I say for sure that it's objectively true that particular aspects of what is done/said in the name of religion can be false.
And that objectively, base tenets of religions are either true or false, for sure.
However the only true understanding comes between objectivity/subjectivity melding into plain encompassing awareness. Anything less tries to attribute human flaw onto the objective world. And therefore flawed attempts to objectively understand religion will garner flawed outcomes.
Ok, if 5 people look at an object and say it's a baseball and one person calls it an orange, then is it a baseball or an orange?
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
If I teach you math, and you are not receptive to it, you will not understand math. That has nothing to do with whether the objective exists or not. math will continue to exist, and I will continue to believe in it whether or not you are receptive to it.
I explain alogic stuff all the time. Explaining it logically falls short of full comprehension, but I wouldn't be on this board talking logically about this stuff all the time if it fell short of comprehension.
That's not true. Or at least you will have to define receptive. I take it to mean a willingness to learn. I know it's possible to learn things without being willing. Except concepts like God of course. I would be careful with subjectivity. One of my ex-girlfriends could see auras, but only on a white background. It turns out to be a defect in her eyes.
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
That's not true. Or at least you will have to define receptive. I take it to mean a willingness to learn. I know it's possible to learn things without being willing. Except concepts like God of course. I would be careful with subjectivity. One of my ex-girlfriends could see auras, but only on a white background. It turns out to be a defect in her eyes.
One can be willing to learn but have all the inner filters set to a different station. So I mean "receptive" in terms of beneath conscious will. You can always willingly make a conscious choice to try to understand my perspective, too. It looks like you are so caught up in how repelling it is to you that you do not take that choice--you automatically choose to be "right" rather than to be aware. Because you and I are wired similarly, but so differently in terms of how we process information, you almost automatically skip over the opportunity to learn about the discordant aspects of what I say. You do learn the things you are ready to learn unconsciously. It's irrespective of what objectively exists, or of the objective merits of what I'm saying.
I don't mean that any of this is "bad"--it's the way it is. I said last year that you remind me of the way I used to be. You were insulted. The truth is, I had to struggle through life in the basically 15 years since I was your age, and I had to overcome numerous huge inner perception conflicts before I balanced out. The main problem was overcoming such immense unrealistic right/wrong "judging" behaviours typical of 'judgers" which both you and I are. Man, waking up from that was HUGE! Also, to integrate thinking and emotion was huge--by demonizing one or the other, we continue to co-program our own flaws. Life teaches us otherwise, which is why if people are progressing healthy like, they learn these lessons by middle age.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Are you so sure about that? It is not that any event does not have a cause, but as in radioactive decay, there does not appear to be any cause that determines when it will occur. It is, so far as we can tell, a caused event that occurs randomly, at random times.
If random events occur or a caused event occurs randomly, then hard determinism is refuted, because such occurrences cannot be precisely determined and thus an unknown and unknowable state exists. The cause and effect determination chain is broken.
It cannot be said that state N-1 necessarily follows state N-0. Just one observation off the top of my head.
Just to keep the integrity of this thread, the notion of hard determinism is not accepted as fact across the board in the scientific community. Such a notion has yet to be falsified.
Do you feel that causation is strictly deterministic by definition? I'm guessing the answer to that is yes. There are many ways to think about casuality, so questions like "do quantum events have causes" need to be more precise before they can be answered, really. Here is some light reading for you.
Something else that just came to mind: The Aspect experiment shows that universe can only be deterministic if it it is also non-local. Relativity indicates that it is local.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
One can be willing to learn but have all the inner filters set to a different station. So I mean "receptive" in terms of beneath conscious will. You can always willingly make a conscious choice to try to understand my perspective, too. It looks like you are so caught up in how repelling it is to you that you do not take that choice--you automatically choose to be "right" rather than to be aware. Because you and I are wired similarly, but so differently in terms of how we process information, you almost automatically skip over the opportunity to learn about the discordant aspects of what I say. You do learn the things you are ready to learn unconsciously. It's irrespective of what objectively exists, or of the objective merits of what I'm saying.
