proof that you are not God, yet I'll treat you as a human poster on NS anyway.

Why, when there is no proof, do people believe in things with such ferocity? I can understand why people would believe in a god. They have been indoctrinated to that affect. However agnostics choose to go against the mainstream w/o proof and are often the fiercest defenders of their beliefs. I just think that it's all arrogant. Thoughts?
Why do you say there is no proof? There is plenty of proof Jesus, Mohammad and plenty of others existed. And the rolling away of the stone on Jesus's tomb is documented by the Romans, although they give no mention of resurrection. Do you beleive that humans are all here by accident, an evolutionary quark that has no purpose?

Do you beleive that humans are all here by accident, an evolutionary quark that has no purpose?

Why would God's intent in creating us provide a "purpose" in a sense that would matter?

That's the way it is mate. You don't get to call yourself Chinese if neither you nor your ancestors have ever been there.

I don't call myself Chinese :confused:

Or was that just a really poor analogy?

Believe there has been no proof of God offered? You're an atheist.

Believe no proof of God can ever be offered? You're an agnostic.

Ah, so instead of taking the terms themselves and defining them, you're attributing potential perceptions to terms in order to try and insinuate some sort of association.

Here's what Websters has to say on the definition of "Agnostic":

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

I do believe it disagrees with you on that.

We all act on judgments without proof, and we do it all the time.

I have no proof that you are not God, yet I'll treat you as a human poster on NS anyway.

More like proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is reasonable to assume that I am not god. Especially since i haven't told you that I am. However to know that god exists or doesn't is unreasonable.

Why do you say there is no proof? There is plenty of proof Jesus, Mohammad and plenty of others existed. And the rolling away of the stone on Jesus's tomb is documented by the Romans, although they give no mention of resurrection. Do you beleive that humans are all here by accident, an evolutionary quark that has no purpose?

Is it not extremely reasonable that those prophets could have been a kin to modern day "prophets" such as Ron L. Hubbard? You can't know that there was anything connecting to them to god or if god exists.

Why, when there is no proof, do people believe in things with such ferocity? I can understand why people would believe in a god. They have been indoctrinated to that affect. However agnostics choose to go against the mainstream w/o proof and are often the fiercest defenders of their beliefs. I just think that it's all arrogant. Thoughts?

You want them to prove they don't and can't know? How would they go about that?

It is reasonable to assume that I am not god.

And it is reasonable to assume that there is no omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being that egregiously violates the laws of nature and what appears to be true about the universe.

Especially since the sorts of behavior one would expect from such a being have not actually manifested.

Especially since i haven't told you that I am.

I, Soheran, am God. Really.

Do you believe me?

However to know that god exists or doesn't is unreasonable.

I believe God does not exist. I judge that God does not exist. I don't "know" that God does not exist.

Knowledge is a higher standard.

Yes, i did mean atheism. Not sure what I was thinking. Any way to change title of thread?

Request a change from the mods and go and modify your OP. Regardless, are you really asking why people who BELIEVE things act like they actually BELIEVE they are true? I'm not sure that's a better question.

More like proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is reasonable to assume that I am not god. Especially since i haven't told you that I am. However to know that god exists or doesn't is unreasonable.

Is it reasonable to assume I am not a puppet of Thordren another nation on NS? I haven't told you that I am.

Would you be right?

I believe God does not exist. I judge that God does not exist. I don't "know" that God does not exist.

Knowledge is a higher standard.

dude, i just had the inverse of this conversation with some mormon missionaries that stopped by

Why do you say there is no proof? There is plenty of proof Jesus, Mohammad and plenty of others existed. And the rolling away of the stone on Jesus's tomb is documented by the Romans, although they give no mention of resurrection. Do you beleive that humans are all here by accident, an evolutionary quark that has no purpose?

okie, have you ever been in church when the pastor read the roman documentation of the rolling away of the stone? have you ever looked at a copy of this document in a book?

no?

thats because it doesnt exist.

dude, i just had the inverse of this conversation with some mormon missionaries that stopped by

*mind boggles*


mormon missionaries knocked on your door and you talked to them?

Do you beleive that humans are all here by accident, an evolutionary quark that has no purpose?

Do you believe god is here by accident? Surely it must have a purpose if it were to be able to imbue us with a purpose.

If you were to say that god just simply is, and that we exist to follow and fulfill his will, then you are prescribing no more purpose than is the naturalist.

I do believe it disagrees with you on that.

Common usage of a word often turn out to be useless when closely examining the underlying concept.

When you see the deluge of atheists and christians who retreat into the shelter of agnosticism when their apologetics break down you realize this very quick.

More like proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is reasonable to assume that I am not god. Especially since i haven't told you that I am. However to know that god exists or doesn't is unreasonable.

There is no more reason to believe in any other god. Reason is based on probabilities, causation, and necessity, three categories God would certainly be ignorant of.

There is no more reason to believe in any other god. Reason is based on probabilities, causation, and necessity, three categories God would certainly be ignorant of.

Based on what knowledge can you reasonably speak to God's ignorance? How does one say what a being, you are claiming is imaginary, knows and does not know? If reason is so important to you how about you apply it to the nonsensical notion that you can speak to the knowledge of God. And can you please provide a link that says the three categories are the only way to qualify as reason? I'll wait.

Meh. There's no proof of the divine so I don't believe in it. Simple as that. The only reason it's even a question is because belief in the divine is the norm. Whatever.

*mind boggles*


mormon missionaries knocked on your door and you talked to them?

i decided that i wanted to ask them what they knew about the book of abraham

Based on what knowledge can you reasonably speak to God's ignorance? How does one say what an being you are claiming is imaginary knows and does not know? If reason is so important to you how about you apply to the nonsensical notion that you can speak to the knowledge of God. And can you please provide a link that says the three categories are the only way to qualify as reason? I'll wait.

I don't speak for him, but I think he meant to imply not that god was ignorant, but rather that he would not able to discernably manifest through those sources.

Based on what knowledge can you reasonably speak to God's ignorance? How does one say what an being you are claiming is imaginary knows and does not know? If reason is so important to you how about you apply to the nonsensical notion that you can speak to the knowledge of God. And can you please provide a link that says the three categories are the only way to qualify as reason? I'll wait.

Personally, I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate that reason maps well enough onto reality for us to be able to determine what exists in what state by the use of reason, or that classical logic in particular is truly reasonable.

I have a sneaking suspicion that, like those waiting for proof of God's existence, I'll be waiting quite some time.

Not everyone who believes in a God does so due to indoctrination. Many have thought it throught and felt the reality of God.

Many have thought it through and felt the reality of dragons and faeries too. What's your point?

Personally, I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate that reason maps well enough onto reality for us to be able to determine what exists in what state by the use of reason, or that classical logic in particular is truly reasonable.

I have a sneaking suspicion that, like those waiting for proof of God's existence, I'll be waiting quite some time.

It requires faith. *ahem* I mean "judgement". Agnostics don't like it when you mention the degree of faith they too must excercise.

I don't speak for him, but I think he meant to imply not that god was ignorant, but rather that he would not able to discernably manifest through those sources.

Then it would not be God who was ignorant of those sources, but the other way around.

i decided that i wanted to ask them what they knew about the book of abraham

how did it go?

i once let a woman my husband works with tell me about jehova's witnesses. it was interestingly heretical.

Based on what knowledge can you reasonably speak to God's ignorance? How does one say what an being you are claiming is imaginary knows and does not know? If reason is so important to you how about you apply to the nonsensical notion that you can speak to the knowledge of God.

I was denying the ability to find god or dismiss god through reason.

When I call out God's ignorance, I say that it does not understand them as being rules; they cannot be its constraints as it is their creator. I suppose that, were god a Spinozan immanent self-creator, then it may be aware of self-imposed limitations of causality, but that raises two problems: Why call it god, and what states that the rules of necessity and causation apply to anything outside our wrangling of ideas?

So, god may not be ignorant of those rules, but we still have no way of knowing whether it is bound by them.

And can you please provide a link that says the three categories are the only way to qualify as reason? I'll wait.

Reason operates by taking experiences and establishing the relationship between them through certain rules of association. The "rules" may be arbitrary in regards to nature but necessary to our own survival, so there is nothing establishing their truth.

Those three certainly need not be the only categories, but they were the ones that came to mind most readily.

I don't have a link, but do you not see the roles probability, causation, and necessity play in our rational deductions?

Personally, I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate that reason maps well enough onto reality for us to be able to determine what exists in what state by the use of reason, or that classical logic in particular is truly reasonable.

I have a sneaking suspicion that, like those waiting for proof of God's existence, I'll be waiting quite some time.

How does that bode well for your epistemology?

Agnostics don't like it when you mention the degree of faith they too must excercise.

It requires the basics of faith, that perception does describe reality and that repeated perception establishes an increasing degree of truth. Once those are accepted we can learn from the natural world what man is capable or incapable of "knowing".

Those "leaps of faith" are necessary for any coherent thought on the part of humananity, and therefore it can hardly be a knock against the agnostic.

I was denying the ability to find god or dismiss god through reason.

Yes, provided you define reason in very limited and erroneous way you do AND you completely forget that reason tells that reality is not necessarily bound by reason in any fashion.


When I call out God's ignorance, I say that it does not understand them as being rules; they cannot be its constraints as it is their creator. I suppose that, were god a Spinozan immanent self-creator, then he may be aware of self-imposed limitations of causality, but that raises two problems: Why call it god, and what states that the rules of necessity and causation apply to anything outside our wrangling of ideas?

So, god may not be ignorant of those rules, but we still have no way of knowing whether he is bound by them.

So those rules are ignorant of him? Not always following rules is not the same as not ignoring or not knowing them.



Reason operates by taking experiences and establishing the relationship between them through certain rules of association. The "rules" may be arbitrary in regards to nature but necessary to our own survival, so there is nothing establishing their truth.

Those three certainly need not be the only categories, but they were the ones that came to mind most readily.

I don't have a link, but do you not see the roles probability, causation, and necessity play in our rational deductions?

Sure. The fact that these things have roles, does not make them the only parts of reason. For one, and we've went round and round on this before, deduction is not the only kind of reasoning.

Common usage of a word often turn out to be useless when closely examining the underlying concept.

When you see the deluge of atheists and christians who retreat into the shelter of agnosticism when their apologetics break down you realize this very quick.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say with the first bit?

How does that bode well for your epistemology?

How does it not? I certainly haven't noticed any problems, but if you'd care to point some out I'd be happy to discuss it.

It requires the basics of faith, that perception does describe reality and that repeated perception establishes an increasing degree of truth. Once those are accepted we can learn from the natural world what man is capable or incapable of "knowing".

Those "leaps of faith" are necessary for any coherent thought on the part of humananity, and therefore it can hardly be a knock against the agnostic.

Who's knocking faith? Oh, wait, you. I would knock anyone for having faith, just for the silly notion that because they give more weight to a certain kind of faith than another, they are somehow superior thinkers. It's a judgement a claim not actually based on reason. It's possible your claim is more useful, but in truth as usefulness is being determined by the same claim that leads you to your faith, it's all rather circular.

Yes, provided you define reason in very limited and erroneous way you do AND you completely forget that reason tells that reality is not necessarily bound by reason in any fashion.

As I said, reason is only applicable to the mind and our survival and not to nature.

How would you define reason?

So, god may not be ignorant of those rules, but we still have no way of knowing whether he is bound by them.

This is correct.

So those rules are ignorant of him? Not always following rules is not the same as not ignoring or not knowing them.

This part lost me.

Sure. The fact that these things have roles, does not make them the only parts of reason. For one, and we've went round and round on this before, deduction is not the only kind of reasoning.

I don't believe this counters my statement.

When did we go round and round on this issue?

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say with the first bit?

I believe that if the term agnostic is not used to describe only those who take the firm position that it is impossible to gain knowledge of god, it becomes meaningless.

Since the common usage of the word "agnostic" describes anyone who is "unsure", then common usage of the word is meaningless.

How does it not? I certainly haven't noticed any problems, but if you'd care to point some out I'd be happy to discuss it.

How do we get from this true perception to true knowledge if your skeptical estimation of reason is true.

Isn't all just interpretations of reality if our reason is not objective?

I believe that if the term agnostic is not used to describe only those who take the firm position that it is impossible to gain knowledge of god, it becomes meaningless.

Since the common usage of the word "agnostic" describes anyone who is "unsure", then common usage of the word is meaningless.

Wherever you are must have a different common usage for "agnostic" from wherever I am, then.

Who's knocking faith? Oh, wait, you. I would knock anyone for having faith, just for the silly notion that because they give more weight to a certain kind of faith than another, they are somehow superior thinkers. It's a judgement a claim not actually based on reason. It's possible your claim is more useful, but in truth as usefulness is being determined by the same claim that leads you to your faith, it's all rather circular.

Everyone makes the leap of faith regarding perception and knowledge, we have to. The usefulness of this has nothing to do with the value of agnosticism; it has everything to do with the value of consciousness.

However, once we ignore the skeptics and make this necessary leap, we can then begin to explore the material world. Through our observations of material process, we can decipher how the human mind works and thereby theorize about what the human mind can learn.

It is at this point that I think atheists and theists make an error, in that they assume we can know of the non-material (and/or that it matters). That does not imply that they are lesser thinkers.

No. Atheists say there is no proof. Agnostics say there can be no proof. And that is a much harder argument to make, yet you never see agnostics making it.

I think you've got that backwards.

Atheist means "no God." They actively disbelieve in God.

Agnostic means "no knowledge." They say simply "I don't know one way ore the other, so I hold no position."

Wherever you are must have a different common usage for "agnostic" from wherever I am, then.

What is its common usage?

How do we get from this true perception to true knowledge if your skeptical estimation of reason is true.

Isn't all just interpretations of reality if our reason is not objective?

Last time, we discussed concepts as being necessary for interpretation of reality, not reason. I don't see reason as being remotely necessary for interpreting reality or gaining knowledge. Simply creating a conceptual model without using rules of inference and rules of proof is certainly doable. I've done it myself at times.

It's hardly necessary to draw rational conclusions from truth when one already has attained it and/or has a method of attaining it. Reason is then simply a mental game one adds to perception and processing.

This is a very interesting debate. All started due to, apparently, a mistake on the part of the OP.

All right. Why can't there be many different 'sects' of Agnosticism, just like there are different sects of Christianity, or Islam.

Not all Agnostics have the exact same beliefs.

Last time, we discussed concepts as being necessary for interpretation of reality, not reason. I don't see reason as being remotely necessary for interpreting reality or gaining knowledge. Simply creating a conceptual model without using rules of inference and rules of proof is certainly doable. I've done it myself at times.

It's hardly necessary to draw rational conclusions from truth when one already has attained it and/or has a method of attaining it. Reason is then simply a mental game one adds to perception and processing.

I can hardly believe that. How have you created a conceptual model without rules of inference?

Wouldn't consciousness simply be a stream of atomistic sensory perceptions without reason. How does one establish relations between perceptions without reason, how does one even know what they are percieving without reason?

How does one form a model of everything when they are constantly bombarded with singular things?

how did it go?

they effectively decided that the rosetta stone didn't actually allow us to translate hieroglyphs. they also seemed a little confused when i explained this fact to them. i probably should have avoided telling them i was an atheist - i'm sure that'll give them all the cover they need to avoid actually looking into the matter.

What is its common usage?

Amongst those who know the term I've only ever heard it described as an acceptance by somebody that it's unlikely they'll ever know either way for sure.

Amongst those who don't know the term it would be impossibly to derive any common usage.

I can hardly believe that. How have you created a conceptual model without rules of inference?

Wouldn't consciousness simply be a stream of atomistic sensory perceptions without reason. How does one establish relations between perceptions without reason, how does one even know what they are percieving without reason?

How does one form a model of everything when they are constantly bombarded with singular things?

Perhaps our modes of perception are very different, but I can't recall being bombarded by singular things even when doing mental exercises that eliminated reason and scientific claims and concepts entirely. It could be that I simply don't see entities in discrete form, but always in connection with the rest of reality. I perceive relationships between entities, and those relationships exist just as much as the things themselves.

I hardly need rules of inference to connect and integrate that which is already connected and integrated. Why would I want a framework for interpreting reality when it already has a framework in place? Sure, it's amusing to use such frameworks, even instructional, but ultimately I simply have no more need of them.

Atheist means "no God." They actively disbelieve in God.
There's no action to my disbelief. It's not like I go out and say "I'm not going to believe in God today." My position comes from the position that until there is positive proof of a God, there's no reason to believe in one, nor is there any reason to search for said proof. If anything, it's static as opposed to active. I've got better things to think about.

Everyone makes the leap of faith regarding perception and knowledge, we have to. The usefulness of this has nothing to do with the value of agnosticism; it has everything to do with the value of consciousness.

However, once we ignore the skeptics and make this necessary leap, we can then begin to explore the material world. Through our observations of material process, we can decipher how the human mind works and thereby theorize about what the human mind can learn.

It is at this point that I think atheists and theists make an error, in that they assume we can know of the non-material (and/or that it matters). That does not imply that they are lesser thinkers.

Ah, yes, the not a little bit pompous claim that "my level of faith is acceptable but no farther". Unsurprisingly, you claim that not only that you are right, but that anyone disagreeing with you is unreasonable and irrational. I'm curious by what authority and/or absolute knowledge do you claim to know exactly what level of faith is acceptable?

