those people were all wealthy, respected, intelligent men. you're just as likely to find links between them with respect to levels of education and respect accorded to them by peers.
i never said christianity isn't a pile of shit. i don't subscribe to it. im just wondering why i should discard one pile of shit just so i can adopt another pile of shit. the fact that you suspect greater accuracy will produce better results is hardly reason enough for me to start drinking the koolaid. i don't need determinism or christianity to handle my affairs just fine. nor does society need one of the other to get sicker or better.
All I'm saying is that we wouldn't be hanging homosexuals if we knew why they were homosexuals. We wouldn't be burning witches if we knew what schizophrenia was. There would be less highschool shootings if students were aware of autism and other social disorders. Instead of this bullshit of blaming each other all the time for everything that happens.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Maybe it's not true, but Christianity is a pile of shit, that much is true. Maybe you'd rather stay in the comfort zone because you are used to the smell, but not me..
Come on, Ahnimus. I've read several of your posts and it's clear you are an intelligent person, but there is no need for comments like this. They do nothing in terms of advancing the discussion.
What do you mean? In what way does Christianity obtain knowledge of human behavior a priori?
The basic method of obtaining religious knowledge is to read the bible, then use introspection to "speak with God".
Come on, Ahnimus. I've read several of your posts and it's clear you are an intelligent person, but there is no need for comments like this. They do nothing in terms of advancing the discussion.
Consider who I'm talking to.
Why trust empirical over a priori?
The history of epistemology. Emprics is basically the only way we've ever made progress.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The basic method of obtaining religious knowledge is to read the bible, then use introspection to "speak with God"..
Maybe I'm not exactly clear on what you're saying (standard disclaimer lest I say something silly...) but I don't know how that constitutes as a priori knowledge (maybe the "introspection" part?).
The history of epistemology. Emprics is basically the only way we've ever made progress.
Like Berekley? He was an empiricist, who believed that the physical world was all mind-dependent. Or like Hume, one of the greatest skeptics of modern philosophy, who brought into question the principle "the future will be like the past" (hmm, does science rely on that principle?)
I cannot through a priori means find a cure for cancer, but my question was why trust empirical knowledge over a priori knowledge.
All I'm saying is that we wouldn't be hanging homosexuals if we knew why they were homosexuals. We wouldn't be burning witches if we knew what schizophrenia was. There would be less highschool shootings if students were aware of autism and other social disorders. Instead of this bullshit of blaming each other all the time for everything that happens.
you don't know that. i think it is just as likely that we would be practicing clinical eugenics instead. people do know what autism, schizophrenia, and so forth are. it hasn't stopped anything.
"The question of free will is whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions and decisions. ...
The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will may imply that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices. In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
We wouldn't be burning witches if we knew what schizophrenia was.
You continue to burn people at a metaphorical stake by pathologizing people and normal human capabilities (for example, ones related to feminine intelligence, characterized by the evolutionary valid brain functions of emotional and intuitive intelligence), just as the church did with the witch label back in the day. You are the modern day witch-hunter, and you don't recognize what you do. Rather than burn people at the stake for their types of awareness and brain processing, you slap a highly socially stigmatized label on them that denotes serious illness.
Witch-hunting, whether from the past or as it exists metaphorically today, comes from people wanting to persecute those who don't share their beliefs, or beliefs that are considered "good". People decide their way is the best way and look to eliminate the view of others, rather than practice tolerance.
'The first major witch hunts began in many western European countries....Historians have speculated that this religiously inspired genocide was motivated by a desire by the Church to attain a complete religious monopoly, or was "a tool of repression, a form of reining-in deviant behavior, a backlash against women, or a tool of the common people to name scapegoats for spoiled crops, dead livestock or the death of babies and children." ' http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_burn2.htm
'Burning at the stake in public was used in Britain to punish heresy...' http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/burning.html 'The idea of burning witches, one of the cruelest forms of execution, is said to have originated with Saint Augustine (354-430), who said "that pagans, Jews, and heretics would burn forever in eternal fire with the Devil unless saved by the Catholic Church." '
Ahnimus, it looks like you, yourself, might have been burned at the stake back in the day for your ongoing "heresy" against the church and its doctrines. What kind of disorder would we now be able to label you with to explain your disobedience to the church or to social norms? Schizophrenia is known as a broad 'catch-all' term. Maybe heretics look schizophrenic* today as well.
her·e·tic (hěr'ĭ-tĭk) Pronunciation Key
n. A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.