I don't mean that any of this is "bad"--it's the way it is. I said last year that you remind me of the way I used to be. You were insulted. The truth is, I had to struggle through life in the basically 15 years since I was your age, and I had to overcome numerous huge inner perception conflicts before I balanced out. The main problem was overcoming such immense unrealistic right/wrong "judging" behaviours typical of 'judgers" which both you and I are. Man, waking up from that was HUGE! Also, to integrate thinking and emotion was huge--by demonizing one or the other, we continue to co-program our own flaws. Life teaches us otherwise, which is why if people are progressing healthy like, they learn these lessons by middle age.
That is nothing like me Angelica.
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
Are you so sure about that? It is not that any event does not have a cause, but as in radioactive decay, there does not appear to be any cause that determines when it will occur. It is, so far as we can tell, a caused event that occurs randomly, at random times.
If random events occur or a caused event occurs randomly, then hard determinism is refuted, because such occurrences cannot be precisely determined and thus an unknown and unknowable state exists. The cause and effect determination chain is broken.
It cannot be said that state N-1 necessarily follows state N-0. Just one observation off the top of my head.
Just to keep the integrity of this thread, the notion of hard determinism is not accepted as fact across the board in the scientific community. Such a notion has yet to be falsified.
Do you feel that causation is strictly deterministic by definition? I'm guessing the answer to that is yes. There are many ways to think about casuality, so questions like "do quantum events have causes" need to be more precise before they can be answered, really. Here is some light reading for you.
Something else that just came to mind: The Aspect experiment shows that universe can only be deterministic if it it is also non-local. Relativity indicates that it is local.
Everything appears deterministic up to the largest and smallest scales, which we don't understand very well.
It's like saying that we will never know that there is a flying spaghetti monster. It does not mean there is a flying spaghetti monster, it just means we don't know if there is.
Likewise, we don't know if there is a truly random thing, we haven't been able to study something enough, to know it well enough to know that it is truly indeterminant.
The best working theory is based on what we do know.
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
You use the word to degrade and insult, not at all in a clinical manner. It's your default "I'm-out-of-resources" response.
You feel that way, but that wasn't my intent. There is no way for you to make that judgement
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
An orange is an orange, a baseball is a baseball,
neither one of these is a belief system without form so your question is beside the point.
If a person's vision is fuzzy and color-blind they might call a baseball an orange. If someone is insane, they are wrong about a lot of things.
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
You feel that way, but that wasn't my intent. There is no way for you to make that judgement
Yes there is. I call it observation and perception. You may not understand emotional perceptivity. Anyone with an ounce of perception can see what you are doing with your lame insults.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I mean, I don't have a problem with any of that stuff.
You don't know me in the slightest bit.
When I was 15, people beat me up constantly, even though I had gang ties and stuff, I let it go. Why? I didn't blame them. Maybe I am more progressed than you are. I mean, you always say you are more progressed than me. Perhaps you are wrong.
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
If a person's vision is fuzzy and color-blind they might call a baseball an orange. If someone is insane, they are wrong about a lot of things.
All your statements may be true, but it doesn't change my observation that your question is beside the point when it comes to this discussion.
I assume you were trying to be like a lawyer and ask a question to get you to a specific answer which you could then disprove...I can easily see you were trying to get someone to pick one item over the other because of the # of agreeing people, blah, blah, blah...but again, it is beside the point because a solid object like an orange or a baseball is indeed one thing or the other and it can not be used as a replacement for something that is not solid.
I think discussing this further is really a waste of time.
Yes there is. I call it observation and perception. You may not understand emotional perceptivity. Anyone with an ounce of perception can see what you are doing with your lame insults.
They think they can, but that is their perception, largely driven my their emotions. Your perception is wrong Angelica.