Why, when there is no proof, do people believe in things with such ferocity? I can understand why people would believe in a god. They have been indoctrinated to that affect. However agnostics choose to go against the mainstream w/o proof and are often the fiercest defenders of their beliefs. I just think that it's all arrogant. Thoughts?

You're completely misunderstanding what an agnostic is. An agnostic (from the Greek a - meaning without and gnosis - meaning knowledge) is a person who states that there is no proof one way or the other as to the existence of a deity. I don't know where you get the idea that we're going against the mainstream without proof .

Amongst those who know the term I've only ever heard it described as an acceptance by somebody that it's unlikely they'll ever know either way for sure.

Amongst those who don't know the term it would be impossibly to derive any common usage.

Didn't I say that the common usage of the word agnostic typically meant "unsure"?

Perhaps our modes of perception are very different, but I can't recall being bombarded by singular things even when doing mental exercises that eliminated reason and scientific claims and concepts entirely. It could be that I simply don't see entities in discrete form, but always in connection with the rest of reality. I perceive relationships between entities, and those relationships exist just as much as the things themselves.

I hardly need rules of inference to connect and integrate that which is already connected and integrated. Why would I want a framework for interpreting reality when it already has a framework in place? Sure, it's amusing to use such frameworks, even instructional, but ultimately I simply have no more need of them.

No one makes an all-encompassing observation of an apple; they observe singular qualities of an apple and relate them to each other to form the idea of an apple.

We see its red skin, we feel is texture, we taste its sweetness. The idea of an apple is made of all these things, and they approach your brain as lone sensations and are made whole by reason.

Didn't I say that the common usage of the word agnostic typically meant "unsure"?

You did, but that's not what I said.

Ah, yes, the not a little bit pompous claim that "my level of faith is acceptable but no farther". Unsurprisingly, you claim that not only that you are right, but that anyone disagreeing with you is unreasonable and irrational. I'm curious by what authority and/or absolute knowledge do you claim to know exactly what level of faith is acceptable?

First off, agnosticism addresses knowledge, not faith. Agnosticism states that we cannot know god, and therefore belief or disbelief in god is based on something other than knowledge.

From this position, I suppose there can be true agnostic theists that admit they have no knowledge that causes them to believe in god, they simply believe because they want to believe. Perhaps this is the true christian, but from my understanding of myself, I cannot imagine someone who believes something without any evidence to provide reason to.

In the end, general epistemological skepticism creates a situation that faith can be used to hold any belief. Creationists, for example, hold their beliefs against a mountain of contrary evidence and cling to ancient texts that to me look like nothing more than mythology. To an extreme, I could believe I was god and hold that belief simply because I have faith, and there is no conclusive evidence that shows I am not. My near exclusive reliance on faith (I say "near" because I can take the solipsistic view that I know I have consciousness but I don't know that of you) would no doubt cause people to cause me to be irrational because faith is the absense of rationality.

So you would be very unfair to call me pompous for calling theistic and atheistic viewpoints irrational, considering that I don't believe that they have any evidence to support their viewpoint.

You did, but that's not what I said.

"it's unlikely they'll ever know either way for sure."

What did you mean when you said this?

"it's unlikely they'll ever know either way for sure."

What did you mean when you said this?

I didn't say that. I said "an acceptance by somebody that it's unlikely they'll ever know either way for sure." Don't selectively quote.

No one makes an all-encompassing observation of an apple;

True enough. Remember the idea of limited objectivity in my epistemology?

We see its red skin, we feel is texture, we taste its sweetness. The idea of an apple is made of all these things, and they approach your brain as lone sensations and are made whole by reason.

I just don't do that. Sometimes I add a property to a concept because of a further experience like taste, but I don't use reason to relate them. It just seems...redundant to relate that which is already related.

First off, agnosticism addresses knowledge, not faith. Agnosticism states that we cannot know god, and therefore belief or disbelief in god is based on something other than knowledge.

From this position, I suppose there can be true agnostic theists that admit they have no knowledge that causes them to believe in god, they simply believe because they want to believe. Perhaps this is the true christian, but from my understanding of myself, I cannot imagine someone who believes something without any evidence to provide reason to.

In the end, general epistemological skepticism creates a situation that faith can be used to hold any belief. Creationists, for example, hold their beliefs against a mountain of contrary evidence and cling to ancient texts that to me look like nothing more than mythology. To an extreme, I could believe I was god and hold that belief simply because I have faith, and there is no conclusive evidence that shows I am not. My near exclusive reliance on faith (I say "near" because I can take the solipsistic view that I know I have consciousness but I don't know that of you) would no doubt cause people to cause me to be irrational because faith is the absense of rationality.

So you would be very unfair to call me pompous for calling theistic and atheistic viewpoints irrational, considering that I don't believe that they have any evidence to support their viewpoint.
I suppose such reasoning is too much for a christian mind... :p

I just don't do that. Sometimes I add a property to a concept because of a further experience like taste, but I don't use reason to relate them. It just seems...redundant to relate that which is already related.you don't necessarily need to relate things consciously. your brain already does that for you.

I didn't say that. I said "an acceptance by somebody that it's unlikely they'll ever know either way for sure." Don't selectively quote.

Are you or are you not saying that the common usage of agnostic is one who accepts that they are unsure and will likely stay that way?

True enough. Remember the idea of limited objectivity in my epistemology?

No.

I just don't do that. Sometimes I add a property to a concept because of a further experience like taste, but I don't use reason to relate them. It just seems...redundant to relate that which is already related.

You don't percieve relationship, you deduce it.

You surely mean atheism; that is arrogant, as religious belief can be also. Agnosticism is not arrogant. Ignorant yes, but not arrogant.
Not everyone who believes in a God does so due to indoctrination. Many have thought it throught and felt the reality of God.

I can be very arrogant in my ignorance. Is there a God? I don't know! If you think you know, you're fooling yourself. I'd rather be admittedly ignorant than delusional ;)

I can be very arrogant in my ignorance. Is there a God? I don't know! If you think you know, you're fooling yourself. I'd rather be admittedly ignorant than delusional ;)

*Sighs* You know, there was a time when claiming certain knowledge of gods' existence could get your burned at the stake.

Where the hell did that go, and when was it replaced by the self-delusion of "Well, no, we really do know god(s) exist."

Are you or are you not saying that the common usage of agnostic is one who accepts that they are unsure and will likely stay that way?

I am not. The word "unsure" is incorrect in my definition. It's more "not knowing and content with it". Unsure implies "thinking towards one way but not being even near certain" or "unable to make one's mind up".

I am not. The word "unsure" is incorrect in my definition. It's more "not knowing and content with it". Unsure implies "thinking towards one way but not being even near certain" or "unable to make one's mind up".

I agree that agnosticism is accepting ignorance.

There are varying levels of "not knowing" and a great many people claim agnosticism on the ground that they feel a way but agree that they don't know.

To me that means they are "unsure" and I think that it ruins the agnostic position.

*Sighs* You know, there was a time when claiming certain knowledge of gods' existence could get your burned at the stake.

Where the hell did that go, and when was it replaced by the self-delusion of "Well, no, we really do know god(s) exist."

Uh. . . editformakingsenseplzkthxbye?

I agree that agnosticism is accepting ignorance.

There are varying levels of "not knowing" and a great many people claim agnosticism on the ground that they feel a way but agree that they don't know.

To me that means they are "unsure" and I think that it ruins the agnostic position.

I think you're taking extreme liberties with the meaning of "unsure".

Not necessarily.

Not at all.

I agree that agnosticism is accepting ignorance.

There are varying levels of "not knowing" and a great many people claim agnosticism on the ground that they feel a way but agree that they don't know.

To me that means they are "unsure" and I think that it ruins the agnostic position.
Preferring not to speculate means to be "unsure"? Not at all.

Why do you say there is no proof? There is plenty of proof Jesus, Mohammad and plenty of others existed. And the rolling away of the stone on Jesus's tomb is documented by the Romans, although they give no mention of resurrection. Do you beleive that humans are all here by accident, an evolutionary quark that has no purpose?

There is no independent and contemporary evidence of the existence of this 'Jesus' fellow.

What we do know, is that there are references to more than a dozen claimants to the title of 'messiah' in the general area that 'Jesus' is supposed to have been, at the general time that 'Jesus' is supposed to have lived.

However - all the evidence we have for this 'Jesus' fellow, is either written a generation after his alleged death, by followers of the nascent Christian faith, or written several generations later by persons slightly more removed.

Neither situation gives the prospect of especially reliable evidence.

As to 'evidence' of the rolling away of the stone - that one, like the 'crucifixion records' - is pure fabrication.

mormon missionaries knocked on your door and you talked to them?

I do. I invite them in, and discuss religion with them.

I did, anyway - they've stopped coming, now. :(

I do. I invite them in, and discuss religion with them.

I did, anyway - they've stopped coming, now. :(Because you tried to convince them what utter shit hey are?

Wherever you are must have a different common usage for "agnostic" from wherever I am, then.

It might not be a geography thing, but a 'technical' thing.

Many people use a 'lay' definition of 'agnostic' to mean something along the lines of "I'm not sure there is a God".

The problem is - that position isn't strictly accurate as a descriptor. A person who thinks there is no way to know there is a god, might still believe there is - an agnostic theist. Or they might believe that lack of certainty is enough to make them unable to accept the idea of a god - an agnostic atheist.

Agnosticism is a modifier - it describes something about the question of belief, but doesn't speak to either belief or disbelief.

Because you tried to convince them what utter shit hey are?

Not at all, I'm very reasonable, I think. I actually find the Witnesses more 'clued up' than most other varieties of Christians, most of the time - since they actively read scripture. I certainly agree more with their approach to merging religion and politics (they don't - they accept that they are of a different 'kingdom' - a spiritual kingdom, rather than this mundane one).

I look at conversations I've had with other denominations (like a Southern Baptist who explained to me about the Holy Trinity - Father, Son, Holy Ghost, and Holy Spirit - and compare... Witnesses aren't doing too bad, at the moment.

Of course, I still think they are wrong on many things - not least the ideas of 'god' and 'messiah'... but at least I like their approach.

I think you've got that backwards.

Atheist means "no God." They actively disbelieve in God.

Agnostic means "no knowledge." They say simply "I don't know one way ore the other, so I hold no position."

I'm an atheist.

The kind of atheist I am, is described as 'Implicit Atheism'. This is a lack of faith in a god, not a faith that there is a lack.

Some believe there are definitely no gods - these would be the Explicit Atheists.

Most Atheists just simply don't buy into the idea that there ARE gods - these would be the Implicit Atheists.

The difference is a statement of faith.

Not at all, I'm very reasonable, I think. I actually find the Witnesses more 'clued up' than most other varieties of Christians, most of the time - since they actively read scripture. I certainly agree more with their approach to merging religion and politics (they don't - they accept that they are of a different 'kingdom' - a spiritual kingdom, rather than this mundane one).

I look at conversations I've had with other denominations (like a Southern Baptist who explained to me about the Holy Trinity - Father, Son, Holy Ghost, and Holy Spirit - and compare... Witnesses aren't doing too bad, at the moment.

Of course, I still think they are wrong on many things - not least the ideas of 'god' and 'messiah'... but at least I like their approach.
What approach? They believe in the Jew-ish god that was fabricated by Jewish "scholars". I don't see how a certain approach would make any difference.

No.



You don't percieve relationship, you deduce it.

Would say that man is the only animal capable of reason? Because by your definition pretty much everything reasons all the time, and it's essentially equal to perceiving.

What approach? They believe in the Jew-ish god that was fabricated by Jewish "scholars". I don't see how a certain approach would make any difference.

Yes, the always faithful UB and his "I can prove there's no God" claims. Your claims are substantial as claims there is evidence of the rock being rolled away.

Yes, the always faithful UB and his "I can prove there's no God" claims. Your claims are substantial as claims there is evidence of the rock being rolled away.

What rock?

What rock?

Why do you say there is no proof? There is plenty of proof Jesus, Mohammad and plenty of others existed. And the rolling away of the stone on Jesus's tomb is documented by the Romans, although they give no mention of resurrection. Do you beleive that humans are all here by accident, an evolutionary quark that has no purpose?



when jesus died it was just before the start of the sabbath so they took him off the cross and laid him in a cave tomb "as was". then they rolled a boulder across the front of the tomb to close it and keep graverobbers/jesus enthusiasts away. (how big a rock that might be i dont know) the morning after the sabbath the women went to the tomb to do those things one does to a dead body to prepare them properly for burial. when they got there, the rock was rolled away and the tomb was empty.

when jesus died it was just before the start of the sabbath so they took him off the cross and laid him in a cave tomb "as was". then they rolled a boulder across the front of the tomb to close it and keep graverobbers/jesus enthusiasts away. (how big a rock that might be i dont know) the morning after the sabbath the women went to the tomb to do those things one does to a dead body to prepare them properly for burial. when they got there, the rock was rolled away and the tomb was empty.

So no one actually saw the rock being rolled away?

So no one actually saw the rock being rolled away?

See Jethro Tull's Hymn 43 (http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Jethro-Tull/Hymn-43.html)

Why do you say there is no proof? There is plenty of proof Jesus, Mohammad and plenty of others existed. And the rolling away of the stone on Jesus's tomb is documented by the Romans, although they give no mention of resurrection. Do you beleive that humans are all here by accident, an evolutionary quark that has no purpose?

Depends on how accuate you feel that information is.


Yes, we're an accident with no pre-defined purpose. Your point?

So no one actually saw the rock being rolled away?

well im not going to look it up, there are 4 different versions, but they had a guard posted, and an angel was there in at least one version. i think the angel took credit.

what there isnt is a non-biblical source from that time that supports any detail of any story of the life of jesus from the star that led the wise men to his birth to the angel moving the stone.

Preferring not to speculate means to be "unsure"? Not at all.

Indifference does not mean unsure, and I can't complain about agnostics who simply do not care about the religion question.

Why do people have to tie such specific meanings to the word agnostic? It's actually a very broad and flexible term.

Would say that man is the only animal capable of reason? Because by your definition pretty much everything reasons all the time, and it's essentially equal to perceiving.

Reason is not monopolized by humans, but it is greatly enhanced by our complex mental capabilities.

Reason and perception are quite different things, even though I would not argue one to be less naturalistic or material than the other. I would argue that reason is impossible without perception and is inseparable because of it.

Why do people have to tie such specific meanings to the word agnostic? It's actually a very broad and flexible term.

It is important to set a meaningful definition of the term.

Indifference does not mean unsure, and I can't complain about agnostics who simply do not care about the religion question.Agnosticism is not indifference.

when jesus died it was just before the start of the sabbath so they took him off the cross and laid him in a cave tomb "as was". then they rolled a boulder across the front of the tomb to close it and keep graverobbers/jesus enthusiasts away. (how big a rock that might be i dont know) the morning after the sabbath the women went to the tomb to do those things one does to a dead body to prepare them properly for burial. when they got there, the rock was rolled away and the tomb was empty.graverobbers/jesus enthusiasts ?

graverobbers/jesus enthusiasts ?

2 different groups that might want to mess with the body

It is important to set a meaningful definition of the term.

that is best done with modifiers because agnostics range from those who dont know and dont care to those who have thought it through and believe that there is no way to know anything about god.

What approach? They believe in the Jew-ish god that was fabricated by Jewish "scholars". I don't see how a certain approach would make any difference.

The 'approach' is simply in their approach to the 'evidence'. They actually study the scripture in weekly meetings; they analyse the text in light of both the time it was written, and the implications of the native languages; they observe far less 'tradition'; they accept far fewer of the assumptions I've seen in others - example: the unity of Jesus and 'God' as aspects of one being.

I still think they are barking up the wrong Joshua Tree, but I think they are, at least, making a more convincing attempt at rational assesment.

It is important to set a meaningful definition of the term.
Not if it's a name of a group rather than a concept. If Agnosticism is exactly that group of people that call themselves Agnostics (as would increasingly seem to be the case) then it can be as vague and imprecise as the Agnostics themselves wish it to be.

(how big a rock that might be i dont know)
Don't forget; they had no heavy lifting equipment back then. Any rock moved into place had to have been put there by working hands. So it can't have been too big.

2 different groups that might want to mess with the body :rolleyes: ... when they got there, the rock was rolled away and the tomb was empty ...

Don't forget; they had no heavy lifting equipment back then. Any rock moved into place had to have been put there by working hands. So it can't have been too big.

yeah. all my images of the tomb are influenced by modern media. i dont know if it was a small opening that had to be almost crawled through, which would make the rock big but handlable by a few men or it was an opening that could be walked through meaning that it was as heavy as many men could handle.

The 'approach' is simply in their approach to the 'evidence'. They actually study the scripture in weekly meetings; they analyse the text in light of both the time it was written, and the implications of the native languages; they observe far less 'tradition'; they accept far fewer of the assumptions I've seen in others - example: the unity of Jesus and 'God' as aspects of one being.
I still think they are barking up the wrong Joshua Tree, but I think they are, at least, making a more convincing attempt at rational assesment.But the problem is the 'evidence' they try to use. They only stay inside the biblical text. Yes, they try to analyze the text in light of both the time it was written, and the implications of the native languages, but they just don't do what would be necessary to really verify any aspect of the text: compare it with other, non-biblical, non-Jewish sources. As long as they don't do that, all their reasoning is pointless.

:rolleyes: ... when they got there, the rock was rolled away and the tomb was empty ...

yuppers

i think you have to have an angel in there though to make it not be a story about grave robbing or fraud.