(American Heritage Dictionary)
*Note: I am well aware of what schizophrenia actually is and therefore any comparisons with schizophrenia and ideologies that conflict with "norms" is entirely used to illustrate a point. Mental illness labels are far too often abused, and mental health stigmas are far-reaching and painfully socially ostracizing for sufferers. When "deviant" behaviour, or behaviour that is a minority in our society, is pathologized inaccurately as illness it perpetuates the dark side and dark ages of our current understanding of mental health.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Was he the son of God, or a man? The Bible contradicts itself claiming both things. An apple is never an orange and an orange is never an apple. So which is right?
Christ's claim to divinity is usually attributed to being born of the stock of David. Joseph being descended from David. Not Mary.
or
Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, having never known any man. Which defies the laws of the universe.
My belief, he was a man who was schooled by a lost arcaine order in metaphysics and had learned how to master the body's energies. Using those energies for the purpose of good, he was before his time, and the people living during those times were still not ready for his word. His message that we all, being lesser parts of a greater divine being, had the capacity to talk to "God" individually and tap into that source personally, not through the church. By deciding to be crucified, for it was the people who named him king if the Jews, not him, he did not do anything other than fulfill a prophecy, which in essence borught his teachings to light. Hence Christianity. Otherwise he would not have been any different than other crucified of the day.
Saved through Christ, but really through the teachings of Christ you find salvation. No one should expect to be forgiven just because they believe in Jesus. If saving is what we are all looking for, we should be looking towards bettering our own lives, righting our own wrongs, making amends when we are able to and looking at every moment as a moral test. We are the makers and deciders of our own fate. Jesus cannot save you anymore than he could save himself. But in dying on the cross, he lived in his word...
We turned him into the solar diety of the age. No different than the Greek's Dyonisis, or Egypt's Osiris and many others. Great leaders of the past, many having 12 followers, performing miracles, walking on water, turning water into wine, healing the sick, resurrection on the 3rd day.
There is only one small place in the entire Bible that mentions the trinity. And the word trinity is never used.
1 John 5:7-8
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
When you compare older translations of the Bible, there is no mention of "son"
There is the original Greek text, then the Latin trascrription after many years to satisfy the needs of the Catholic church, where in translation, punctuation and words were changed.
I do believe in the concept of the trinity, though admittedly my viewpoint is not the mainstream veiw. I have been researching many books on metaphysics and have found many references to the trinity. None having to do with a "son" who by praying for forgiveness in his name, will save me.
Peace
My apologies if this was posted before. I'm curious how deeply religious people who follow the Bible can rectify this one in their heads? And am interested in amy answers.
you mentioned that the verse referring to the trinity has no mention of the word "son"...you can look up the verse John 1:1 that states that the word became flesh (Jesus) By this the Bible states that Jesus and the word are one in the same, which would take care of the problem that the son is not mention in the verse you quoted.
you mentioned that the verse referring to the trinity has no mention of the word "son"...you can look up the verse John 1:1 that states that the word became flesh (Jesus) By this the Bible states that Jesus and the word are one in the same, which would take care of the problem that the son is not mention in the verse you quoted.
You continue to burn people at a metaphorical stake by pathologizing people and normal human capabilities (for example, ones related to feminine intelligence, characterized by the evolutionary valid brain functions of emotional and intuitive intelligence), just as the church did with the witch label back in the day. You are the modern day witch-hunter, and you don't recognize what you do. Rather than burn people at the stake for their types of awareness and brain processing, you slap a highly socially stigmatized label on them that denotes serious illness.
Witch-hunting, whether from the past or as it exists metaphorically today, comes from people wanting to persecute those who don't share their beliefs, or beliefs that are considered "good". People decide their way is the best way and look to eliminate the view of others, rather than practice tolerance.
