Comparative Religion: Godmen

Abookamongstthemany · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

You don't trust me, which evokes a surge of testosterone in most people. I could claim that you started the emotional conflict by distrusting me. But, you know I'm not into blaming people. I respect you, feelings, not so much.

I distrust you based on my experience with you. I didn't want any conflict with you that's why I asked you not to start one with me.

Ahnimus · May 2007

angelica wrote:

You'll be waiting a long time.

Is that like forever?

Ahnimus · May 2007

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I distrust you based on my experience with you. I didn't want any conflict with you that's why I asked you not to start one with me.

How does it make you feel when someone says they distrust you?

http://www.oxytocin.org/oxy/trust.html

Abookamongstthemany · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

How does it make you feel when someone says they distrust you?

http://www.oxytocin.org/oxy/trust.html

I never said I didn't trust you until now. You still have had interactions with me to cause me to not trust you before I ever started that thread or I asked you not to butt heads with me. So me saying I don't trust you didn't cause you to feel or say anything up until now.

And to answer your question, if someones says they mistrust me, the first thing I think of is what I could have done to make them feel that way.

angelica · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Is that like forever?

You will not understand something until you are ready, so it is dependent upon you.

I share comprehensible explanations all the time, given the symbolic signifying and therefore lacking nature of logic in comprehending alogic truths. Comprehension and understanding on the receiving end includes reception, and if you are not receptive, nor attuned to reception of these truths, you will not perceive them. It's like tuning in to a radio station. It's obvious on my end when people tune in and when they tune out.

Ahnimus · May 2007

angelica wrote:

You will not understand something until you are ready, so it is dependent upon you.

I share comprehensible explanations all the time, given the symbolic signifying and therefore lacking nature of logic in comprehending alogic truths. Comprehension and understanding on the receiving end includes reception, and if you are not receptive, nor attuned to reception of these truths, you will not perceive them. It's like tuning in to a radio station. It's obvious on my end when people tune in and when they tune out.

Isn't this whole statement nihilism? You are saying I cannot know until I am somehow receptive to it. In other words, an alogical system cannot be explained, you use alogic as an explanation for an unexplainable system and are thus no closer in explaining the system.

angelica · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Isn't this whole statement nihilism? You are saying I cannot know until I am somehow receptive to it. In other words, an alogical system cannot be explained, you use alogic as an explanation for an unexplainable system and are thus no closer in explaining the system.

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.

justam · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Could it be objectively true that particular religions are false?

Anytime religious beliefs and spirituality are involved, there is no way to be objective. It's not a physical thing which can be proven to be true or false.

It is always individual choice to believe one thing or another.

The only thing which can be proven objectively true or not is whether the men who originally presented their ideas were ever alive or not.

angelica · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Could it be objectively true that particular religions are false?

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.

Ahnimus · May 2007

justam wrote:

Anytime religious beliefs and spirituality are involved, there is no way to be objective. It's not a physical thing which can be proven to be true or false.

It is always individual choice to believe one thing or another.

The only thing which can be proven objectively true or not is whether the men who originally presented their ideas were ever alive or not.

We always seem to fall into an abyss at this point.

We can look back on history and say "In all honesty, it doesn't appear that Jesus Christ every existed." but proponents of Christianity will just choose to believe that history does prove Christ's existence. I mean, it all becomes nihilism in the abyss.

What do we base public policy on? The belief of the majority? I don't know. I think we are stuck.

Ahnimus · May 2007

angelica wrote:

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?

Ahnimus · May 2007

angelica wrote:

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.

angelica · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

justam · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

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?

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.

angelica · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

If someone told me I had a psychotic experience, I wouldn't take near the offense you do, because I use the clinical definition of the term.

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.

angelica · May 2007

justam wrote:

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.

What justam said very eloquently!

baraka · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Determinism is logically sound.

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.

Ahnimus · May 2007

angelica wrote:

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.

Ahnimus · May 2007

baraka wrote:

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.

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.

angelica · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

That is nothing like me Angelica.

*smiles and nods*

Comparative Religion: Godmen

Comments

Categories