Agnosticism is not indifference.

Why not?

Not if it's a name of a group rather than a concept. If Agnosticism is exactly that group of people that call themselves Agnostics (as would increasingly seem to be the case) then it can be as vague and imprecise as the Agnostics themselves wish it to be.

The unfortunate thing is that many self-described agnostics use a definition that allows (nearly) all people to be an agnostic, including the most devout theists.

yuppers

i think you have to have an angel in there though to make it not be a story about grave robbing or fraud.
You're missing the conspiracy theory option of course - namely, that the Roman Guard did it (moved or destroyed the body) to stir up dischord within the increasingly rebellious Israeli people so as to enable military action to bring the region firmly under control. Just one of a number of other options.

You're missing the conspiracy theory option of course - namely, that the Roman Guard did it (moved or destroyed the body) to stir up dischord within the increasingly rebellious Israeli people so as to enable military action to bring the region firmly under control. Just one of a number of other options.
what Israeli people?

You're missing the conspiracy theory option of course - namely, that the Roman Guard did it (moved or destroyed the body) to stir up dischord within the increasingly rebellious Israeli people so as to enable military action to bring the region firmly under control. Just one of a number of other options.

very true.

im of the camp that says it never happened at all but if one accepts the story there are many possibilities.

what Israeli people?
The Jewish people in the area of Palestine during the Roman occupation there. I called them Israelis simply because it's easier than "The Children of Israel" or "The people previously living in the land called Israel". If there's an issue with that, we can think of a better collective identifier.

The Jewish people in the area of Palestine during the Roman occupation there. I called them Israelis simply because it's easier than "The Children of Israel" or "The people previously living in the land called Israel". If there's an issue with that, we can think of a better collective identifier.The Jewish people in the area of Palestine during the Roman occupation there are called Jews, or Judaeans, if you wish. Israelis are the citizens of that state that was founded in Palestine in 1948.

I'm a proud fundamentalist militatristic agnostic...my outlook on the universe is: "whatever"

But the problem is the 'evidence' they try to use. They only stay inside the biblical text. Yes, they try to analyze the text in light of both the time it was written, and the implications of the native languages, but they just don't do what would be necessary to really verify any aspect of the text: compare it with other, non-biblical, non-Jewish sources. As long as they don't do that, all their reasoning is pointless.

But, looking at it from their point of view - it is only logical to stick to canonical biblical texts:

1) There is nothing contemporary EXCEPT biblical texts - and they aren't that contemporary.

2) Nothing else mentions the history they are talking about. Thus, they either have to figure some kind of satanic conspiracy, or they have to assume 'Jesus' is less than totally factual. Some Christians might decide the text is cloured by human perception - others go for the 'Bible is right, everything else is wrong' approach.

3) They believe the Bible is dictated/inspired by God. It is only logical they would use it as the key source on the matter. Of course - since I don't accept that base premise, I have a host of problems with their angle.


I think it is 'wrong' to look at any one source in isolation, but - if we assume that is okay to start with, in this case - the Witness approach to the 'evidence' isn't as bad as many others.

No.

Then go back and read the thread.

You don't percieve relationship, you deduce it.

Ok...so when I experience myself falling towards the ground after leaping off of a fence, I'm not perceiving a relationship between myself and the ground, just deducing it? When I feel a relationship between myself and another person, I'm deducing that there is a relationship?

You're going to have to explain that one further.

Ok...so when I experience myself falling towards the ground after leaping off of a fence, I'm not perceiving a relationship between myself and the ground, just deducing it? When I feel a relationship between myself and another person, I'm deducing that there is a relationship?

You're going to have to explain that one further.

I don't really see how that works. Deduction requires some form of analysis. Most of the time when we make perceptions about the world around us, our actions are just instant reactions to what we perceive. There's no thought behind it. You more often than not don't have the bloody time to deduce and analyze everything.

Then go back and read the thread.



Ok...so when I experience myself falling towards the ground after leaping off of a fence, I'm not perceiving a relationship between myself and the ground, just deducing it? When I feel a relationship between myself and another person, I'm deducing that there is a relationship?

You're going to have to explain that one further.

Of course, it completely changes the meaning of the word "deduction". The majority of animals are not capable of reason at any real level. To define it this way is just an attempt to change the meaning so it's impossible for him to be wrong. With this definition what ISN'T reason?

Of course, it completely changes the meaning of the word "deduction". The majority of animals are not capable of reason at any real level. To define it this way is just an attempt to change the meaning so it's impossible for him to be wrong. With this definition what ISN'T reason?

Split-second knee jerk reactions based on stimuli. There's no reason that goes into that, at least no reason that's actually deduced in the moment. You can analyze it all you want after the fact, but the action itself was simply an issue of perception and reaction.

Split-second knee jerk reactions based on stimuli. There's no reason that goes into that, at least no reason that's actually deduced in the moment. You can analyze it all you want after the fact, but the action itself was simply an issue of perception and reaction.

In all seriousness, reason is something we do actively. Turning it into a reflexive process is counter-productive and takes all usefulness out of the word. If we're going to make it the the passive process then we're left with nothing to describe the actual process of active reasoning. What do we call it? Super reasoning?

In all seriousness, reason is something we do actively. Turning it into a reflexive process is counter-productive and takes all usefulness out of the word. If we're going to make it the the passive process then we're left with nothing to describe the actual process of active reasoning. What do we call it? Super reasoning?

Couldn't it be argued that all of our processes - even our active processes - are actually reflexive? How do I know that my action is not pure reaction? After all - I have nothing to compare it against.

...

I just thought I would mention that your new signature is quite apt for a religion and agnosticism thread. Intentional or no?

Couldn't it be argued that all of our processes - even our active processes - are actually reflexive? How do I know that my action is not pure reaction? After all - I have nothing to compare it against.

Even if you argue that, reason was meant to be descriptive of a process that is not what is Vittos is pointing to. It's like saying walking was meant to describe sliding down a hill.

EDIT: And your signature is wrong and I can prove it scientifically using the Bible and seven letters from the Chinese alphabet.

I just thought I would mention that your new signature is quite apt for a religion and agnosticism thread. Intentional or no?

Actually - it was this thread that made me think of it.

I've noticed that there are always a lot of signatures that feel comfortable expressly stating opinions one way... preaching Jehovah, or Allah, or whichever. For the most part, it inspires no comment - it is okay to use your signature to preach an uncontested commentary on theological matters. But the 'other way' doesn't get the same representation.

Anyone who knows me, knows I'm more of the 'Implicit' Atheist variety, but the 'explicit' statement is punchier, and serves the same purpose.

And, of course, given that most of my posts usually are in religion-type threads, it should be relevent for most of my material. :)

Actually - it was this thread that made me think of it.

I've noticed that there are always a lot of signatures that feel comfortable expressly stating opinions one way... preaching Jehovah, or Allah, or whichever. For the most part, it inspires no comment - it is okay to use your signature to preach an uncontested commentary on theological matters. But the 'other way' doesn't get the same representation.

Anyone who knows me, knows I'm more of the 'Implicit' Atheist variety, but the 'explicit' statement is punchier, and serves the same purpose.

And, of course, given that most of my posts usually are in religion-type threads, it should be relevent for most of my material. :)

I would like to note that my signatures tend to lampoon those, as I am about to do with yours.

Even if you argue that, reason was meant to be descriptive of a process that is not what is Vittos is pointing to. It's like saying walking was meant to describe sliding down a hill.

EDIT: And your signature is wrong and I can prove it scientifically using the Bible and seven letters from the Chinese alphabet.

Ah - but can we show that walking is empirically different to sliding down hill? I've walked on snowy hills before, and I'm inclined to believe the two things are often one and the same, no? Is the difference real, or perceptive?

Is 'reason' something we can empirically show is peculiar to humans? Is more than reflex? Is 'active' any more than any other process?

EDIT: Yes, that's kind of what I was hoping for. The requirement for evidence... the perceived 'need' for Atheism to 'defend' itself... the assumption that anything can ever be conclusively held to be 'true'.

I would like to note that my signatures tend to lampoon those, as I am about to do with yours.

Excellent. Of course, your signature is now demonstrably incorrect, for a number of reasons...

One: Dread Pirate Roberts may or may not exist outside of the confines of one of the great canonical texts.

Two: The great canonical text in question, is set in a prior time - and thus, even if true then, it would not necessarily hold true now.

Three: Surely the whole point is that there is not 'a' Dread Pirate Roberts?

Excellent. Of course, your signature is now demonstrably incorrect, for a number of reasons...

One: Dread Pirate Roberts may or may not exist outside of the confines of one of the great canonical texts.

Two: The great canonical text in question, is set in a prior time - and thus, even if true then, it would not necessarily hold true now.

Three: Surely the whole point is that there is not 'a' Dread Pirate Roberts?

1) We can theorize on his existence based on our trust in the veracity of said great canonical text.

2) If a Dread Pirate Roberts existed once, then he must continue to exist onwards in one of his many forms. This is his nature.

3) Yes, but there is only 'a' Dread Pirate Roberts at any given time.

I've thought this through :D.

1) We can theorize on his existence based on our trust in the veracity of said great canonical text.

2) If a Dread Pirate Roberts existed once, then he must continue to exist onwards in one of his many forms. This is his nature.

3) Yes, but there is only 'a' Dread Pirate Roberts at any given time.

I've thought this through :D.

ohforgodssake!

are pirates even MENTIONED In the bible let alone dread pirate roberts? if its not in the bible, it doesnt exist.

ohforgodssake!

are pirates even MENTIONED In the bible let alone dread pirate roberts? if its not in the bible, it doesnt exist.

Do you really want me to start comparing religion to LSD again? :D

1) We can theorize on his existence based on our trust in the veracity of said great canonical text.

2) If a Dread Pirate Roberts existed once, then he must continue to exist onwards in one of his many forms. This is his nature.

3) Yes, but there is only 'a' Dread Pirate Roberts at any given time.

I've thought this through :D.

1) The problem with that particular canonical text is it's lack of internal claim to truth. It is also not written from the perspective of Dread Pirate Roberts, and makes no claims to being inspired by the Dread Pirate Roberts.

2) An assumption that can't be supported, unfortunately. For all we can honestly know, Montoya is the last living embodiment of the Dread Pirate Roberts... and even that is speculative.

3) With the qualifier of 'at any given time' your sugnature might have been true-er, but without it, it is obviously flawed. Further - even [i]with[/ui] that qualifier, one can assume there are often two Dread Pirate Robertses... (Dread Pirate Robert's? Dread Pirate Roberti? Dread Pirates Robert?) during the transition period. A wise philosopher once wrote: "Always two, there are..."

1) The problem with that particular canonical text is it's lack of internal claim to truth. It is also not written from the perspective of Dread Pirate Roberts, and makes no claims to being inspired by the Dread Pirate Roberts.

2) An assumption that can't be supported, unfortunately. For all we can honestly know, Montoya is the last living embodiment of the Dread Pirate Roberts... and even that is speculative.

3) With the qualifier of 'at any given time' your sugnature might have been true-er, but without it, it is obviously flawed. Further - even [i]with[/ui] that qualifier, one can assume there are often two Dread Pirate Robertses... (Dread Pirate Robert's? Dread Pirate Roberti? Dread Pirates Robert?) during the transition period. A wise philosopher once wrote: "Always two, there are..."

1) But that's just it. It's a narrative text detailing the life of one Dread Pirate Roberts and his close followers. While it makes no claim to its own truth, one must assume that, unless the narrator has invented some kind of fiction, for what reason I can't fathom, or he is chronicling actual events that he has an account of or has been witness to. Perhaps Montoya himself has written the text.

2) Ah, but if it is the lot of any Dread Pirate Roberts to pass on the mantle of Dread Pirate Robertshood to a successor, then one must assume that unless he met an untimely death and was unable to, he passed it on, and the line may very well continue til today.

3) And yet one Dread Pirate Roberts, in giving the mantle to the next, must in turn lose his status as Dread Pirate Roberts. The transition must be instantaneous. In the words of a wise, immortalized philosopher: "There can be only one..."

Do you really want me to start comparing religion to LSD again? :D

lol

only if that is what is making you see pirates

lol

only if that is what is making you see pirates

heh

I've discovered that once I sink into the mindset of reductio ad absurdum, I can't get out. I'm thinking exclusively in absurdities.

1) But that's just it. It's a narrative text detailing the life of one Dread Pirate Roberts and his close followers. While it makes no claim to its own truth, one must assume that, unless the narrator has invented some kind of fiction, for what reason I can't fathom, or he is chronicling actual events that he has an account of or has been witness to. Perhaps Montoya himself has written the text.

2) Ah, but if it is the lot of any Dread Pirate Roberts to pass on the mantle of Dread Pirate Robertshood to a successor, then one must assume that unless he met an untimely death and was unable to, he passed it on, and the line may very well continue til today.

3) And yet one Dread Pirate Roberts, in giving the mantle to the next, must in turn lose his status as Dread Pirate Roberts. The transition must be instantaneous. In the words of a wise, immortalized philosopher: "There can be only one..."

1) While - obviously - I wouldn't personally question the veracity of such a text, it could be argued by the heathen, that the text is only as reliable as can be either: a) correlated with other evidences, or b) a weaker form of 'evidence' in it;s own internal claims of accuracy?

We have obstacles to this, obviously - not least being the fact that 'the text' is clearly a record of an oral tradition repeating an earlier text.

2) The problem is, we can be fairly certain of a Prime Roberts, a first agent with a finite and defined START point. That which is born, can also die. We cannot be guaranteed the perpetuity of Dread Pirate Roberts, because we can be (reasonably) sure there hasn't always been a Dread Pirate Roberts.

3) Valid argument - if we assume that one can instantaneously yeild 'Dread Pirate Roberts-ness'. Again, though - this is speculative. The Westley codex strongly suggests that there is only the perception of an instantaneous change of status, and that there are often prolonged periods during which there are effectively two 'entities' with the right properties to be considered 'Dread Pirate Roberts', although only one of them is perceived as Dread Pirate Roberts at any given point.

After all, to (mis)quote another of the philosphers: "...[Dread Pirate Roberts] is as [Dread Pirate Roberts] does"

Think about this:

Would you rather believe in God and find out he doesn't exist or not believe in God and find out he does?

Common sense. The whole debtae about deduction and whatever went right over my head, but with all your knowledge and logical abilities, you should be able to deduce the right course of action, right? Common sense.


Oh, and science and proven facts hardly explain anything at all in the universe. Heck, we don't even know if an atom EXISTS because we can't even see them. There are ways to show that SOMETHING is there, but no way to show that it is an atom. If you take a good look at it, science is simply one big postulate. Many scientists become Christians because there simply is no other way to explain some things.

ohforgodssake!

are pirates even MENTIONED In the bible let alone dread pirate roberts? if its not in the bible, it doesnt exist.

Silly. :)

This 'bible' of which you speak isn't mentioned in any of the scared texts describing the Dread Pirate Roberts. If it doesn't make it into the Westley Gospels, or the Acts of Montoya... what kind of faith can we place in it's relevence?

Would you rather believe in God and find out he doesn't exist or not believe in God and find out he does?


False dichotomy.

You assume (without any rationale for that assumption) that there are only two alternatives.

How about if you 'believe in God'... and it then turns out you followed the wrong one, and are now condemned to some kind of yukky (eternal?) punishment?

Silly. :)

This 'bible' of which you speak isn't mentioned in any of the scared texts describing the Dread Pirate Roberts. If it doesn't make it into the Westley Gospels, or the Acts of Montoya... what kind of faith can we place in it's relevence?

Let thee not forget the Revelation of Andre the Giant. ArrrMen.

1) While - obviously - I wouldn't personally question the veracity of such a text, it could be argued by the heathen, that the text is only as reliable as can be either: a) correlated with other evidences, or b) a weaker form of 'evidence' in it;s own internal claims of accuracy?

We have obstacles to this, obviously - not least being the fact that 'the text' is clearly a record of an oral tradition repeating an earlier text.

2) The problem is, we can be fairly certain of a Prime Roberts, a first agent with a finite and defined START point. That which is born, can also die. We cannot be guaranteed the perpetuity of Dread Pirate Roberts, because we can be (reasonably) sure there hasn't always been a Dread Pirate Roberts.

3) Valid argument - if we assume that one can instantaneously yeild 'Dread Pirate Roberts-ness'. Again, though - this is speculative. The Westley codex strongly suggests that there is only the perception of an instantaneous change of status, and that there are often prolonged periods during which there are effectively two 'entities' with the right properties to be considered 'Dread Pirate Roberts', although only one of them is perceived as Dread Pirate Roberts at any given point.

After all, to (mis)quote another of the philosphers: "...[Dread Pirate Roberts] is as [Dread Pirate Roberts] does"

1) And herein lies the rub of the Westley Codex. For in the end, once one has exalted all resources in the search for further affirmation of the existence of Dread Pirate Roberts, one is forced to rely on an article of faith in the truth of the Codex itself. It is the one failing of the Codex, and the one avenue for a heathen profession of the lack of existence of Dread Pirate Roberts.

2) Ah, but can we? For, in The Princess Bride, Westley himself merely discussed the words previous Dread Pirate Roberts who merely discussed the words of his predecessor, and no mention of a Prime Roberts was given. We might therefore assume, by extrapolation, that the line could continue on into antiquity, possibly even to the very moment when pen was first put to paper.