'The first major witch hunts began in many western European countries....Historians have speculated that this religiously inspired genocide was motivated by a desire by the Church to attain a complete religious monopoly, or was "a tool of repression, a form of reining-in deviant behavior, a backlash against women, or a tool of the common people to name scapegoats for spoiled crops, dead livestock or the death of babies and children." ' http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_burn2.htm
'Burning at the stake in public was used in Britain to punish heresy...' http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/burning.html 'The idea of burning witches, one of the cruelest forms of execution, is said to have originated with Saint Augustine (354-430), who said "that pagans, Jews, and heretics would burn forever in eternal fire with the Devil unless saved by the Catholic Church." '
Ahnimus, it looks like you, yourself, might have been burned at the stake back in the day for your ongoing "heresy" against the church and its doctrines. What kind of disorder would we now be able to label you with to explain your disobedience to the church or to social norms? Schizophrenia is known as a broad 'catch-all' term. Maybe heretics look schizophrenic* today as well.
her·e·tic (hěr'ĭ-tĭk) Pronunciation Key
n. A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.
(American Heritage Dictionary)
*Note: I am well aware of what schizophrenia actually is and therefore any comparisons with schizophrenia and ideologies that conflict with "norms" is entirely used to illustrate a point. Mental illness labels are far too often abused, and mental health stigmas are far-reaching and painfully socially ostracizing for sufferers. When "deviant" behaviour, or behaviour that is a minority in our society, is pathologized inaccurately as illness it perpetuates the dark side and dark ages of our current understanding of mental health.
Angelica, you know sound-byte information about the brain. "Feminine Intelligence"? By this you must be referring to the larger size of the amygdala which is partially responsible for emotions, as it is a gate to the limbic system. But keep in mind that this is culturally dependant. The brain develops according to extrinsic properties, external values, such as symbolic social norms. Women aren't likely to have this innately, much like men aren't likely to have denser frontal regions allowing for better spatiality. These differences are culturally dependent, just as performance is largely affected by stereotypes.
You are comparing me to ideologies and atrocities almost 2,000 years old. That is absolutely absurd and indicative of your primative and completely ridiculous debate tactics. There is absolutely no comparison to the ideologies of 2,000 years ago, or even of 200 years ago and the concrete scientific knowledge available today. You are just too narrow-minded and one-track to bother learning about the development of the brain. You are too busy chasing down hopi prophecies and miracle water. Grab a brain and learn about brains. There is a bottomless chasm of mysterious non-sense that runs around in circles like a treadmill. You won't get anywhere with that garbage.
Your comments totally lack any kind of respect. I'm not proposing physical harm to anyone, I'm criticizing ideological beliefs. If you have a problem with criticism, find some useful data to defend your views or don't get into a debate.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
"The question of free will is whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions and decisions. ...
The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will may imply that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices. In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
We've been here before. The first statement describes the point of the question and the latter describes the implications of it's truthfulness or falsity. The actual definition is implied but not explicitly stated in that description.
You've conveniently omited the following text... again!
Addressing this question requires understanding the relationship between freedom and cause, and determining whether the laws of nature are causally deterministic. The various philosophical positions taken differ on whether all events are determined or not—determinism versus indeterminism—and also on whether freedom can coexist with determinism or not—compatibilism versus incompatibilism. So, for instance, hard determinists argue that the universe is deterministic, and that this makes free will impossible.
That's because the question of Free-Will, is absolutely a question of whether or not human's have metaphysical wills that allow us to contra-causally affect ourselves. There are only three positions, determinism, compatibalism and liberatarianism as is mentioned all through the article you linked. There is no option to redefine free-will to be something else. You are talking about something completely different, completely unrelated to the philosophical inquiry of free-will.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Angelica, you know sound-byte information about the brain. "Feminine Intelligence"? By this you must be referring to the larger size of the amygdala which is partially responsible for emotions, as it is a gate to the limbic system.
In actuality, I am referring to the fact that emotions and intuition are often considered "feminine", unreal and unrealistic in the typical patriarchical view, where "male" intelligence such as reason is considered the one valid form of intelligence. If we can't back our perception up with reason, our awareness is rendered invalid by the patriarchical biased, unrealistic and ignorant views that still hold massive power.
In the MBTI personality typing, the majority of men have a predominantly "reasoned" intelligence, and the majority of women have a predominantly "emotional" intelligence. Our society devalues the emotional intelligence, even though experts understand the high value of emotional intelligence.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
In actuality, I am referring to the fact that emotions and intuition are often considered "feminine", unreal and unrealistic in the typical patriarchical view, where "male" intelligence such as reason is considered the one valid form of intelligence. If we can't back our perception up with reason, our awareness is rendered invalid by the patriarchical biased, unrealistic and ignorant views that still hold massive power.