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
All your statements may be true, but it doesn't change my observation that your question is beside the point when it comes to this discussion.
I assume you were trying to be like a lawyer and ask a question to get you to a specific answer which you could then disprove...I can easily see you were trying to get someone to pick one item over the other because of the # of agreeing people, blah, blah, blah...but again, it is beside the point because a solid object like an orange or a baseball is indeed one thing or the other and it can not be used as a replacement for something that is not solid.
I think discussing this further is really a waste of time.
Did I talk about nihilism too much or something?
You were saying that objective truth doesn't exist in form of beliefs. But wether a person believes the object is a baseball or an orange is an example. It wasn't about majority opinion, because if we were talking about God, that would prove God exists, right? So it's a bit more complicated than all of that.
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
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
I mean, I don't have a problem with any of that stuff.
You don't know me in the slightest bit.
When I was 15, people beat me up constantly, even though I had gang ties and stuff, I let it go. Why? I didn't blame them. Maybe I am more progressed than you are. I mean, you always say you are more progressed than me. Perhaps you are wrong.
I agree, I don't know you. The problem comes in when you use the tool of communication to say otherwise on behalf of yourself. If your ego, or your communication is out of touch with who you are, then so be it. I am going by what I see in your words on this board, and what kind of energy you expend on behalf of yourself.
"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
I may point out aspects that I have resolved that you have not. That has nothing to do with the millions of other aspects and state of where each of us are as people. While a map indicates things about the territory for me, I don't confuse the map with the territory.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You and your son are kidnapped by militants in a foreign country. Your captors put a noose around your son's neck and place a chair beneath his feet to hold him up. They tell you to pull the chair out or you will both die.
What do you do?
A cruise ship crashes into an iceberg. The captain and passangers all board a safety boat. At some point the captain realizes that the boat can't hold all the passengers. The captain decides some people must be thrown overboard. One passenger suggests they choose randomly, but the captain decides the strongest will be needed to row to shore. So he chucks the weakest passengers overboard. After they row safely to shore, the captain is charged and you are the judge.
What do you do?
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
Well, im feeling pretty damn good. So I suppose that means, for this moment in time, im doing well.
Unless Ryan can scientifically prove that I cant possibly choose how I feel.
Glad to hear it pp!
But for goodness sake don't present him with a challenge!!! :eek:
I was hoping for some more Religion/godmen comparisons.
Me spirituality shopping and all as I am.
sidebar: am I the only one who thinks it's ironic that there's a whole bunch of interaction in this thread that should have been delivered by pm? And that he who complains the loudest about the rest of us hijacking threads seems to be the biggest perpetrator?
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
You and your son are kidnapped by militants in a foreign country. Your captors put a noose around your son's neck and place a chair beneath his feet to hold him up. They tell you to pull the chair out or you will both die.
What do you do?
refuse to kill my own child.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Comments
Ok, if 5 people look at an object and say it's a baseball and one person calls it an orange, then is it a baseball or an orange?
That's not true. Or at least you will have to define receptive. I take it to mean a willingness to learn. I know it's possible to learn things without being willing. Except concepts like God of course. I would be careful with subjectivity. One of my ex-girlfriends could see auras, but only on a white background. It turns out to be a defect in her eyes.
I don't mean that any of this is "bad"--it's the way it is. I said last year that you remind me of the way I used to be. You were insulted. The truth is, I had to struggle through life in the basically 15 years since I was your age, and I had to overcome numerous huge inner perception conflicts before I balanced out. The main problem was overcoming such immense unrealistic right/wrong "judging" behaviours typical of 'judgers" which both you and I are. Man, waking up from that was HUGE! Also, to integrate thinking and emotion was huge--by demonizing one or the other, we continue to co-program our own flaws. Life teaches us otherwise, which is why if people are progressing healthy like, they learn these lessons by middle age.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
An orange is an orange, a baseball is a baseball,
neither one of these is a belief system without form so your question is beside the point.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Are you so sure about that? It is not that any event does not have a cause, but as in radioactive decay, there does not appear to be any cause that determines when it will occur. It is, so far as we can tell, a caused event that occurs randomly, at random times.