3) The ability or inability of Dread Pirate Roberts to relinguish his status instantaneously is not for me to know.

Silly. :)

This 'bible' of which you speak isn't mentioned in any of the scared texts describing the Dread Pirate Roberts. If it doesn't make it into the Westley Gospels, or the Acts of Montoya... what kind of faith can we place in it's relevence?

sigh

my point was so much easier to make back when the puritans got started and life wasnt all that much different from whats in the bible.


all i have is a rob reiner apocryphal video.

Think about this:

Would you rather believe in God and find out he doesn't exist or not believe in God and find out he does?

Common sense. The whole debtae about deduction and whatever went right over my head, but with all your knowledge and logical abilities, you should be able to deduce the right course of action, right? Common sense.


Oh, and science and proven facts hardly explain anything at all in the universe. Heck, we don't even know if an atom EXISTS because we can't even see them. There are ways to show that SOMETHING is there, but no way to show that it is an atom. If you take a good look at it, science is simply one big postulate. Many scientists become Christians because there simply is no other way to explain some things.

if it were a 50/50 proposition i might go for it even with the obvious problem of pretending faith.

however the chances that god exists (especially a specific god as in the christian faith) is much less than that ill win the lottery or be struck by lightning every day for a year.

so yeah, im willing to take the risk.

Ah, but can we? For, in The Princess Bride, Westley himself merely discussed the words previous Dread Pirate Roberts who merely discussed the words of his predecessor, and no mention of a Prime Roberts was given. We might therefore assume, by extrapolation, that the line could continue on into antiquity, possibly even to the very moment when pen was first put to paper.


Allowing the other points... here we hit upon a conflict in the basic assumptions.

And I quote:

"Roberts had grown so rich, he wanted to retire. He took me to his cabin and he told me his secret. 'I am not the Dread Pirate Roberts' he said. 'My name is Ryan; I inherited the ship from the previous Dread Pirate Roberts, just as you will inherit it from me. The man I inherited it from is not the real Dread Pirate Roberts either. His name was Cummerbund. The real Roberts has been retired 15 years and living like a king in Patagonia."

Unless we are going to start doubting the veracity of the Westley accounts, we have to accept that - in all likelihood - there indeed had been a 'Prime Roberts'. No?

False dichotomy.
You assume (without any rationale for that assumption) that there are only two alternatives.
How about if you 'believe in God'... and it then turns out you followed the wrong one, and are now condemned to some kind of yukky (eternal?) punishment?Well, if you're Jewish, Christian, or Muslim,and have only followed one god, and this one is the fake one, then you're just screwed once you meet the real gods on judgement day (or whenever)Yet, there is another dimension to it when it comes to Judaism and the religions based on it. We just don't know about the accuracy of other ancient faiths and religions, but we do know that at one point in history a group of people just made up Judaism by arbitrarily taking bits and pieces from other religions and assembling them to form a new, mono-theistic, mono-ethnic, Jew-ish religion, that should distinguish its followers from all others.

Well, if you're Jewish, Christian, or Muslim,and have only followed one god, and this one is the fake one, then you're just screwed once you meet the real gods on judgement day (or whenever)

Christians, at least, are saved from that horrible 'monotheistic' trap, to a certain extent - since they openly profess both polytheistic (Trinity) inclinations, and belief in duality ('Satan' as 'adversary' of 'god').

But, yes - that's the point I'm making - the whole argument that it is 'better to believe in god' assumes (baselessly) that we can know which one to believe in.

Allowing the other points... here we hit upon a conflict in the basic assumptions.

And I quote:



Unless we are going to start doubting the veracity of the Westley accounts, we have to accept that - in all likelihood - there indeed had been a 'Prime Roberts'. No?

Heh, this proves conclusively that I have no read Princess Bride in a loooong time.

I tip my hat to you.

Heh, this proves conclusively that I have no read Princess Bride in a loooong time.

I tip my hat to you.

What it actually proves is: I am incredibly anal about the tiniest details, and have been blessed/cursed with the gift/disorder of being able to remember the most important/unimportant details.

Touche - your Cappo Ferra might have succeeded, if I hadn't studied my Agrippa. Which I have. :)

Christians, at least, are saved from that horrible 'monotheistic' trap, to a certain extent - since they openly profess both polytheistic (Trinity) inclinations, and belief in duality ('Satan' as 'adversary' of 'god').
But, yes - that's the point I'm making - the whole argument that it is 'better to believe in god' assumes (baselessly) that we can know which one to believe in.Yet, there is still another dimension to it when it comes to Judaism and the religions based on it. We do not know about the accuracy of other ancient religions, but we do know that at some point in history Judaism was made up by arbitrarily assembling bits and pieces of other, older traditions to create a new, mono-theistic, mono-ethnic, specifically Jew-ish religion that should distinguish its followers from and valorize above all other living humans. Because of its genesis through fabrication the possibility of Judaism being accurate is exactly zero. There Is No Biblical God. Really.

What it actually proves is: I am incredibly anal about the tiniest details, and have been blessed/cursed with the gift/disorder of being able to remember the most important/unimportant details.

Touche - your Cappo Ferra might have succeeded, if I hadn't studied my Agrippa. Which I have. :)

It's too bad I really am left handed ;)

Yet, there is still another dimension to it when it comes to Judaism and the religions based on it. We do not know about the accuracy of other ancient religions, but we do know that at some point in history Judaism was made up by arbitrarily assembling bits and pieces of other, older traditions to create a new, mono-theistic, mono-ethnic, specifically Jew-ish religion that should distinguish its followers from and valorize above all other living humans.

Not entirely accurate. What we do know is that Judaism was likely a henotheistic religion before it settled on monotheism.

Yet, there is still another dimension to it when it comes to Judaism and the religions based on it. We do not know about the accuracy of other ancient religions, but we do know that at some point in history Judaism was made up by arbitrarily assembling bits and pieces of other, older traditions to create a new, mono-theistic, mono-ethnic, specifically Jew-ish religion that should distinguish its followers from and valorize above all other living humans.

Not strictly true... close examination of the Hebrew text (strongly) suggests that the Hebrew tradition itself was originally polytheistic.

Now - I'm not arguing that the earliest form of Hebrew religion was entirely original - I still suspect it was strongly based on it's earlier Mespotamian relatives, but it wasn't born as a monotheistic religion.

Not entirely accurate. What we do know is that Judaism was likely a henotheistic religion before it settled on monotheism.And then there is of course all the re-defining of history by claiming that such ancient folks as Adam, Noah, or Abraham were essentially Jew-ish, although far and wide no such concept existed back then. It's like claiming that the Sumerians were in fact Scientologists, although we know that this crap could not have predated its originator.

Not strictly true... close examination of the Hebrew text (strongly) suggests that the Hebrew tradition itself was originally polytheistic.
Now - I'm not arguing that the earliest form of Hebrew religion was entirely original - I still suspect it was strongly based on it's earlier Mespotamian relatives, but it wasn't born as a monotheistic religion.But Judaism claims it was, which is the point where it loses all credibility.

And then there is of course all the re-defining of history by claiming that such ancient folks as Adam, Noah, or Abraham were essentially Jew-ish, although far and wide no such concept existed back then. It's like claiming that the Sumerians were in fact Scientologists, although we know that this crap could not have predated its originator.

I'm not making that claim. I'm not even redefining history. There is evidence that at one point Adam and Eve may have been worshipped in their own right.

But Judaism claims it was, which is the point where it loses all credibility.

I don't think one can judge the veracity of a source by what is later said about it.

I have other reasons for not really buying into any of the incarnations of the Hebrew/Judeo-Christian story, based on what is present in the text(s).

I'm not making that claim. I'm not even redefining history.Of course not you. I referred to Judaism.

There is evidence that at one point Adam and Eve may have been worshipped in their own right.Which could not really be considered Jew-ish, could it?

I don't think one can judge the veracity of a source by what is later said about it.What do you mean by "what is later said about it" ?

I have other reasons for not really buying into any of the incarnations of the Hebrew/Judeo-Christian story, based on what is present in the text(s).What would that be? The text itself or its currently fashionable interpretation(s) ?

Of course not you. I referred to Judaism.

Which could not really be considered Jew-ish, could it?

Ah, ok. I wasn't sure who you were directing that at.

No, they wouldn't be Jewish. They would be a form of worship Judaism is derivative of, but they wouldn't be what we could point at and call Jewish.

What do you mean by "what is later said about it" ?


With reference to: "But Judaism claims it was, which is the point where it loses all credibility".

Analysis of the text shows that the text is not one consistent body, written to be cohesive. Later interpretations might argue that, later editorials might argue that - but the text can be seen to 'evolve'.

Thus, 'what is later said about it' shouldn't influence our (chronological) analysis of the subject matter.


What would that be? The text itself or its currently fashionable interpretation(s) ?

Both. Either.

Ah, ok. I wasn't sure who you were directing that at.
No, they wouldn't be Jewish. They would be a form of worship Judaism is derivative of, but they wouldn't be what we could point at and call Jewish.Judaism claims to be no derivative of any other form of worship. It claims to be original by claiming that the target as well as the form of worship had always been the same (and as the bible/torah/tanakh describes them) from the very beginning of humanity. Which is obviously a willful lie.

With reference to: "But Judaism claims it was, which is the point where it loses all credibility".
Analysis of the text shows that the text is not one consistent body, written to be cohesive. Later interpretations might argue that, later editorials might argue that - but the text can be seen to 'evolve'.
Thus, 'what is later said about it' shouldn't influence our (chronological) analysis of the subject matter.I rather refer to what the text itself describes.

Judaism claims to be no derivative of any other form of worship. It claims to be original by claiming that the target as well as the form of worship had always been the same (and as the bible/torah/tanakh describes them) from the very beginning of humanity. Which is obviously a willful lie.

Based on everything I've read about the history of the region Judaism comes from, that claim is horseshit.

Based on everything I've read about the history of the region Judaism comes from, that claim is horseshit.I would not characterize the religions of the ancient Middle East and subsequently the Mediterranean as horseshit, but I would indeed classify Judaism and its derivates thusly.

I rather refer to what the text itself describes.

And the error there, is in assuming the whole thing is one cohesive text.

I would not characterize the religions of the ancient Middle East and subsequently the Mediterranean as horseshit, but I would indeed classify Judaism and its derivates thusly.

You misunderstand. I pass judgement no none of those religions. However, the claim the Judaism is a purely original religion, based on archaeological information that we have of the region, is pure horseshit.

And the error there, is in assuming the whole thing is one cohesive text.Which is not my error. ;) The much graver error is to draw a cohesive theology from the texts.

You misunderstand. I pass judgement no none of those religions. However, the claim the Judaism is a purely original religion, based on archaeological information that we have of the region, is pure horseshit.Well, the biblical text claims that the essence of Judaism is what existed "in the beginning." However, we know that that's just not true. Israelites, Hebrews, or even more ancient folks, were no followers of Judaism. They were not Jew-ish, as the bible suggests they were. Above all, they were no monotheists. And the biblical text implying or directly describing that they were, is indeed horseshit.

Which is not my error. ;) The much graver error is to draw a cohesive theology from the texts.

No, no... if you state that you "rather refer to what the text itself describes", then you are in fact treating the text as a cohesive whole.

To illustrate - (one can argue) the first 'text' we have is the first Genesis account. It certainly reads as the 'oldest' text if one analyses it independently of the remainder of the Hebrew/Christian scripture. But - analysing just that text (that one 'chapter'), there is none of the rigid claim of non-pluralism. Indeed, reading it in the Hebrew, there are a number of cues to suggest we are reading an 'edited' account of a polytheistic text.

To a lesser extent, the same is also true in the later Genesis accounts of 'creation'... although reading chapters collectively, one starts to run into the 'solitary' nature you describe.

But, reading the text in a ... 'forensic' (for want of a better term)... fashion, peeling back the layers, and analysing 'like with like', the concept of 'what Judaism says' becomes fluid... and largely irrelevent.

Indeed, reading it in the Hebrew, there are a number of cues to suggest we are reading an 'edited' account of a polytheistic text.I am well aware of that. That's what I meant by taking bits and pieces from other traditions. And it means that someone put some effort into editing the text for the purpose of making it a monotheistic text, doesn't it? However, the followers of Judaism and its derived ideologies take this edited account as original and reliable, at least theologically. And through this they are projecting the monotheistic Jewish beliefs of the Ptolemaic era into the ancient past, as if prior generations shared these beliefs. And it is this creation of an alternative history where I draw the line and which lets me reject Judaism in all its aspects and later alterations, such as Christianity and Islam.

I am well aware of that. That's what I meant by taking bits and pieces from other traditions. And it means that someone put some effort into editing the text for the purpose of making it a monotheistic text, doesn't it? However, the followers of Judaism and its derived ideologies take this edited account as original and reliable, at least theologically. And through this they are projecting the monotheistic Jewish beliefs of the Ptolemaic era into the ancient past, as if prior generations shared these beliefs. And it is this creation of an alternative history where I draw the line and which lets me reject Judaism in all its aspects and later alterations, such as Christianity and Islam.

And, as I said - there is your error. What comes later doesn't alter what is still visible in the 'original' text, so to speak.

The 'first' Genesis account could be entirely true - allowing for subjectivity and the 'poetic' nature of the text - but you are rejecting it because of what later commentators and editors added to the mythos. Therein lies the error.

Not that I necessarilly accept that earlier account, obviously - but I think it can be greeted with skepticism purely on it's own merits, not discounted because someone added extras later.

Ah - but can we show that walking is empirically different to sliding down hill? I've walked on snowy hills before, and I'm inclined to believe the two things are often one and the same, no? Is the difference real, or perceptive?

Is 'reason' something we can empirically show is peculiar to humans? Is more than reflex? Is 'active' any more than any other process?

EDIT: Yes, that's kind of what I was hoping for. The requirement for evidence... the perceived 'need' for Atheism to 'defend' itself... the assumption that anything can ever be conclusively held to be 'true'.

I used an example that would be demonstrable which, as I was illustrating a point, was obviously the point. However, it still illustrates the point I'm trying to make, that words are descriptive. Truth has nothing to do with defining language really. All that matters when we use words is what we mean, not what is. There could be a supreme being that refers to itself as God that is actually the son of some "more supreme" being, but is the creator of the universe and whatnot. That doesn't change the fact that when I refer to God I don't actually MEAN any of those things. I'm using a desciptive word for a concept, like the word reason. The truth of that concept does not alter what I'm conveying.

Whether it's true or not that it's more than reflex. the process meant to be described by reason is not the same process that occurs when I trip and catch myself or, at the very least, not the same manifestation of the process that I'm intending to describe.

I used an example that would be demonstrable which, as I was illustrating a point, was obviously the point. However, it still illustrates the point I'm trying to make, that words are descriptive. Truth has nothing to do with defining language really. All that matters when we use words is what we mean, not what is. There could be a supreme being that refers to itself as God that is actually the son of some "more supreme" being, but is the creator of the universe and whatnot. That doesn't change the fact that when I refer to God I don't actually MEAN any of those things. I'm using a desciptive word for a concept, like the word reason. The truth of that concept does not alter what I'm conveying.

Whether it's true or not that it's more than reflex. the process meant to be described by reason is not the same process that occurs when I trip and catch myself or, at the very least, not the same manifestation of the process that I'm intending to describe.

I appreciate what (I think) you are meaning... I'm just not sure of whether the assertion is absolutely realistic.

We can say it is, for the sake of the debate. But, this is one of those questions that will still be buzzing around my head a month from now.

I appreciate what (I think) you are meaning... I'm just not sure of whether the assertion is absolutely realistic.

We can say it is, for the sake of the debate. But, this is one of those questions that will still be buzzing around my head a month from now.

This is what I'm saying. We don't know what's 'realistic'. It's fun to discuss what we THINK is realistic. That's what philosophy and theology is all about. The more rational of us recognize this. You, me (I hope), Willamena, and others, recognize that we're just describing what we think, not what we know. Accepting that, what matters most is that we clearly convey the ideas we're discussing, rather than guessing at whether or not a word is describing truth in an absolute sense.

And, as I said - there is your error. What comes later doesn't alter what is still visible in the 'original' text, so to speak.No, worse. What comes later tries to alter what came before in an effort to project what came later into the earlier time, namely to project monotheism into polytheistic times. The point is that there had just never been a worship of unary Yah as the bible suggests, it has always been a worship of Yah embedded into the rest of the Mesopotamian pantheon. However, the bible tries to erase what the beliefs of ancient humans really were and to replace it in our minds with its own alternative history (of events and of belief).

The 'first' Genesis account could be entirely true - allowing for subjectivity and the 'poetic' nature of the text - but you are rejecting it because of what later commentators and editors added to the mythos. Therein lies the error.If the 'first' Genesis account were true, it would be polytheistic in nature and thus not Jew-ish and thus actually a showstopper for Judaism and all its derivates.

Not that I necessarilly accept that earlier account, obviously - but I think it can be greeted with skepticism purely on it's own merits, not discounted because someone added extras later.
What is the 'original' text? There is not a single piece of text predating the Ptolemaic era. All we have is the word of Jewish scholars that there once were older sources. The text does indeed look like there were because of all the hints to a polytheistic past, but there is yet no material evidence for that.
However, there are texts (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/) out of Mesopotamia that do narrate tales very similar to the biblical account, only that those texts are never artificially limited to one god.