In the MBTI personality typing, the majority of men have a predominantly "reasoned" intelligence, and the majority of women have a predominantly "emotional" intelligence. Our society devalues the emotional intelligence, even though experts understand the high value of emotional intelligence.
Those are culturally dependent terms. They would make no sense to the Chambuli Tribe in Papau New Guinea.
That concept of reason being superior is a result of the history of epistemology. There is no doubt among "Experts" that emotional intelligence is intelligent, but it's a much dirtier system than logical intelligence. Emotional intelligence is great for certain applications, but it's not ideal of matters of philosophy.
Comparitavely emotional intelligence is like saying "Something doesn't feel right about this place." to reasoned intelligence which says "There are suspicious characters near the exit, the bulge in one's over-garment appears as a weapon, many eyes survey me as I enter, I think it's an ambush."
The difference being, it's temoprally more effective to acknowledge the hunch that something is suspicious than it is to logically figure out the rest of it and then weigh the possibilities, i.e. "perhaps the bulge is a fanny pack obscured by the jacket", "perhaps my hair is unusual to this crowd and thus the stares", etc... There is no time for that in time-senstive situations like an ambush. And many times I've whitnessed people reacting emotionally to potentially harmful situations when no harm was in-fact imminent, it was them reacting, rightfully, to emotional intuition, but in that situation it was false.
The main thing is, emotional intelligence is not ideal for the greater questions, it's misleading, very very misleading.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
We've been here before. The first statement describes the point of the question and the latter describes the implications of it's truthfulness or falsity. The actual definition is implied but not explicitly stated in that description.
You've conveniently omited the following text... again!
Addressing this question requires understanding the relationship between freedom and cause, and determining whether the laws of nature are causally deterministic. The various philosophical positions taken differ on whether all events are determined or not—determinism versus indeterminism—and also on whether freedom can coexist with determinism or not—compatibilism versus incompatibilism. So, for instance, hard determinists argue that the universe is deterministic, and that this makes free will impossible.
That's because the question of Free-Will, is absolutely a question of whether or not human's have metaphysical wills that allow us to contra-causally affect ourselves. There are only three positions, determinism, compatibalism and liberatarianism as is mentioned all through the article you linked. There is no option to redefine free-will to be something else. You are talking about something completely different, completely unrelated to the philosophical inquiry of free-will.
For me, I have no desire to talk about free-will, because spiritual/religious people apparently have a different conception for it than non-believers, and therefore much needless misunderstanding happens in such discussions.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Those are culturally dependent terms. They would make no sense to the Chambuli Tribe in Papau New Guinea.
That concept of reason being superior is a result of the history of epistemology. There is no doubt among "Experts" that emotional intelligence is intelligent, but it's a much dirtier system than logical intelligence. Emotional intelligence is great for certain applications, but it's not ideal of matters of philosophy.
Comparitavely emotional intelligence is like saying "Something doesn't feel right about this place." to reasoned intelligence which says "There are suspicious characters near the exit, the bulge in one's over-garment appears as a weapon, many eyes survey me as I enter, I think it's an ambush."
The difference being, it's temoprally more effective to acknowledge the hunch that something is suspicious than it is to logically figure out the rest of it and then weigh the possibilities, i.e. "perhaps the bulge is a fanny pack obscured by the jacket", "perhaps my hair is unusual to this crowd and thus the stares", etc... There is no time for that in time-senstive situations like an ambush. And many times I've whitnessed people reacting emotionally to potentially harmful situations when no harm was in-fact imminent, it was them reacting, rightfully, to emotional intuition, but in that situation it was false.
The main thing is, emotional intelligence is not ideal for the greater questions, it's misleading, very very misleading.
Thank-you for this post which exactly illustrates the patriarchical and inaccurate bias I refer to.
The actual expert opinion is very different than your above opinion.
And in the psychology branch of human interactions--transactional analysis--imbalance itself stems from this bias wherein certain intelligences are denounced while others are favoured, at the expense of our balance and our literal sanity. i.e. disorders of perception stem from such a socially imbalanced and inaccurately stigmatized view.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Thank-you for this post which exactly illustrates the patriarchical and inaccurate bias I refer to.
The actual expert opinion is very different than your above opinion.
And in the psychology branch of human interactions--transactional analysis--imbalance itself stems from this bias wherein certain intelligences are denounced while others are favoured, at the expense of our balance and our literal sanity. i.e. disorders of perception stem from such a socially imbalanced and inaccurately stigmatized view.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
I've just finished reading "How brains represent" a chapter in Pat S Churchland's (a woman) (a neuroscientist) book Brain-Wise. And in it, she describes exactly how emotional representation differs from logical representations. Your experts are crackpots. Probably feminists.