If random events occur or a caused event occurs randomly, then hard determinism is refuted, because such occurrences cannot be precisely determined and thus an unknown and unknowable state exists. The cause and effect determination chain is broken.
It cannot be said that state N-1 necessarily follows state N-0. Just one observation off the top of my head.
Just to keep the integrity of this thread, the notion of hard determinism is not accepted as fact across the board in the scientific community. Such a notion has yet to be falsified.
Do you feel that causation is strictly deterministic by definition? I'm guessing the answer to that is yes. There are many ways to think about casuality, so questions like "do quantum events have causes" need to be more precise before they can be answered, really. Here is some light reading for you.
http://www.staff.brad.ac.uk/fweinert/QMConference.htm
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~jpl/cosmo/blunder.html
Something else that just came to mind: The Aspect experiment shows that universe can only be deterministic if it it is also non-local. Relativity indicates that it is local.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
That is nothing like me Angelica.
Everything appears deterministic up to the largest and smallest scales, which we don't understand very well.
It's like saying that we will never know that there is a flying spaghetti monster. It does not mean there is a flying spaghetti monster, it just means we don't know if there is.
Likewise, we don't know if there is a truly random thing, we haven't been able to study something enough, to know it well enough to know that it is truly indeterminant.
The best working theory is based on what we do know.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You feel that way, but that wasn't my intent. There is no way for you to make that judgement
If a person's vision is fuzzy and color-blind they might call a baseball an orange. If someone is insane, they are wrong about a lot of things.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I mean, I don't have a problem with any of that stuff.
You don't know me in the slightest bit.
When I was 15, people beat me up constantly, even though I had gang ties and stuff, I let it go. Why? I didn't blame them. Maybe I am more progressed than you are. I mean, you always say you are more progressed than me. Perhaps you are wrong.
All your statements may be true, but it doesn't change my observation that your question is beside the point when it comes to this discussion.
I assume you were trying to be like a lawyer and ask a question to get you to a specific answer which you could then disprove...I can easily see you were trying to get someone to pick one item over the other because of the # of agreeing people, blah, blah, blah...but again, it is beside the point because a solid object like an orange or a baseball is indeed one thing or the other and it can not be used as a replacement for something that is not solid.
I think discussing this further is really a waste of time.
They think they can, but that is their perception, largely driven my their emotions. Your perception is wrong Angelica.
Did I talk about nihilism too much or something?
You were saying that objective truth doesn't exist in form of beliefs. But wether a person believes the object is a baseball or an orange is an example. It wasn't about majority opinion, because if we were talking about God, that would prove God exists, right? So it's a bit more complicated than all of that.
^^^
Whatever man.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You have several times in this thread alone.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
www.myspace.com/jensvad
So how are you pp?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Well, im feeling pretty damn good. So I suppose that means, for this moment in time, im doing well.
Unless Ryan can scientifically prove that I cant possibly choose how I feel.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
What do you do?
A cruise ship crashes into an iceberg. The captain and passangers all board a safety boat. At some point the captain realizes that the boat can't hold all the passengers. The captain decides some people must be thrown overboard. One passenger suggests they choose randomly, but the captain decides the strongest will be needed to row to shore. So he chucks the weakest passengers overboard. After they row safely to shore, the captain is charged and you are the judge.
What do you do?
Glad to hear it pp!
But for goodness sake don't present him with a challenge!!! :eek:
I was hoping for some more Religion/godmen comparisons.
Me spirituality shopping and all as I am.
sidebar: am I the only one who thinks it's ironic that there's a whole bunch of interaction in this thread that should have been delivered by pm? And that he who complains the loudest about the rest of us hijacking threads seems to be the biggest perpetrator?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
refuse to kill my own child.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say