Ok...so when I experience myself falling towards the ground after leaping off of a fence, I'm not perceiving a relationship between myself and the ground, just deducing it? When I feel a relationship between myself and another person, I'm deducing that there is a relationship?

You're going to have to explain that one further.

You don't experience yourself "falling", you experience sensory perceptions that you associate with the concept of falling.

I don't really see how that works. Deduction requires some form of analysis. Most of the time when we make perceptions about the world around us, our actions are just instant reactions to what we perceive. There's no thought behind it. You more often than not don't have the bloody time to deduce and analyze everything.

We do make instant reactions to perceptions in that we have inherent instincts (exhiliration while falling) and in that we make automatic associations. While many of our present decisions and actions do not require reasoning, the great many of them are the results of past reasoning.

What is the 'original' text? There is not a single piece of text predating the Ptolemaic era. All we have is the word of Jewish scholars that there once were older sources. The text does indeed look like there were because of all the hints to a polytheistic past, but there is yet no material evidence for that.
However, there are texts (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/) out of Mesopotamia that do narrate tales very similar to the biblical account, only that those texts are never artificially limited to one god.

Oh yes, I know what came out of Mesopotamia.. that's almost the point, actually. You can read a section of the Hebrew Scripture like... for example... Genesis One, and you can dissect the text to decipher what was added later, and what seems like it was already there.

You can then corroborate your assessment of the text, by comparing it to other scriptural sources of the same time. Certain things leap out, obviously - you can track the serpent symbolism, the basic creation story... things like the 'ark'.... the whole 'ten commandments' text can be clearly dated to after the 'babylonian Exile'.

So - yes - there is no extant copy of unaltered 'primitive' Hebrew scripture... probably entirely because their tradition was oral until after their exposure to Ugaritic texts, and/or Babylonian education.

Edit: Why specifiy "There Is No Biblical God?" Do you mean that there is no one uniform 'god' that matches all the incarnations of 'YHWH" suggested by the biblical scripture? That none of the incarnations of "YHWH" could be right? That none of the other gods mentioned could exist?

You don't experience yourself "falling", you experience sensory perceptions that you associate with the concept of falling.

THe concept of falling? Ha. Concept does not mean reason. Associate does not mean reason either. Your definition again makes perception equivalent to reason and basically makes the term useless. I know why you don't like dictionaries. Because they rarely agree with your made-up definitions for words.

We do make instant reactions to perceptions in that we have inherent instincts (exhiliration while falling) and in that we make automatic associations. While many of our present decisions and actions do not require reasoning, the great many of them are the results of past reasoning.

Reasoning is an active process. It's a descriptive term created with a purpose. You subjugate that purpose by assigning it to an autonomic process that could just as easily be called instinct. By your claim nothing that your brain does could ever be claimed to not be reason and the term offers no descriptive value.

Oh yes, I know what came out of Mesopotamia.. that's almost the point, actually. You can read a section of the Hebrew Scripture like... for example... Genesis One, and you can dissect the text to decipher what was added later, and what seems like it was already there.But the story that was already there pretty much follows the Sumerian creation story around Yah/Enki ordering the world. All the biblical references to the god of the Abzu, the Abyss, are striking.
1In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 2 5When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for Yhvh had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, 6and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground
That sound all pretty much like the lord of the (subterranean) Ocean, the friend and patron of humanity in many tales.
And also the next passage where Yah forms the man out of red earth is clearly of irano-mesopotamian origin.
However, none of these stories need the biblical god to work, they have all been around long before Jews constructed their Yhvh out of Yah, El, Baal, Asherah, and a number of other Middle-Eastern gods.

You can then corroborate your assessment of the text, by comparing it to other scriptural sources of the same time. Certain things leap out, obviously - you can track the serpent symbolism, the basic creation story... things like the 'ark'.... the whole 'ten commandments' text can be clearly dated to after the 'Babylonian Exile'.Yes, but not because Jews, or rather their supposed ancestors the Israelites, had an oral tradition before that but because they first came in contact with these concepts and narratives then. The Flood story is clearly not Jew-ish but much more ancient, they just took it and re-assigned the rescue of humankind from original Yah to their own Yhvh.
The whole point is that Jews pretend that these Mesopotamian stories are the stories of "their own people". But Sumerians were not Jew-ish. So someone is lying here, and from reviewing the material it is clear that it's not the Mesopotamians.

So - yes - there is no extant copy of unaltered 'primitive' Hebrew scripture... probably entirely because their tradition was oral until after their exposure to Ugaritic texts, and/or Babylonian education.... about the Mesopotamian, especially Sumerian, stories which they took and claimed as their own.

Edit: Why specifiy "There Is No Biblical God?" Do you mean that there is no one uniform 'god' that matches all the incarnations of 'YHWH" suggested by the biblical scripture? That none of the incarnations of "YHWH" could be right? That none of the other gods mentioned could exist?Just as the biblical text is a fabrication out of non-Jew-ish stories, so the god of the bible is a fabrication out of the elements of non-Jew-ish gods. Both streamlined to meet Jewish needs.

THe concept of falling? Ha. Concept does not mean reason. Associate does not mean reason either. Your definition again makes perception equivalent to reason and basically makes the term useless. I know why you don't like dictionaries. Because they rarely agree with your made-up definitions for words.

No, this necessitates this, this occurrence will likely bring about that occurrence, these share the same qualities and therefore are similar; these are examples of reasoning, concepts merely being symbols and ideas that help our conscious to organize its thought.

Of course instinctual reaction and learned reactions do not fall into the category of reason, but I am sure you will tell me I have no idea what my own definition is.

It is one thing to establish what reason is, that is the easy part, dictionaries do that. I am trying to establish how reason works, and so far in this thread I am alone.

Reasoning is an active process. It's a descriptive term created with a purpose. You subjugate that purpose by assigning it to an autonomic process that could just as easily be called instinct. By your claim nothing that your brain does could ever be claimed to not be reason and the term offers no descriptive value.

I was implying that automatic reactions are not a part of reason.

If I were going to continue this discussion with someone who had a serious hard on for me, it had better be Steven Pinker or Daniel Dennett or someone who seriously knew what they were talking about. The only thing I have ever learned from you is just how wrong and illogical you think I am.

Why, when there is no proof, do people believe in things with such ferocity? I can understand why people would believe in a god. They have been indoctrinated to that affect. However agnostics choose to go against the mainstream w/o proof and are often the fiercest defenders of their beliefs. I just think that it's all arrogant. Thoughts?

Heheh you're funny!

However agnostics choose to go against the mainstream w/o proof and are often the fiercest defenders of their beliefs. I just think that it's all arrogant. Thoughts?
I'm a militant agnostic. I don't know and you don't either.

Seriously though, I don't believe in a god or believe that there isn't a god. This is the basis of agnosticism right here. I go further and I believe that it's impossible to know and either way it's not important, this makes me an agnostic humanist or an apathetic agnostic.

Although lately I've become more ignostic in that I'm not even sure what one means by this god of theirs and I don't think they do either. The question makes less sense.

Also, it's so typical to say that people who aren't theist are just doing it to go against the mainstream. Did it occur to you that some of us think things through?

It requires faith. *ahem* I mean "judgement". Agnostics don't like it when you mention the degree of faith they too must excercise.
I don't particularly have faith in my experiences being actually reflected in the real world.

But if it was all in my head, what's the harm in going along with it? Maybe it helps me not take life so seriously all the time.

It requires faith. *ahem* I mean "judgement". Agnostics don't like it when you mention the degree of faith they too must excercise.
We don't?

Man, this thread is full of people enlightening me as to what I, an agnostic, must believe and think and feel. And to think, I never knew...

As an agnostic, I am aware that I must take certain things "on faith." For instance, the concept of cause and effect, the presumption that the material world does actually exist, the notion that my senses provide me with information that in some way reflects the external world, etc etc etc.

I happen to think it would be great if we had a different term for this kind of "faith." This kind of "faith" is really about the fundamental assumptions humans must make in order to move through our world and interact with one another. Philosophically speaking, we cannot "know" on these subjects, yet we are going to have to work with some assumptions if we are going to function at all.

However, I think this is different from the "faith" of religious believers. Belief in the supernatural is not necessary. It is completely possible to live an entire life without ever taking any supernatural concept "on faith." So the question then becomes, why have this type of "faith"? What purpose does it serve? Are there costs to this type of faith? If so, are they outweighed by the gains (if any)?

Due to the limitations of the finite human form, I freely admit that a certain amount of "faith" is necessary for us to function, but I view it as a necessary evil that is to be tolerated only at the utmost limits of our ability to understand and investigate. I don't believe it is something to be proud of, or a virtue to exalt, I think it's a limitation that we must accept. Like the fact that humans can't fly by flapping our arms up and down. I accept this limit, but it's not like I go around claiming it's a virtue or a special power to be unable to fly.

I was implying that automatic reactions are not a part of reason.

You called them deduction. Repeatedly. You've said the only way we even know how to react is by making deductions. Are you really just going to flip and claim you've never said that?

You don't percieve relationship, you deduce it.

Ok...so when I experience myself falling towards the ground after leaping off of a fence, I'm not perceiving a relationship between myself and the ground, just deducing it? When I feel a relationship between myself and another person, I'm deducing that there is a relationship?

You're going to have to explain that one further.
You don't experience yourself "falling", you experience sensory perceptions that you associate with the concept of falling.

We do make instant reactions to perceptions in that we have inherent instincts (exhiliration while falling) and in that we make automatic associations. While many of our present decisions and actions do not require reasoning, the great many of them are the results of past reasoning.

You claimed that -
A) The relationships are deduced.
B) When challenged on those relationships being deduced you brought up that things like falling are not just perceptions but also a matter of association (perception and reason as you so clearly stated to me earlier).
C) When challenged by someone else you pointed out that these associations are automatic.

Doesn't take much to follow that train. But, hey, rather than reacting to what you said, I'll give you a chance to explain. Are you claiming the automated process of perception that allows us to recognize thing is deduction?

Traditional and even non-traditional thought relate reason and language. So if you're claiming that the relationship between reason and perception is in language, I can buy that. However, if you're simply talking about recognition, an automated part of the perceptive process, then it is absolutely in denial of what reason is mean to describe as a part of language.



If I were going to continue this discussion with someone who had a serious hard on for me, it had better be Steven Pinker or Daniel Dennett or someone who seriously knew what they were talking about. The only thing I have ever learned from you is just how wrong and illogical you think I am.

Not always. I do think you're wrong here. But that's not a reflection on what I would generally think of you. You have to realize that cheerleading has little value, so you're much more likely to encounter me when I disagree.

As to the hard on, I can't speak to your attractiveness, so the only hard ons you're going to see here are for rational debate, so you're two statements are incongruent. I don't know what the cause of the recent trend of people to claim I have some kind of obsession with them, but I'm guessing ego. So far not one of the people who has made that accusation is a poster that would actually cause me to enter a thread because I see their name attached. If you think I've got a "hard on" for you, I suggest you discuss that with your therapist.

If you think I don't know what I'm talking about, prove it. So far, I've seen you redefining reason to ignore induction, and then watering it down to mean something it was never intended to describe.

We don't?

Man, this thread is full of people enlightening me as to what I, an agnostic, must believe and think and feel. And to think, I never knew...

I alter my statement to "agnostics OFTEN don't like". I'll admit that I did not make it clear that my statement was not sweeping.


As an agnostic, I am aware that I must take certain things "on faith." For instance, the concept of cause and effect, the presumption that the material world does actually exist, the notion that my senses provide me with information that in some way reflects the external world, etc etc etc.

I happen to think it would be great if we had a different term for this kind of "faith." This kind of "faith" is really about the fundamental assumptions humans must make in order to move through our world and interact with one another. Philosophically speaking, we cannot "know" on these subjects, yet we are going to have to work with some assumptions if we are going to function at all.

However, I think this is different from the "faith" of religious believers. Belief in the supernatural is not necessary.

Opinion, not fact.


It is completely possible to live an entire life without ever taking any supernatural concept "on faith."

It's also possible to live an entire life without accepting anything you haven't observed directly yourself with equipment you've personally proved to work. However, almost no one does it. Why would one do that? Well, some would argue that it's impractical, but for a long time it was perfectly practical, until someone decided we should be expected to know things we haven't personally experienced.

I would argue that it's a pretty silly limitation that prevents us from analyzing the world in ways that satisfy a basic human inclination to not just interact with the world but understand it.

What you include in necessary understanding, I promise you is not. Necessary is what we need to survive. An understanding of particle physics is not necessary and does require a level of faith.



So the question then becomes, why have this type of "faith"? What purpose does it serve? Are there costs to this type of faith? If so, are they outweighed by the gains (if any)?

The gains in my opinion are similar to the gains we get from almost all scientific endeavor. An attempt to understand. Philosophy, of which spirituality is a part, is simply an attempt to understand parts of the world that are not tangible, so to speak.

You might argue that without science we wouldn't have microwaves and religion has never produced this, but I would argue that you can't conclusively show that this is a thing to be proud of.

We live longer. That this is valuable is opinion, not fact. Often we work more, spend less time enjoying the fruits of our labor and we seem to moving farther and farther from becoming a society that lives like dolphins, a society I idealize. That we benefit from scientific endeavor is a claim not proven or even truly substantiated in any way. Yet, you're not complaining about that.

We've gained from philosophical endeavors in similar ways. Democracy. Ethics. Social equality. Some of these things have their roots in religion, some have been hindered by them. But all of them are the benefits we get from examining the abstract concepts of life. A belief in a higher form of right and wrong that's bigger than a selfish individual.


Due to the limitations of the finite human form, I freely admit that a certain amount of "faith" is necessary for us to function, but I view it as a necessary evil that is to be tolerated only at the utmost limits of our ability to understand and investigate. I don't believe it is something to be proud of, or a virtue to exalt, I think it's a limitation that we must accept. Like the fact that humans can't fly by flapping our arms up and down. I accept this limit, but it's not like I go around claiming it's a virtue or a special power to be unable to fly.

You call it a limitation. I suggest it's as much a limitation as men's inability to give birth. My personal belief is that we take things on faith is a path to wisdom (another thing you could claim we don't require). I think we're as lucky to experience that as we are to experience death. And again, you call mortality a limitation. I'm thankful for it.

Faith is what allows us to examine things in the world that we could never, ever examine without faith. You have faith that the knowledge you build your claims on is correct or at least correct enough that there is value to exploring using them as a platform.

We use faith in order to better understand our world or at least to attempt it. Could we be wrong? Yes. We could always be wrong, but shutting that part of us off because we've decided it's not useful would be like shutting off the part of us that invents any number of things we don't need, like coffee makers or microwaves or cell phones or computers or string theory or examination of special relativity or black holes or frenology or cubism or interpretive dance. Our world is shaped by a desire to examine and make conclusions about everything without limit. Is it so different that we extend that to things we cannot know?

You claimed that -
A) The relationships are deduced.
B) When challenged on those relationships being deduced you brought up that things like falling are not just perceptions but also a matter of association (perception and reason as you so clearly stated to me earlier).
C) When challenged by someone else you pointed out that these associations are automatic.

Doesn't take much to follow that train. But, hey, rather than reacting to what you said, I'll give you a chance to explain. Are you claiming the automated process of perception that allows us to recognize thing is deduction?

Traditional and even non-traditional thought relate reason and language. So if you're claiming that the relationship between reason and perception is in language, I can buy that. However, if you're simply talking about recognition, an automated part of the perceptive process, then it is absolutely in denial of what reason is mean to describe as a part of language.

My original claim was that relationship is established conceptually through reason, not by perception:

Wouldn't consciousness simply be a stream of atomistic sensory perceptions without reason? How does one establish relations between perceptions without reason, how does one even know what they are percieving without reason?

You don't percieve relationship, you deduce it.

When we are affected by sensation, it is merely that, sensation; it is nothing more. It does not become knowledge, information, or thought until it has passed through some refining process of the mind. As I see it, and I am quite possibly wrong on this, there are three major ways the brain comes to possess this refining process: evolutionary a priori categories and concepts that have allowed our greater conscious functions to exist, learned associations, symbols, and concepts, and the extension of the prior two:

We do make instant reactions to perceptions in that we have inherent instincts (exhiliration while falling) and in that we make automatic associations. While many of our present decisions and actions do not require reasoning, the great many of them are the results of past reasoning.

These learned associations and concepts are those things that we could likely call habit. While they are not "active" reasoning, they do represent past reasoning and would not be possible without it. Speech is an excellent example of this. What maybe mankinds greatest asset is his ability to "take in" language and make it innate. One who is learning a foreign language cannot doubt the reason it takes to form coherent phrases, yet at the same time can construct complex conversations from a massive vocabulary literally without the slightest thought.

Whether or not these "evolutionary a priori categories and concepts" that I mentioned actually exist is up in the air. I tend to think that they exist, while modern science is actually starting to lump them in with my second category.

If they are evolutionary and they are as automatic as blinking, then it is difficult to classify them as reasoning, in that we typically define reason as conscious thought, but at the same time we cannot deny the role they have in our reason.

In the end, since it is so difficult to define reason on what it appears to be, i.e. conscious thought, logical deductions, planning, perhaps we should define reason by what it does: organize, categorize, and "understand" our perceptions.

Also, It is reassuring that Bottle repeated my "not a little bit pompous [agnostic] claim" almost word for word. You left my last post on that matter hanging, by the way.