She also has a paragraph referring to your "oneness"
It is often claimed that our conception of space is unified, and sometimes even that it is necessarily unified. Yet it is unclear what introspection, innocent of philosophical indoctrination, actually delivers on this point. Nevertheless, if introspection does present the "oneness" of spatial perception, then that perception is undoubtedly illusory to some degree. Various versions of "where-perceived-objects-are-in-my-body-space" can dissociate (largely without intropsective notice) as a function of precisely which perceptual modalities are involved. Pg 312
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It doesn't matter. It's not a different thing Angelica.
I happen to converse periodically with a Catholic student of Philosophy and there is no disagreement on the term Free-Will.
You are the only one that has a different definition, and you only have it so that you can shoehorn it into your ideology.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
In these few posts between you and I, you've been assuming what I'm talking about, and then disputing those figments of your imagination. For example, you assume what I mean by female intelligence and then critique what you imagine. Then you assume who my experts are and then you critique your assumptions. Jumping to a conclusion and then disputing that ill-achieved conclusion doesn't work. Because you don't understand what I'm talking about is not the same as me not knowing what I'm talking about. When you insult and degrade my point of view, you show your own emotional distortions by your inability to operate on a rational and even playing field of reason.
You continue to exalt logic. And to put it above other equally valid intelligences. The proof is in the pudding. When you use logic without an understanding of the big picture (an intuitive function), without a sense of "rightness", or without a balanced perception of your own emotional intelligence and how your emotions distort/undermine your own arguments, you end up being inaccurate, no matter how logical.
So, back to the issue at hand: Those who were deemed witches were those who acted "immoral", for example as having affairs, or those who practiced heresy, or other "deviant" behaviour such as midwifery, or other abilities stemming from what are currently accepted by the experts* far and wide as valid alogical functions. Because the common codes of the day did not accept alternative belief, or types of functioning, is a far cry from schizophrenia.
You are not helping when you continue to reveal your intolerance for other views by painting everything contrary to your own view as mental illness, psychosis, stupidity, etc. You merely reveal your intolerance, bias and ignorance. You epitomize the degrading shunning and illogical emotionality** enacted in during the witch-hunts.
*As was said in another thread, you interpret your own experts and their reasoned arguments in a way that makes certain views "right/wrong" (which is a moral judgment) depending on your own moral criteria, when even the experts you interpret are responsible enough not to do so. Your own experts remain balanced and fair. Your emotional distortions fall on your shoulders.
**emotional intelligence and illogical use of emotions are completely different. One is a healthy use of emotion, the other is the shadow side of imbalanced emotional perception.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
assume what's the best?
All I'm saying is that we wouldn't be hanging homosexuals if we knew why they were homosexuals. We wouldn't be burning witches if we knew what schizophrenia was. There would be less highschool shootings if students were aware of autism and other social disorders. Instead of this bullshit of blaming each other all the time for everything that happens.
What do you mean? In what way does Christianity obtain knowledge of human behavior a priori?
Come on, Ahnimus. I've read several of your posts and it's clear you are an intelligent person, but there is no need for comments like this. They do nothing in terms of advancing the discussion.
Why trust empirical over a priori?
The basic method of obtaining religious knowledge is to read the bible, then use introspection to "speak with God".
Consider who I'm talking to.
The history of epistemology. Emprics is basically the only way we've ever made progress.
Maybe I'm not exactly clear on what you're saying (standard disclaimer lest I say something silly...) but I don't know how that constitutes as a priori knowledge (maybe the "introspection" part?).
Uh, Christians like myself?
Like Berekley? He was an empiricist, who believed that the physical world was all mind-dependent. Or like Hume, one of the greatest skeptics of modern philosophy, who brought into question the principle "the future will be like the past" (hmm, does science rely on that principle?)
I cannot through a priori means find a cure for cancer, but my question was why trust empirical knowledge over a priori knowledge.
you don't know that. i think it is just as likely that we would be practicing clinical eugenics instead. people do know what autism, schizophrenia, and so forth are. it hasn't stopped anything.
The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will may imply that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices. In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You continue to burn people at a metaphorical stake by pathologizing people and normal human capabilities (for example, ones related to feminine intelligence, characterized by the evolutionary valid brain functions of emotional and intuitive intelligence), just as the church did with the witch label back in the day. You are the modern day witch-hunter, and you don't recognize what you do. Rather than burn people at the stake for their types of awareness and brain processing, you slap a highly socially stigmatized label on them that denotes serious illness.
Witch-hunting, whether from the past or as it exists metaphorically today, comes from people wanting to persecute those who don't share their beliefs, or beliefs that are considered "good". People decide their way is the best way and look to eliminate the view of others, rather than practice tolerance.
'The first major witch hunts began in many western European countries....Historians have speculated that this religiously inspired genocide was motivated by a desire by the Church to attain a complete religious monopoly, or was "a tool of repression, a form of reining-in deviant behavior, a backlash against women, or a tool of the common people to name scapegoats for spoiled crops, dead livestock or the death of babies and children." ' http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_burn2.htm
'Burning at the stake in public was used in Britain to punish heresy...' http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/burning.html 'The idea of burning witches, one of the cruelest forms of execution, is said to have originated with Saint Augustine (354-430), who said "that pagans, Jews, and heretics would burn forever in eternal fire with the Devil unless saved by the Catholic Church." '
Ahnimus, it looks like you, yourself, might have been burned at the stake back in the day for your ongoing "heresy" against the church and its doctrines. What kind of disorder would we now be able to label you with to explain your disobedience to the church or to social norms? Schizophrenia is known as a broad 'catch-all' term. Maybe heretics look schizophrenic* today as well.
her·e·tic (hěr'ĭ-tĭk) Pronunciation Key
n. A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.
(American Heritage Dictionary)
*Note: I am well aware of what schizophrenia actually is and therefore any comparisons with schizophrenia and ideologies that conflict with "norms" is entirely used to illustrate a point. Mental illness labels are far too often abused, and mental health stigmas are far-reaching and painfully socially ostracizing for sufferers. When "deviant" behaviour, or behaviour that is a minority in our society, is pathologized inaccurately as illness it perpetuates the dark side and dark ages of our current understanding of mental health.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
you mentioned that the verse referring to the trinity has no mention of the word "son"...you can look up the verse John 1:1 that states that the word became flesh (Jesus) By this the Bible states that Jesus and the word are one in the same, which would take care of the problem that the son is not mention in the verse you quoted.
Lexington-4/21/03
Cincinnatti-6/24/06
Denver-7/02/06
Bonnaroo-6/14/08
Must have been an eclipse.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Angelica, you know sound-byte information about the brain. "Feminine Intelligence"? By this you must be referring to the larger size of the amygdala which is partially responsible for emotions, as it is a gate to the limbic system. But keep in mind that this is culturally dependant. The brain develops according to extrinsic properties, external values, such as symbolic social norms. Women aren't likely to have this innately, much like men aren't likely to have denser frontal regions allowing for better spatiality. These differences are culturally dependent, just as performance is largely affected by stereotypes.
You are comparing me to ideologies and atrocities almost 2,000 years old. That is absolutely absurd and indicative of your primative and completely ridiculous debate tactics. There is absolutely no comparison to the ideologies of 2,000 years ago, or even of 200 years ago and the concrete scientific knowledge available today. You are just too narrow-minded and one-track to bother learning about the development of the brain. You are too busy chasing down hopi prophecies and miracle water. Grab a brain and learn about brains. There is a bottomless chasm of mysterious non-sense that runs around in circles like a treadmill. You won't get anywhere with that garbage.
Your comments totally lack any kind of respect. I'm not proposing physical harm to anyone, I'm criticizing ideological beliefs. If you have a problem with criticism, find some useful data to defend your views or don't get into a debate.
We've been here before. The first statement describes the point of the question and the latter describes the implications of it's truthfulness or falsity. The actual definition is implied but not explicitly stated in that description.
You've conveniently omited the following text... again!
Addressing this question requires understanding the relationship between freedom and cause, and determining whether the laws of nature are causally deterministic. The various philosophical positions taken differ on whether all events are determined or not—determinism versus indeterminism—and also on whether freedom can coexist with determinism or not—compatibilism versus incompatibilism. So, for instance, hard determinists argue that the universe is deterministic, and that this makes free will impossible.