My original claim was that relationship is established conceptually through reason, not by perception:

You mention conceptual claims, but HR pointed out that the relationships were there as part of the perception and that he'd shown as part of an excercise. He pointed out that reason was how we attach those perceptions to a concept, but that it's not necessary to just relate those perceptions.

I just don't do that. Sometimes I add a property to a concept because of a further experience like taste, but I don't use reason to relate them. It just seems...redundant to relate that which is already related.
You don't percieve relationship, you deduce it.

So yes, that was your original claim. When it was pointed out that many of these relationships are automatic you claimed that automatic reactions are not deductive and round and round we go.




When we are affected by sensation, it is merely that, sensation; it is nothing more. It does not become knowledge, information, or thought until it has passed through some refining process of the mind. As I see it, and I am quite possibly wrong on this, there are three major ways the brain comes to possess this refining process: evolutionary a priori categories and concepts that have allowed our greater conscious functions to exist, learned associations, symbols, and concepts, and the extension of the prior two:

Not every process of the mind is reason. Perception is a process of the mind. Automatic reactions are a process of the mind. The most basic refining processes of the mind, for example the processes that take signals and create an image do not operate on the process we describe as reason. To say that it does is to destroy the word by dilluting it. Many associations come in just that form. We automatically associate the things that happen simultaneously to a bigger picture just like we do with individual light to make a picture.

The learned associations, future implications from those associations, is what reason was meant to describe.



These learned associations and concepts are those things that we could likely call habit. While they are not "active" reasoning, they do represent past reasoning and would not be possible without it. Speech is an excellent example of this.

Yes, most people would argue that language is entirely a reasoning process. It makes a poor example, because it's hardly based on perception alone.


What maybe mankinds greatest asset is his ability to "take in" language and make it innate. One who is learning a foreign language cannot doubt the reason it takes to form coherent phrases, yet at the same time can construct complex conversations from a massive vocabulary literally without the slightest thought.

I agreed with this in an earlier post when I mentioned language as having a relationship to reason.


Whether or not these "evolutionary a priori categories and concepts" that I mentioned actually exist is up in the air. I tend to think that they exist, while modern science is actually starting to lump them in with my second category.

If they are evolutionary and they are as automatic as blinking, then it is difficult to classify them as reasoning, in that we typically define reason as conscious thought, but at the same time we cannot deny the role they have in our reason.

Sure. Like my shoes have a role in walking, but if I throw them at a wall, they aren't walking and as I can walk without shoes. I'm glad we agree that reason is conscious. It would not apply to perceptive associations that happen automatically.


In the end, since it is so difficult to define reason on what it appears to be, i.e. conscious thought, logical deductions, planning, perhaps we should define reason by what it does: organize, categorize, and "understand" our perceptions.

No, it must be both or you risk creating a definition that is inadequate. That's why it's so important you not deny induction. (I am right, aren't I? Didn't we argue about induction?) We must have a complete and thorough definition or we risk a word running away and becoming useless, like so many words do.



Also, It is reassuring that Bottle repeated my "not a little bit pompous [agnostic] claim" almost word for word. You left my last post on that matter hanging, by the way.

Yeah, I missed it. Be patient and I'll go back. I did notice already that misworded my original post that makes it very confusing. I should reread before posting more often. So I'll point out what I misstated before I reply, in the interest of clarity. Fair?

Oh, and if it created confusion in further post I accept that responsibility as well. I haven't read your reply, but I kind of hope you nailed me. It was a pretty clear and grievous mistake. I'll catch up later.

You mention conceptual claims, but HR pointed out that the relationships were there as part of the perception and that he'd shown as part of an excercise. He pointed out that reason was how we attach those perceptions to a concept, but that it's not necessary to just relate those perceptions.

I still don't understand how relationships can be percieved, they are conceptual and immaterial, they only exist in the mind.

Where does automatic reaction stop and reason begin?

Let us assume you know me from Adam. You see me walking down the street and think, "Hey, there goes Brad". On the surface it appears to be automatic recognition, you are truly percieving Brad. However, you are not percieving Brad, that is merely a concept in your mind. You are actually percieving a collection of sensations, qualities, that your mind organizes and categorizes as constituting the concept that your mind titles "Brad". Your brain hardly makes conscious note of the recognition and you may not want to call it reason because it is an unconscious reaction, but it fulfills all of the qualities of some other situation which you might refer to as reason.

Suppose we had a great NSG meet-up and both of us were planning to be there. The bar everyone is meeting at is probably going to be crowded so everybody describes themselves to ensure we recognize each other. You see someone walking through the door, notice he is about 6'0", average build, brown hair and wearing a blue shirt. You realize that this matches my description and say hello.

Both of these situations consist of the same process, with one being an unconscious reaction reinforced by repetition, the other being conscious contemplation.

So yes, that was your original claim. When it was pointed out that many of these relationships are automatic you claimed that automatic reactions are not deductive and round and round we go.

Cause and effect is the enduring example of relationship.

It may be something we learn through repeated experiences, it may be something innate to our consciousness, either way it is not perception. Were it not such an automatic assumption we would easily label it "reason". We see a cue ball strike another ball and watch the second ball go careening in a general direction. It is an automatic association and we don't even realize the induction, so we tend to assume we percieved the cue ball causing the other ball to move, when we could not possibly percieve that.

For the example of falling, we observe an increasing larger image of the ground in front of us, we feel that especially unnerving sensation of weightlessness, and it seems that we percieve falling, when we are simply making the automatic association. How else could we explain our belief that we are falling when we dream and could not percieve falling?

Yes, most people would argue that language is entirely a reasoning process. It makes a poor example, because it's hardly based on perception alone.

Is language innate?

Sure. Like my shoes have a role in walking, but if I throw them at a wall, they aren't walking and as I can walk without shoes. I'm glad we agree that reason is conscious. It would not apply to perceptive associations that happen automatically.

I am not sure what other role the automatic relation of perceptions could play other than facilitating reason.

No, it must be both or you risk creating a definition that is inadequate. That's why it's so important you not deny induction. (I am right, aren't I? Didn't we argue about induction?) We must have a complete and thorough definition or we risk a word running away and becoming useless, like so many words do.

I haven't denied induction in this thread. I am not sure where I denied it before this thread.

I have used deduction because, taken generally, it is synonymous with reasoning, because it allows be to bounce back and forth from deduction and deduce where induction and induce would not.

Hmm, looks like someone opened a large can of worms. I have no views on god. He or she may or may not exist, and I have some inkling that s/he may have had a hand in the universe's creation but is strangely or seemingly absent since then. I do have quite the view on religion though.

Religion is, overwhelmingly, a bad thing. Yes, it is on a small scale good and noble if the followers of said religion actually follow the stinkin religion! But frequently, religion has caused much more harm than good. A few examples from the Christains being the Crusades, the Jewish purges during said crusades, the Thirty Years war and the previous decades of religious intolerance, the witch trials (in Salem as well as elsewhere,) the (Spanish) Inquisition, the Spainish Wars against the Moors and Protestants, the destruction of the 'heathens' in the Americas, the Protestant-Catholic wars and revolts in the British Isles, the British caused religious tensions in Ireland, the numerous anti-progress stances of the Papacy which resulted in the torment of hundreds of reknowned scientists, the religious massacures in numerous Christian third world countries, and, to some degree, the Halocaust. With the proper sources, I could've went on for a while longer, but the point is made. Religion is akin to Communism in this one point, that being they both look great, even fantastic, on paper but never quite live up to expectations.

I still don't understand how relationships can be percieved, they are conceptual and immaterial, they only exist in the mind.

I'll accept that you don't. However, this isn't much of an argument against them.


Where does automatic reaction stop and reason begin?

You've already explained the answer to this. Reason is a conscious process. When I make active associations I employ reason. When I allow my subconscious mind to make the necessary associations, associations that automatically occur, then that isn't reason. That's your own explanation fo reason.



Let us assume you know me from Adam. You see me walking down the street and think, "Hey, there goes Brad". On the surface it appears to be automatic recognition, you are truly percieving Brad. However, you are not percieving Brad, that is merely a concept in your mind. You are actually percieving a collection of sensations, qualities, that your mind organizes and categorizes as constituting the concept that your mind titles "Brad". Your brain hardly makes conscious note of the recognition and you may not want to call it reason because it is an unconscious reaction, but it fulfills all of the qualities of some other situation which you might refer to as reason.

No, that would be a different kind of reaction. That's a learned and conscious response. You've already established the difference here. You're also incorporating in language which we've both associated to reason, and traditionally is. I recognize that you're having a difficult time seperating the language from the thought, but they are seperate.



Suppose we had a great NSG meet-up and both of us were planning to be there. The bar everyone is meeting at is probably going to be crowded so everybody describes themselves to ensure we recognize each other. You see someone walking through the door, notice he is about 6'0", average build, brown hair and wearing a blue shirt. You realize that this matches my description and say hello.

Again, you're relying on language and conscious forethough. Another poor example. We both agree on this.


Both of these situations consist of the same process, with one being an unconscious reaction reinforced by repetition, the other being conscious contemplation.

No, I don't agree. Both are conscious reactions related to language. Neither is an automatic response. Certainly the first is more on the line than the second but neither is similar to perceiving an apple as a whole.


Cause and effect is the enduring example of relationship.

Certainly, but reason only factors in when I attempt to predict effect from cause or deduct the cause for an effect. If I just see something cause an effect, that's just a perceived an automatic relationship. It's the fodder for reason, like you mentioned earlier, not the result of it.


It may be something we learn through repeated experiences, it may be something innate to our consciousness, either way it is not perception. Were it not such an automatic assumption we would easily label it "reason". We see a cue ball strike another ball and watch the second ball go careening in a general direction. It is an automatic association and we don't even realize the induction, so we tend to assume we percieved the cue ball causing the other ball to move, when we could not possibly percieve that.

For the example of falling, we observe an increasing larger image of the ground in front of us, we feel that especially unnerving sensation of weightlessness, and it seems that we percieve falling, when we are simply making the automatic association. How else could we explain our belief that we are falling when we dream and could not percieve falling?

First, we had to perceive it initially. We cannot rely on reason to make those associations because we having the information to do so. Without the initial relationships we'd never get any further, never understand what falling is even on the most basic level. We couldn't even deal with the concept of cause and effect since we'd never make that leap. It has to be a natural and automatic response or we'd have nothing to build on. Think about it. Deconstruct your understanding of falling and tell me how you could ever get there without first perceiving a relationship. Deduction relies on some form of understanding in order to create the first relationships. They aren't random.


Is language innate?

No. I've already said this in this thread and it's proven by the difficulties that various children in history have had when growing up in situations where they were not exposed to language. They develope no language skills at all. Look it up. Interesting reading.


I am not sure what other role the automatic relation of perceptions could play other than facilitating reason.

Perception is stimulus. Even things completely incapable of reason rely on stimulus. Perception is just particularly complicated stimulus. However, I'm not surprised you say this. You so simplified reason that perception wouldn't even reach the level of value without what you'd call, and wrongly, reason.



I haven't denied induction in this thread. I am not sure where I denied it before this thread.

No, not this thread. I thought is was a while back. Months. I may be mistaken, however.


I have used deduction because, taken generally, it is synonymous with reasoning, because it allows be to bounce back and forth from deduction and deduce where induction and induce would not.

Fair enough. If I can be arsed I'll look and see who that was.

By the way, if you can try to draw the seperate lines back together or the posts get long and unweildy, I'll assume you're not dropping arguments and if I notice something you combined that I don't agree with I'll just ask you, and you can do the same. Hopefully, this way we can keep the posts within reason (pun intended).

No, this necessitates this, this occurrence will likely bring about that occurrence, these share the same qualities and therefore are similar; these are examples of reasoning, concepts merely being symbols and ideas that help our conscious to organize its thought.

Yes. Our conscious. Reasoning is a conscious act. You assigned it to unconscious acts earlier.


Of course instinctual reaction and learned reactions do not fall into the category of reason, but I am sure you will tell me I have no idea what my own definition is.

They certainly should not be included so we agree.


It is one thing to establish what reason is, that is the easy part, dictionaries do that. I am trying to establish how reason works, and so far in this thread I am alone.

You're not. I'm going to leave the snarkiness alone, because I think we've moved past that. But you're not alone, but how it works affects the definition since it's descriptive of a process, so we need to be careful about how broad we make this brush.

I'll accept that you don't. However, this isn't much of an argument against them.

That relationships and concepts exist inside the mind is a very good argument against their existence in the material world.

You've already explained the answer to this. Reason is a conscious process. When I make active associations I employ reason. When I allow my subconscious mind to make the necessary associations, associations that automatically occur, then that isn't reason. That's your own explanation fo reason.

No, that would be a different kind of reaction. That's a learned and conscious response. You've already established the difference here. You're also incorporating in language which we've both associated to reason, and traditionally is. I recognize that you're having a difficult time seperating the language from the thought, but they are seperate.

Again, you're relying on language and conscious forethough. Another poor example. We both agree on this.

No, I don't agree. Both are conscious reactions related to language. Neither is an automatic response. Certainly the first is more on the line than the second but neither is similar to perceiving an apple as a whole.

Then what does not constitute reason or even conscious recognition?

Certainly, but reason only factors in when I attempt to predict effect from cause or deduct the cause for an effect. If I just see something cause an effect, that's just a perceived an automatic relationship. It's the fodder for reason, like you mentioned earlier, not the result of it.

Whether it is fodder for reason or reason itself seems to me to be a rather arbitrary definition, but either way it is pointless. It performs the same function and denies the role of perception in establishing truth.

If we make these relationships via reason or automatic reactions, it means that knowledge is a matter of interpretation and not perception.

This is a rather beneficial idea for both agnostics and individual theists.

First, we had to perceive it initially. We cannot rely on reason to make those associations because we having the information to do so. Without the initial relationships we'd never get any further, never understand what falling is even on the most basic level. We couldn't even deal with the concept of cause and effect since we'd never make that leap. It has to be a natural and automatic response or we'd have nothing to build on.

Up to here I am with you. As I said, I believe there are a priori understandings that we evolved to permit our more complex reasoning.

Think about it. Deconstruct your understanding of falling and tell me how you could ever get there without first perceiving a relationship. Deduction relies on some form of understanding in order to create the first relationships. They aren't random.

Do we percieve original relations or do we have innate associations between perception and relation?

Perception is stimulus. Even things completely incapable of reason rely on stimulus. Perception is just particularly complicated stimulus. However, I'm not surprised you say this. You so simplified reason that perception wouldn't even reach the level of value without what you'd call, and wrongly, reason.

Not perception itself, the automatic association of perceptions (association of perception with concepts, presumption of cause and effect, symbolism), that "fodder for reason" that you mentioned earlier. Those automatic associations do nothing but allow us our complex systems of reason, so I don't know why we wouldn't just include them into what we call reason.

As for your other post, we are in agreement.

That relationships and concepts exist inside the mind is a very good argument against their existence in the material world.

You're kidding right? Many relationships inside the mind are recognition of things in the material world. Are you telling me that there is no material relationship between an inside and outside of an apple, or an apple and a tree. The relationship exists. It's not just a concept or thought.

My comment was to the effect that saying you don't understand how something could be material isn't an argument that it can't be.



Then what does not constitute reason or even conscious recognition?

You've already answered that. The act of taking the various sight, sound, smell, taste and touch events and creating a picture of the world is an automatic effect of the way we perceive. There are even people who are perfectly rational but have disorders that cause them to perceive the world differently. It's not a breakdown of reasons but a breakdown of their perception.




Whether it is fodder for reason or reason itself seems to me to be a rather arbitrary definition, but either way it is pointless. It performs the same function and denies the role of perception in establishing truth.

Pardon? That's like saying that because cars use bolts that bolts are cars. I can't make a shirt without some form of cloth, would it be appropriate to call cloth, shirts? Or is there some value to recognizing the concept and its parts. If you want to call everything reason, then it creates a concept that is totally meaninglyless and valueless. If we call the parts reason, then what shall we call the concept to distinguish from its parts?


If we make these relationships via reason or automatic reactions, it means that knowledge is a matter of interpretation and not perception.

This is a rather beneficial idea for both agnostics and individual theists.

Pardon? Your conclusion does not follow your supposition. If the relationships are automatic and don't involve reason then why would you deny the perception of these relationships? Perception is a form of interpretation, of course, but let's pretend that you're not ignoring that.


Up to here I am with you. As I said, I believe there are a priori understandings that we evolved to permit our more complex reasoning.

But even the a priori understanding could NEVER evolve without the early perceptions that were beneficial. Are you suggesting that prior to these "understandings" that we simply couldn't relate anything?


Do we percieve original relations or do we have innate associations between perception and relation?

We perceive them. They already exist. Your brain automatically categorizes them and groups them, and in some ways filters them. There are all kinds of recognized disorders with the way this works. Considering them an error in reasoning simply devalues the entire process and ignores where the problem occurs.

Not perception itself, the automatic association of perceptions (association of perception with concepts, presumption of cause and effect, symbolism), that "fodder for reason" that you mentioned earlier. Those automatic associations do nothing but allow us our complex systems of reason, so I don't know why we wouldn't just include them into what we call reason.

Nope, you're switching things around. The association of perception with concepts is not automatic (the point where I said concepts and reason are not intricately related was where I made the mistake I mentioned last night. I did not intend to say that.). The perceptive assocation of various parts of a whole with the other parts is automatic, so much so that we can't control it. The fodder for reason is the perception because it's the what we draw upon when reasoning. It's not the only thing. We also include other results of reason. Basically every experience we have becomes subject to reason, but it is not reason itself, or needn't be.