That's because the question of Free-Will, is absolutely a question of whether or not human's have metaphysical wills that allow us to contra-causally affect ourselves. There are only three positions, determinism, compatibalism and liberatarianism as is mentioned all through the article you linked. There is no option to redefine free-will to be something else. You are talking about something completely different, completely unrelated to the philosophical inquiry of free-will.
In the MBTI personality typing, the majority of men have a predominantly "reasoned" intelligence, and the majority of women have a predominantly "emotional" intelligence. Our society devalues the emotional intelligence, even though experts understand the high value of emotional intelligence.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Those are culturally dependent terms. They would make no sense to the Chambuli Tribe in Papau New Guinea.
That concept of reason being superior is a result of the history of epistemology. There is no doubt among "Experts" that emotional intelligence is intelligent, but it's a much dirtier system than logical intelligence. Emotional intelligence is great for certain applications, but it's not ideal of matters of philosophy.
Comparitavely emotional intelligence is like saying "Something doesn't feel right about this place." to reasoned intelligence which says "There are suspicious characters near the exit, the bulge in one's over-garment appears as a weapon, many eyes survey me as I enter, I think it's an ambush."
The difference being, it's temoprally more effective to acknowledge the hunch that something is suspicious than it is to logically figure out the rest of it and then weigh the possibilities, i.e. "perhaps the bulge is a fanny pack obscured by the jacket", "perhaps my hair is unusual to this crowd and thus the stares", etc... There is no time for that in time-senstive situations like an ambush. And many times I've whitnessed people reacting emotionally to potentially harmful situations when no harm was in-fact imminent, it was them reacting, rightfully, to emotional intuition, but in that situation it was false.
The main thing is, emotional intelligence is not ideal for the greater questions, it's misleading, very very misleading.
One more time...
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The actual expert opinion is very different than your above opinion.
And in the psychology branch of human interactions--transactional analysis--imbalance itself stems from this bias wherein certain intelligences are denounced while others are favoured, at the expense of our balance and our literal sanity. i.e. disorders of perception stem from such a socially imbalanced and inaccurately stigmatized view.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You have no idea what you are talking about.
I've just finished reading "How brains represent" a chapter in Pat S Churchland's (a woman) (a neuroscientist) book Brain-Wise. And in it, she describes exactly how emotional representation differs from logical representations. Your experts are crackpots. Probably feminists.
She also has a paragraph referring to your "oneness"
It is often claimed that our conception of space is unified, and sometimes even that it is necessarily unified. Yet it is unclear what introspection, innocent of philosophical indoctrination, actually delivers on this point. Nevertheless, if introspection does present the "oneness" of spatial perception, then that perception is undoubtedly illusory to some degree. Various versions of "where-perceived-objects-are-in-my-body-space" can dissociate (largely without intropsective notice) as a function of precisely which perceptual modalities are involved. Pg 312
It doesn't matter. It's not a different thing Angelica.
I happen to converse periodically with a Catholic student of Philosophy and there is no disagreement on the term Free-Will.
You are the only one that has a different definition, and you only have it so that you can shoehorn it into your ideology.
You continue to exalt logic. And to put it above other equally valid intelligences. The proof is in the pudding. When you use logic without an understanding of the big picture (an intuitive function), without a sense of "rightness", or without a balanced perception of your own emotional intelligence and how your emotions distort/undermine your own arguments, you end up being inaccurate, no matter how logical.
So, back to the issue at hand: Those who were deemed witches were those who acted "immoral", for example as having affairs, or those who practiced heresy, or other "deviant" behaviour such as midwifery, or other abilities stemming from what are currently accepted by the experts* far and wide as valid alogical functions. Because the common codes of the day did not accept alternative belief, or types of functioning, is a far cry from schizophrenia.
You are not helping when you continue to reveal your intolerance for other views by painting everything contrary to your own view as mental illness, psychosis, stupidity, etc. You merely reveal your intolerance, bias and ignorance. You epitomize the degrading shunning and illogical emotionality** enacted in during the witch-hunts.
*As was said in another thread, you interpret your own experts and their reasoned arguments in a way that makes certain views "right/wrong" (which is a moral judgment) depending on your own moral criteria, when even the experts you interpret are responsible enough not to do so. Your own experts remain balanced and fair. Your emotional distortions fall on your shoulders.
**emotional intelligence and illogical use of emotions are completely different. One is a healthy use of emotion, the other is the shadow side of imbalanced emotional perception.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!