As for your other post, we are in agreement.

I forgot to mention in that post where my mistake was. I should not have said "Concept does not mean reason." I meant to say "associate does not mean concept." It was a problem caused by going to fast.

EDIT: I'm making an effort to debate more like I used to. I think you're an excellent candidate for testing that out. If you catch me being snarky beyond what would reasonably be expected for effect (prodding you a bit, you know), feel free to call me out. It has value and some people deserve such snarkiness (I think we'd both agree here and our post histories reflect that), I certainly have at times (deserve it, that is), but I'd like to use it more sparingly. This conversation has more value absent the snarkiness. Fair?

"However, I think this is different from the "faith" of religious believers. Belief in the supernatural is not necessary. "

Opinion, not fact.

Erm, no, that really is fact. Individuals who do not believe in the supernatural in any way are still perfectly able to function. I'm a living, breathing example.

Faith in the supernatural is not necessary. That is fact. "Faith" in materialism, at least to some extent, is necessary, because otherwise the individual would have no reason to eat, drink, or even breath. They would have no motivation for anything whatsoever, if they actually refused to accept any of the assumptions of material naturalism.

Now,

It's also possible to live an entire life without accepting anything you haven't observed directly yourself with equipment you've personally proved to work.

No, it really isn't. At least, not if you are the least bit informed about science. Because it would take you an entire lifetime to empirically verify the room you are sitting in right now, and even then you could only do so if you were willing to take the concept of material naturalism "on faith." Without those assumptions, you would have absolutely no reason to believe that what your senses tell you bears any resemblance to "reality," nor would you have any reason to believe that reality follows any natural laws at all.


However, almost no one does it. Why would one do that? Well, some would argue that it's impractical, but for a long time it was perfectly practical, until someone decided we should be expected to know things we haven't personally experienced.

Actually, the human brain is wired for certain assumptions. The principle of "cause-and-effect" is something that the brains of very young infants respond to. You can observe that pre-verbal children still have a concept of "if this, then that" built in to their brains.


I would argue that it's a pretty silly limitation that prevents us from analyzing the world in ways that satisfy a basic human inclination to not just interact with the world but understand it.

I've yet to see superstition explain anything at all about the world. I've yet to see any reason why anybody should believe that superstition is anything more than made-up "answers."

It's like if you ask your Mom, "why is the sky blue?" And she tells you, "Because the fairies painted it that color." She's given you an answer to your question, sure, but it's not an explanation of the world at all.


What you include in necessary understanding, I promise you is not. Necessary is what we need to survive. An understanding of particle physics is not necessary and does require a level of faith.

I'm not talking about particle physics. I'm talking about the fundamental naturalist assumptions that are REQUIRED for a human being to have any motivation to engage in any physical behavior of any kind. Without these assumptions, there is no conscious reason to ever do anything at all, including survive.


The gains in my opinion are similar to the gains we get from almost all scientific endeavor. An attempt to understand. Philosophy, of which spirituality is a part, is simply an attempt to understand parts of the world that are not tangible, so to speak.

And I, personally, do not believe that superstition ever assists in increasing understanding of the real world. Superstition is fiction. It is made-up answers. All it can tell you about is the psychology of the person making up the answer, and that of the people who choose to believe the made-up answer.

PHILOSOPHY can pursue answers, sure, but superstition just gets in the way. Superstition is just magic, and doesn't help explain anything.


You might argue that without science we wouldn't have microwaves and religion has never produced this, but I would argue that you can't conclusively show that this is a thing to be proud of.

Pride is an emotion. What one should or should not feel pride about is a matter of opinion. I don't particularly feel inclined to argue opinion.


We live longer. That this is valuable is opinion, not fact. Often we work more, spend less time enjoying the fruits of our labor and we seem to moving farther and farther from becoming a society that lives like dolphins, a society I idealize. That we benefit from scientific endeavor is a claim not proven or even truly substantiated in any way. Yet, you're not complaining about that.

Huh?

You cite our longer lifespans in the same paragraph where you insist that scientific progress has not been shown to benefit humanity?

If you consider our longer lifespans to be a good thing, then congrats! You just substantiated the claim that scientific endeavor benefits humans.


We've gained from philosophical endeavors in similar ways. Democracy. Ethics. Social equality. Some of these things have their roots in religion, some have been hindered by them. But all of them are the benefits we get from examining the abstract concepts of life. A belief in a higher form of right and wrong that's bigger than a selfish individual.

Wrong. It is not remotely necessary to have any "belief in a higher form of right and wrong that's bigger than a selfish individual" in order to effect the changes you describe. There are piles of SELFISH reasons to enact social and political changes like the ones you describe. Indeed, using selfish arguments to motivate people has always been more efficient than calling on them to sacrifice their own well-being for others. If you want to get people to enact a positive change, tell them why it will be good for them, and you'll get much farther much faster than if you tell them it will be bad for them but good for somebody else.


You call it a limitation. I suggest it's as much a limitation as men's inability to give birth. My personal belief is that we take things on faith is a path to wisdom (another thing you could claim we don't require). I think we're as lucky to experience that as we are to experience death. And again, you call mortality a limitation. I'm thankful for it.

You seem to think it's impossible to be thankful for a limitation, or that you can't acknowledge that something is a limitation while also being content or even happy with it.

Mortality IS a limitation. Think in mathematical terms. Our life span is not infinite; it has limits. This is neither a good thing nor a bad thing, it is simply a characteristic of our existence.

I happen to be glad for mortality, and I find the entire concept of "life after death" or "eternal life" of any kind to be somewhat off-putting.


Faith is what allows us to examine things in the world that we could never, ever examine without faith.

Like what? Specifically.


You have faith that the knowledge you build your claims on is correct or at least correct enough that there is value to exploring using them as a platform.

This gets back to the first part of my post. I believe that now you are talking about a different kind of "faith" than superstitious "faith." But, at any rate, I've already addressed what I think about this kind of "faith."


We use faith in order to better understand our world or at least to attempt it. Could we be wrong? Yes. We could always be wrong, but shutting that part of us off because we've decided it's not useful would be like shutting off the part of us that invents any number of things we don't need, like coffee makers or microwaves or cell phones or computers or string theory or examination of special relativity or black holes or frenology or cubism or interpretive dance.

Nobody is suggesting that we "shut that part of us off." I like fiction. I like stories. I read Creation myths for fun, because I think they're cool. I would be sad to see any element of human creativity die out from the world.

All I'm saying is that we recognize that--for example--phrenology is bunk. Just because a human came up with it doesn't mean that it necessarily explains reality. Just because it was an interesting idea doesn't mean it holds up to real examination. I feel the same way about religious faith.


Our world is shaped by a desire to examine and make conclusions about everything without limit. Is it so different that we extend that to things we cannot know?
Superstition is not about wanting to examine and explore the unknown. It is about precisely the opposite. Instead of trying to find out more about the unknown, you MAKE UP ANSWERS with no foundation beyond your own desires and emotions, and you give up on actually trying to learn about what is really there.

Erm, no, that really is fact. Individuals who do not believe in the supernatural in any way are still perfectly able to function. I'm a living, breathing example.

Some. Some people completely break down when they lose their faith. People who don't have some of the kinds of faith you do are still perfectly able to function. Only the most basic types of what I called faith would be required to function according to our standards.

To claim it's unnecessary, you'd have to show it's NEVER necessary, not that it's not necessary for you or some individuals.


Faith in the supernatural is not necessary. That is fact. "Faith" in materialism, at least to some extent, is necessary, because otherwise the individual would have no reason to eat, drink, or even breath. They would have no motivation for anything whatsoever, if they actually refused to accept any of the assumptions of material naturalism.

How do you know this? Do you have an citations? These are philosophical observations. If we found someone who did not make those assumptions, could very well operate under different assumptions.


Now,

No, it really isn't. At least, not if you are the least bit informed about science.

Yes, and why is being informed about science necessary? Because you decided it was important? How is it more important than religious faith? Are you actually suggesting that people could not operate without science?


Because it would take you an entire lifetime to empirically verify the room you are sitting in right now, and even then you could only do so if you were willing to take the concept of material naturalism "on faith." Without those assumptions, you would have absolutely no reason to believe that what your senses tell you bears any resemblance to "reality," nor would you have any reason to believe that reality follows any natural laws at all.

All of this is untrue. Do animals have science? How do they manage to operate? They make some of the more basic assumptions, but they don't make the assumptions you do, in order to conduct science, assumptions based on faith that are not any more necessary than religious faith unless you treat science like something that is automatically valuable, and, while I like it, it's not necessary to individual survival nor the survival of our species.

There are crazy people who know they are halucinating, know it's not actually real, and continue to operate as if it is. There are people who are certain that the material world is illusion, hardly accept the assumption, but stil operating in the way they find most beneficial, operating as if those assumptions are true just because it's the easiest path, like an atheist going to church to please their family. And accusing them of having faith would be like accusing the atheist going to church and taking communion to please their family of having faith.



Actually, the human brain is wired for certain assumptions. The principle of "cause-and-effect" is something that the brains of very young infants respond to. You can observe that pre-verbal children still have a concept of "if this, then that" built in to their brains.

Yes, and it's not until we start to apply what we describe as reason when start to get into beliefs that are not necessary to survival that require faith. The idea of cause-and-effect is not an assumption you make but that your brain makes. If you were going to draw a line between the "types" of faith, you would have necessary faith, the faith that animals equally excercise, faith you'd be right to completely discount as calling "faith", and the faith that scientists excercise, a entire discipline unnecessary.



I've yet to see superstition explain anything at all about the world. I've yet to see any reason why anybody should believe that superstition is anything more than made-up "answers."

And explaining the world has value why? Science as a discipline accepts it could just as easily be made-up 'answers'. It relies on assumptions that we cannot and do not verify. It's the definition of the discipline, so it's consistent, but it is no more necessary to our survival than religious faith is.




It's like if you ask your Mom, "why is the sky blue?" And she tells you, "Because the fairies painted it that color." She's given you an answer to your question, sure, but it's not an explanation of the world at all.

And why is this important? Are we unable to survive if we believe fairies painted it that color?


I'm not talking about particle physics. I'm talking about the fundamental naturalist assumptions that are REQUIRED for a human being to have any motivation to engage in any physical behavior of any kind. Without these assumptions, there is no conscious reason to ever do anything at all, including survive.

Yes, and if you wanted to draw a line between necessary faith and unnecessary faith (and I would agree with your attempt to only call that which is unnecessary faith), anything beyond what we were doing fifty thousand years ago is really unnecessary.



And I, personally, do not believe that superstition ever assists in increasing understanding of the real world. Superstition is fiction. It is made-up answers. All it can tell you about is the psychology of the person making up the answer, and that of the people who choose to believe the made-up answer.

And again, why is this important? Why is it that this "understanding" of the "real" world is so important?


PHILOSOPHY can pursue answers, sure, but superstition just gets in the way. Superstition is just magic, and doesn't help explain anything.

Pardon? You realize that theology is philosophy. Not all theological beliefs reject science. You're acting as if by calling it "superstition" and painting with one broad brush you can avoid the very real fact that theology at a basic level is nothing more than philosophy as relates to deities. And that's still only a subset of religious faith.




Pride is an emotion. What one should or should not feel pride about is a matter of opinion. I don't particularly feel inclined to argue opinion.

You avoided the question because you don't like my word. It's not something that is a benefit. Benefit is simply a measure of our survival as a species.


Huh?

You cite our longer lifespans in the same paragraph where you insist that scientific progress has not been shown to benefit humanity?

Again, this is opinion not fact. I would argue from a biological standpoint that the moment I have reproduced and have stopped contributing to the survival of others that have not yet reproduced, that I have a negative biological value. I am a detriment to survival as those resources I consume could easily being going to some of benefit to the species.


If you consider our longer lifespans to be a good thing, then congrats! You just substantiated the claim that scientific endeavor benefits humans.

I don't. That's why I pointed out that any claim that this has value is opinion not fact. I find it amusing I point why ithe benefits of science are not benefits and you act as if I just cited them as benefits. You avoided the argument. Why is it a benefit? You cannot give me an answer that wouldn't be opinion. And that's what I already said and you ignored.



Wrong. It is not remotely necessary to have any "belief in a higher form of right and wrong that's bigger than a selfish individual" in order to effect the changes you describe. There are piles of SELFISH reasons to enact social and political changes like the ones you describe. Indeed, using selfish arguments to motivate people has always been more efficient than calling on them to sacrifice their own well-being for others. If you want to get people to enact a positive change, tell them why it will be good for them, and you'll get much farther much faster than if you tell them it will be bad for them but good for somebody else.

You sure about that? Science for a very long time was a pretty selfless endeavor. Many scientists sacrificed their lives for the "progress" we have today. Now, we're essentially a virus living beyond our environment and not only in danger of destrying but actually doing so. The ONLY solution is a belief in something beyond the self. Because it's unlikely I'll ever notice.

I take it you're a capitalist. Because you can't really argue for anything less than pure capitalism without arguing for the greater good.

And I take that you don't believe science is a benefit since it would have been GREATLY slowed down by selfishness. And of course scientist should only be working on things that are most beneficial to them personally.

You seem to think it's impossible to be thankful for a limitation, or that you can't acknowledge that something is a limitation while also being content or even happy with it.

You called it a necessary evil. I pointed out that I don't view limitations as evil and particularly that limitation as evil.


Mortality IS a limitation. Think in mathematical terms. Our life span is not infinite; it has limits. This is neither a good thing nor a bad thing, it is simply a characteristic of our existence.

I happen to be glad for mortality, and I find the entire concept of "life after death" or "eternal life" of any kind to be somewhat off-putting.

I agree on most of that. I think the value of this kind of existence is limited. That's particularly why I don't agree that extending our lifespan is necessarily a good thing.



Like what? Specifically.

Like all the scientific theories that you accept but haven't personally tested. You pointed it out earlier. All current scientific endeavor requires a faith in certain endeavors of the past. If you tested every single thing that you have already observed, then you'd never get to a conclusion for the formula for gravity, let alone the types of conclusions we reach today.

Faith also allows us to examine other things about our existence.

This gets back to the first part of my post. I believe that now you are talking about a different kind of "faith" than superstitious "faith." But, at any rate, I've already addressed what I think about this kind of "faith."

Yes, I know for you the line is does it deal with non-natural things or not. I pointed out that this line is a line YOU decided was important, but the only real line of importance that anyone could argue for is far, far away from that particular line.

Nobody is suggesting that we "shut that part of us off." I like fiction. I like stories. I read Creation myths for fun, because I think they're cool. I would be sad to see any element of human creativity die out from the world.

All I'm saying is that we recognize that--for example--phrenology is bunk. Just because a human came up with it doesn't mean that it necessarily explains reality. Just because it was an interesting idea doesn't mean it holds up to real examination. I feel the same way about religious faith.

Again, why is explaining "reality" (the quotes are because you're talking about what you ACCEPT as reality, not true reality) so important, and why should it be limited to those things we can observe in order? I love that you keep using the word "real" since you're talking about perception, not reality.



Superstition is not about wanting to examine and explore the unknown. It is about precisely the opposite. Instead of trying to find out more about the unknown, you MAKE UP ANSWERS with no foundation beyond your own desires and emotions, and you give up on actually trying to learn about what is really there.

False. Absolutely and provably false. SOME superstition is about making up answers for that which we could find answers for another way. Some of what you call superstition limits itself to things you could never ever examine any other way. It's the only path to that exploration. You're using the most extreme examples to paint all religious faith with the same brush and there's a word for that, prejudice. Forgive me if I don't accept your prejudice as an argument.

Can science answer why we're hear? Can science answer if anything non-natural exists or even enter into that discussion? Can science answer questions we're asking here? No. It can't. Theology and philosophy can. That is where the value lies. Being faithful just means having an opinion about about the questions we're asking and *gasp* believing that opinion.

It's funny that you're arguing a completely philosophical argument and excercising YOUR faith in YOUR beliefs while claiming that it has no value and is a hindrance to science.

You're kidding right? Many relationships inside the mind are recognition of things in the material world. Are you telling me that there is no material relationship between an inside and outside of an apple, or an apple and a tree. The relationship exists. It's not just a concept or thought.

My comment was to the effect that saying you don't understand how something could be material isn't an argument that it can't be.

I should have said that differently.

I did not mean that they don't exist in the real world, only that we cannot know if they exist in the real world. Our brain is constantly bombarded by these sensations and in order to act, it must organize them, and in doing so it creates this idea of what must be. However, what "must be" according to our mind is devoted to our ability to act, and not devoted to reality itself.

Simply because we form ideas of relationships in our mind, we cannot assume that they do exist outside of it.

And anyway, my original question was how these relationships can be percieved. Since they are immaterial and conceptual (and perhaps completely arbitrary to reality), how can we have sensory perception of them?

You've already answered that. The act of taking the various sight, sound, smell, taste and touch events and creating a picture of the world is an automatic effect of the way we perceive. There are even people who are perfectly rational but have disorders that cause them to perceive the world differently. It's not a breakdown of reasons but a breakdown of their perception.

Do you mean that the faculties that transfer sensation to the mind is faulty, or that the mind is faulty in interpreting these sensations?

It seems that your definition of perception includes both, so I am unsure.

Pardon? That's like saying that because cars use bolts that bolts are cars. I can't make a shirt without some form of cloth, would it be appropriate to call cloth, shirts? Or is there some value to recognizing the concept and its parts. If you want to call everything reason, then it creates a concept that is totally meaninglyless and valueless. If we call the parts reason, then what shall we call the concept to distinguish from its parts?

I am saying that the only use of these automatic relationships we form is to facilitate what we refer to as reason. If their sole existence is to provide for reason, then it is pointless to separate them from reason. I do not wish to call everything reason, only those things that constitute it.

Pardon? Your conclusion does not follow your supposition. If the relationships are automatic and don't involve reason then why would you deny the perception of these relationships? Perception is a form of interpretation, of course, but let's pretend that you're not ignoring that.

Now first off, it was Hotrodia who said that truth can be based and learned upon unbiased perception, and it was I who said that perception is impossible without interpretation.

I was operating from what I thought was his definition of perception: sensation of reality. From here, I was arguing that sensation of reality only becomes utilizable information, mental images, knowledge, or what-have-you, when the sensations are organized by the brain. This organization, be it through formed through automatic relationships or more complex reason, is interpretation that cannot be assumed to provide a true picture of reality. Therefore, knowledge is not possible through perception alone; it must also pass through our subjective interpretations first.

It seems that we are in agreement on this, only disagreeing on the rather unimportant demarcation between perception and reason.

But even the a priori understanding could NEVER evolve without the early perceptions that were beneficial. Are you suggesting that prior to these "understandings" that we simply couldn't relate anything?

When I say a priori, I refer to knowledge that we possess purely of our nature as people, we have it independent of experience, it is knowledge that we have but never learned. When I say that we evolved this knowledge, I mean that quite literally. I believe that humans developed certain mental faculties that cause them to make basic automatic interpretations.

We perceive them. They already exist. Your brain automatically categorizes them and groups them, and in some ways filters them. There are all kinds of recognized disorders with the way this works. Considering them an error in reasoning simply devalues the entire process and ignores where the problem occurs.

A different question, does perception include the automatic relationships we form in creating a mental image of reality, or can we actually sense these relationships?

EDIT: I'm making an effort to debate more like I used to. I think you're an excellent candidate for testing that out. If you catch me being snarky beyond what would reasonably be expected for effect (prodding you a bit, you know), feel free to call me out. It has value and some people deserve such snarkiness (I think we'd both agree here and our post histories reflect that), I certainly have at times (deserve it, that is), but I'd like to use it more sparingly. This conversation has more value absent the snarkiness. Fair?

That is fair, and I will do the same. We would do well to avoid the bitterness that typifies our arguments.

I should have said that differently.

I did not mean that they don't exist in the real world, only that we cannot know if they exist in the real world. Our brain is constantly bombarded by these sensations and in order to act, it must organize them, and in doing so it creates this idea of what must be. However, what "must be" according to our mind is devoted to our ability to act, and not devoted to reality itself.

Simply because we form ideas of relationships in our mind, we cannot assume that they do exist outside of it.

And anyway, my original question was how these relationships can be percieved. Since they are immaterial and conceptual (and perhaps completely arbitrary to reality), how can we have sensory perception of them?

I don't agree that they are abitrary and you've not established they are. What is arbatrary about the relationship between the meat of an apple and the skin?


Do you mean that the faculties that transfer sensation to the mind is faulty, or that the mind is faulty in interpreting these sensations?

It seems that your definition of perception includes both, so I am unsure.

Yes, perception generally refers to both. We could further break them down, but other than this one point, I doubt that's necessary. Both. There are people with flaws in their ability to accept information from the world around them or their ability to interpret it. This is not faulty reason.


I am saying that the only use of these automatic relationships we form is to facilitate what we refer to as reason. If their sole existence is to provide for reason, then it is pointless to separate them from reason. I do not wish to call everything reason, only those things that constitute it.[/QUOTE]

Even if that is the sole purpose, it's not what reason is a descriptor of. What's the point of seperating the heart every other organ in the body. Their sole purpose is to support one another, let's just call them the body and leave it at that.

Those things that are used by reason, do not constitute reason unless you redefine the term. Even your own wording says they are used by reason and as such you'd like to include them. That wording would make no sense if you didn't already accept that they are in fact seperate.



Now first off, it was Hotrodia who said that truth can be based and learned upon unbiased perception, and it was I who said that perception is impossible without interpretation.

I was operating from what I thought was his definition of perception: sensation of reality. From here, I was arguing that sensation of reality only becomes utilizable information, mental images, knowledge, or what-have-you, when the sensations are organized by the brain. This organization, be it through formed through automatic relationships or more complex reason, is interpretation that cannot be assumed to provide a true picture of reality. Therefore, knowledge is not possible through perception alone; it must also pass through our subjective interpretations first.

It seems that we are in agreement on this, only disagreeing on the rather unimportant demarcation between perception and reason.

I know it was HotRodia. We're all part of one big conversation. I wasn't trying to attribute more to you than what you've said, some of which was in response to HR.

And yes, I think we're only hitting on that point as a part of where perception and reason overlap.


When I say a priori, I refer to knowledge that we possess purely of our nature as people, we have it independent of experience, it is knowledge that we have but never learned. When I say that we evolved this knowledge, I mean that quite literally. I believe that humans developed certain mental faculties that cause them to make basic automatic interpretations.

I know you do. And when I say "we" I mean our evolutionary ancestors. I'm saying that how did it first develop if it required reason AND it's a precursor to reason.


A different question, does perception include the automatic relationships we form in creating a mental image of reality, or can we actually sense these relationships?

These relationships are a part of how our brain interprets the information we receive. As I pointed out that part of the process can actually break, with no effect on the persons ability to reason, but only on the evidence they are receiving as being subject to their reason.

However, despite the fact that we perceive these relationships as a part of that automatic process of making the signals usable to us, we don't reason them out. You earlier said that you view reason as a conscious process. This isn't.




That is fair, and I will do the same. We would do well to avoid the bitterness that typifies our arguments.

Happy to hear it. I'll expect, even hope, though, that you'll slip in the occasional barb because it makes it more fun to read. GnI is pretty good about the occasional kick to the crotch that makes playing football with him a process of staying on my toes.

Happy to hear it. I'll expect, even hope, though, that you'll slip in the occasional barb because it makes it more fun to read. GnI is pretty good about the occasional kick to the crotch that makes playing football with him a process of staying on my toes.

Hey! I resemble that remark.

I mean, I represent that...

Errr... okay.

Why, when there is no proof, do people believe in things with such ferocity? I can understand why people would believe in a god. They have been indoctrinated to that affect. However agnostics choose to go against the mainstream w/o proof and are often the fiercest defenders of their beliefs. I just think that it's all arrogant. Thoughts?

I strongly disagree that I am "indoctrinated" Far from it...

I strongly disagree that I am "indoctrinated" Far from it...

Of course. That's how they have trained you to feel about it...

Of course. That's how they have trained you to feel about it...

I'm watching a show where a Christian movement keeps saying how they are trying to gather more souls. They do so be creating ways to frighten people to God.

If Agnosticism is attempting to do that, then agnostics suck at this. Going about it all rational and all.

Of course. That's how they have trained you to feel about it...

Your kidding? I just became Christian two months ago. I looked at all religions and possibilities for two years.

I'm watching a show where a Christian movement keeps saying how they are trying to gather more souls. They do so be creating ways to frighten people to God.

If Agnosticism is attempting to do that, then agnostics suck at this. Going about it all rational and all.

I'm pretty scared of that show you are watching - but it's hardly a new approach. Nothing puts bums in pews like 'Hellfar n' Damnay-shun' preaching.

Your kidding? I just became Christian two months ago. I looked at all religions and possibilities for two years.

Yes, I'm kidding.

You looked at all religions and possibilities? That seems a bit of stretch... and then you ended up picking Christianity?

Yes, I'm kidding.

You looked at all religions and possibilities? That seems a bit of stretch... and then you ended up picking Christianity?

Well obviously not all. But I look at Agnostic, Atheist, Buddhist, Islam, Pagans. Out of all, the one's I looked at hardest were Agnostic, Buddhist, and Christianity.

Well obviously not all. But I look at Agnostic, Atheist, Buddhist, Islam, Pagans. Out of all, the one's I looked at hardest were Agnostic, Buddhist, and Christianity.

You looked at 'pagans'? Which pagans? Pagans aren't a cohesive denomination - they often have no connections to each other. Do you mean Wicca? Shintoism? Some form of Native American spiritism?

I find it odd that you were shopping for religion at all... like you decided you NEEDED one... and so you went out to do comparison shopping. In which case, it's hardly surprising you would reject Atheism or Agnosticism, because they lack 'gods'.

What could you possibly find about Christianity that would make you choose it?

You looked at 'pagans'? Which pagans? Pagans aren't a cohesive denomination - they often have no connections to each other. Do you mean Wicca? Shintoism? Some form of Native American spiritism?

I find it odd that you were shopping for religion at all... like you decided you NEEDED one... and so you went out to do comparison shopping. In which case, it's hardly surprising you would reject Atheism or Agnosticism, because they lack 'gods'.

What could you possibly find about Christianity that would make you choose it?

I was looking at Wiccan. I wasn't "shopping" for a religion. Psh, This is more of a flame post than anything else. You just didn't like that I chose Christianity over your Agnostic or Atheist beliefs.

What could you possibly find about Christianity that would make you choose it?he could become a televangelist and make lots of money... you know, exploiting those who deserve it. :p

he could become a televangelist and make lots of money... you know, exploiting those who deserve it. :p

LOL. You always see on dateline how those guys abuse their powers it makes me :mad:

I was looking at Wiccan. I wasn't "shopping" for a religion. Psh, This is more of a flame post than anything else. You just didn't like that I chose Christianity over your Agnostic or Atheist beliefs.

You think this is a flame? Okkaaay.

I'm just trying to get a handle on your 'argument'. You say you "...looked at all religions and possibilities for two years..." (which we've now ascertained isn't strictly true) - but you don't say WHY you suddenly started looking at religion two years ago.

You say you "...just became Christian two months ago..." - but you don't say WHY you decided on Christianity.

Sudden onset of searching, followed by a kind of on-the-spot conversion? That certainly looks like 'shopping around'.

As for "You just didn't like that I chose Christianity over your Agnostic or Atheist beliefs..." well, you clearly don't know me. I'm entirely in favour of every individual finding their own path to truth, and I really don't care which one they choose - I wish them all the best. I do wonder why someone might suddenly opt for one over others, though.

You think this is a flame? Okkaaay.

I'm just trying to get a handle on your 'argument'. You say you "...looked at all religions and possibilities for two years..." (which we've now ascertained isn't strictly true) - but you don't say WHY you suddenly started looking at religion two years ago.

You say you "...just became Christian two months ago..." - but you don't say WHY you decided on Christianity.

Sudden onset of searching, followed by a kind of on-the-spot conversion? That certainly looks like 'shopping around'.

As for "You just didn't like that I chose Christianity over your Agnostic or Atheist beliefs..." well, you clearly don't know me. I'm entirely in favour of every individual finding their own path to truth, and I really don't care which one they choose - I wish them all the best. I do wonder why someone might suddenly opt for one over others, though.

I see, I apologize. When I said I looked at "all religions" I obviously did not, due to that would also mean looking at pirtateisim and whatnot. So I rephrase when I say I looked at a lot of religions. The reason I started to look for a religion was because I started to ask myself why I was on this earth. My parents had never forced nor taught most religion on me so I was curious. The reason I decided on Christianity was because it was the one that made the most sense to me, and I also liked what it taught. The reason why I had "shopped around" was because I had little or no exposure to religion, and all because my friends were whatnot, I didn't want to decide on one just because they were. I just felt a warmth in me when I decided to chose Christianity. Even if it turns out to be false, I will not regret living it's lifestyle. I also agree with you when everyone should find their own path with religion, or not to believe in one.

I see, I apologize. When I said I looked at "all religions" I obviously did not, due to that would also mean looking at pirtateisim and whatnot. So I rephrase when I say I looked at a lot of religions. The reason I started to look for a religion was because I started to ask myself why I was on this earth. My parents had never forced nor taught most religion on me so I was curious. The reason I decided on Christianity was because it was the one that made the most sense to me, and I also liked what it taught. The reason why I had "shopped around" was because I had little or no exposure to religion, and all because my friends were whatnot, I didn't want to decide on one just because they were. I just felt a warmth in me when I chosed Christianity. Even if it turns out to be false, I will not regret living it's lifestyle.What is its lifestyle?

What is its lifestyle?

Well, I am not sure for everyone else, but for me it is to show forgiveness towards others, be in a brotherhood, feel good about yourself, be tolerant about other people. For me it also directly extends to sins, Like you shouldn't lie, cheat, or steal, or kill etc. That seems like good rules to follow.

I see, I apologize. When I said I looked at "all religions" I obviously did not, due to that would also mean looking at pirtateisim and whatnot. So I rephrase when I say I looked at a lot of religions. The reason I started to look for a religion was because I started to ask myself why I was on this earth. My parents had never forced nor taught most religion on me so I was curious. The reason I decided on Christianity was because it was the one that made the most sense to me, and I also liked what it taught. The reason why I had "shopped around" was because I had little or no exposure to religion, and all because my friends were whatnot, I didn't want to decide on one just because they were. I just felt a warmth in me when I decided to chose Christianity. Even if it turns out to be false, I will not regret living it's lifestyle. I also agree with you when everyone should find their own path with religion, or not to believe in one.

Now, of course - the next question would be - why did you start wondering why you were on this Earth...? :)

I'm always confused by people converting to Christianity, because it is one of the religions that actually involves the most leaps of faith, and has one of the most inconsistent scriptures. I actually find it harder to get my head around being Christian because you were raised that way, than the idea of jumping into it.

But, you got your 'spiritual' awakening. You had your epiphany that tells you you are on the right path (for you). I guess one can deal with (or chose to ignore) all the other little headaches about the thing, if it 'feels' right.

I say, good luck to ya!

Well, I am not sure for everyone else, but for me it is to show forgiveness towards others, be in a brotherhood, feel good about yourself, be tolerant about other people. For me it also directly extends to sins, Like you shouldn't lie, cheat, or steal, or kill etc. That seems like good rules to follow.

Forgiveness, fraternity, tolerance. All good. Of course, none of them are peculiar to Christianity.

Now, of course - the next question would be - why did you start wondering why you were on this Earth...? :)

I'm always confused by people converting to Christianity, because it is one of the religions that actually involves the most leaps of faith, and has one of the most inconsistent scriptures. I actually find it harder to get my head around being Christian because you were raised that way, than the idea of jumping into it.

But, you got your 'spiritual' awakening. You had your epiphany that tells you you are on the right path (for you). I guess one can deal with (or chose to ignore) all the other little headaches about the thing, if it 'feels' right.

I say, good luck to ya!


Well as I said on earlier threads, I do not believe everything in the Bible. The core thing I believe in is Jesus. I started wondering why I was on this Earth, cause I did... It popped into my head.

Forgiveness, fraternity, tolerance. All good. Of course, none of them are peculiar to Christianity.

This is true.

snip


Alright, like I said, I believe we have evolutionarily developed a priori tendencies in the ways we organize our experiences and sensations. What we typically refer to as reason is just an extension of these a priori, in that we typically treat these laws of relationship as axioms and build or methods of truth upon them. In decribing them this way, I find it fits to consider them a part of reason and a prerequisite for our more complex systems of reason.

If it is in fact evolutionarily brought about, the onus upon our systems of reason would be produce the mental functions that promoted our survival, and not directl those mental functions that provided us with a "true" understanding of reality. So our reason developed arbitrarily of the true nature of reality, rather developing those interpretations of reality that would cause us to replicate our genetic makeup. So while it can be argued that someone who understands his environment better than another may have a higher level of Darwinian fitness, it cannot be taken for granted that the automatic relationships we form from our perceptions are accurate.

Two last points, I am contradicting what I said earlier about the conscious nature of reason, and I am not wishing to call those relationships reason, I am wishing to include them within reason.

Alright, like I said, I believe we have evolutionarily developed a priori tendencies in the ways we organize our experiences and sensations. What we typically refer to as reason is just an extension of these a priori, in that we typically treat these laws of relationship as axioms and build or methods of truth upon them. In decribing them this way, I find it fits to consider them a part of reason and a prerequisite for our more complex systems of reason.

If it is in fact evolutionarily brought about, the onus upon our systems of reason would be produce the mental functions that promoted our survival, and not directl those mental functions that provided us with a "true" understanding of reality. So our reason developed arbitrarily of the true nature of reality, rather developing those interpretations of reality that would cause us to replicate our genetic makeup. So while it can be argued that someone who understands his environment better than another may have a higher level of Darwinian fitness, it cannot be taken for granted that the automatic relationships we form from our perceptions are accurate.

Two last points, I am contradicting what I said earlier about the conscious nature of reason, and I am not wishing to call those relationships reason, I am wishing to include them within reason.

I still don't agree. I think you were right earlier when you pointed out that the descriptor, reason, refers to the conscious process. I wouldn't claim that it can be seperated from the unconscious process, which is what I believe you're saying, but I consider this to be like saying your respiratory system relies on your circulatory system. They many be part of the same whole, to extend the analogy, that allows us to view the world in a way that makes sense to us, but their methods and their purposes are very different.

But I think we've probably gotten as far as we're going to get here. I see what you're trying to say, I just don't agree with applying a term designed to describe our conscious processes and to molest it to the point of covering all of our processes.