[i]You are missing the point. In the first case, there is an identifiable and verifiable shared reality from which to base an individual judgement.[/i]
Nope, you're missing the point. The fact that there is a shared verifiable reality does not in anyway make your 'extra reality' more than just a personal belief system. I know you'd like it too, but it doesn't 😉
'extra reality' more than just a personal belief system.
My internal version of the objective reality is not "extra". It's [i]different[/i] (from other's). That is to say, my own particular physical and psychological structure has interpreted what is objectively there, in it's own way, for the benefit of my (self) conciousness. That result is not a belief, it's just the way my particular arrangement of faculties is interpreting the shared objective source.
The source of the "god" experience is generated within the brain of the individual, by the individual and is not part of something external. It is not a seperate "god" entity, merely a brain malfunction.
I've just spotted what may be a flaw in my argument. Go ahead...
just to being a bit of light hearted-ness to all this
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7065824.ece
an article in the times online.....check out the name of the author!!
Thankyou for agreeing with me that a religious person is living a lie. If coming up against an argument that points this out is so upsetting that it causes a personality implosion, well - you might want to think about the uselessness of the comforter you've been living with
A comforter that comforts is performing its job perfectly, is it not?
Your entire value judgement of people's views is based on an ideal that YOU hold dear: that truth is the ultimate goal. This is not necessarily the case. I guess for someone such as yourself this is a difficult thing to understand. We are all at liberty to place whatever value we like on the concept of ultimate truth and the measures we use to establish it.
Oh. So what did he actually say, then? And how do you know?
I don't, I never did. I said 'I think...' meaning that that is the impression I get.
it seems to me that all religions are open to infiltration by paedophiles
Got any evidence of this? Seems a pretty tall claim to me, I don't agree.
You may be right. Perhaps the argument about god/religion is just the one around which we humans have decided to re-engage in our periodic halfway split.
That's what I've been trying to say for a while!
Their uncritical position of the offence being a matter between the offender and whatever magical being they worship, is responsible for the situation
That's not the case in all religions as I understand it.
probability of the existence of such an entity is so infinitesimally tiny (due to lack of evidence)
You are on very shaky scientific ground here mate. To calcualte probability you need to be able to understand the system. No evidence has yet come to light of the existence of a supreme being, but that does absolutely NOT mandate that there never will be. So your ideas and feelings are just that, feelings and ideas. Don't try and get all scientific on us, cos you've got no leg to stand on there.
Must do better.
Why did you stick that on the end of your post? It's the sort of thing put on school reports in the old days. It basically reads like a patronising put-down, and is pretty likely to insult and offend someone, and is certainly very abrasive and unpleasant.
Is your aim to upset people? If not, then you should realise that statements like that (and the tone of msot of your posts) are rather offensive - more so than the content.
Think abotu what you type a little more, and this whole discussion woudl be a lot more fun and you'd ahve learned a lot mroe too.
#
Mr Woppit - MemberJust done the clicky thing on the thread "Priest child abuse - outrageous..."
Second time I've laughed out loud today.
Sorry, I know it's horrible and tragic and all that, but come on.
Fnar, fnar.
Posted 1 hour ago #
Yes, molgrips. Very salutary, thankyou. Most of my rebuttals to your claims would be things I have posted previously (more than once) to other parties who have made similar points which you must not have not read, so I don't really want to spend a lot of time re-going over old ground all over again. Sorry.
I'm more interested in the discussion with IanMunro about conciousness.
No offence.
IanMunro - Member
Nope, you're missing the point. The fact that there is a shared verifiable reality does not in anyway make your 'extra reality' more than just a personal belief system. I know you'd like it too, but it doesn't
Except the equipment exists to measure frequency response, SPL and sensitivity so any perceived changes between different speaker leads can be measured, in which case the belief that one lead provides a higher quality listening experience can be quanitified with facts. So at the moment it's a theory, all it needs is testing.
There is no way to test whether a god exists or not.
Woppit, I think you are not reading correctly what I am trying to say to you.
The fact that there is a shared verifiable reality does not in anyway make your 'extra reality' more than just a personal belief system. I know you'd like it too, but it doesn't
IanMunro seems to agree with me on the subject of you.
Although, I would like to question the logical existence of a verifiable shared reality. It's not really possible; reality is really subjective.
Mr Woppit - MemberI've just spotted what may be a flaw in my argument. Go ahead...
Although, I would like to question the logical existence of a verifiable shared reality. It's not really possible; reality is really subjective.
Yes. Well spotted.
How do I know that any of my experiences are of what I describe as an "objective reality", including the apparent inhabitants, materials and phenomena thereof?
I need some philosophical input here, as I'm not versed.
Anyone?
just for sh!ts and giggles check out some of the scripture quoted on the times talkback
seems that rape of children by priests and the denial, coverup and condoning of are just an excuse to remind us that gays are evil and that coatholics and priests in particular are better than the rest of us
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7077196.ece
How have we got onto metaphysics?
As I said above Woppit's verifiable shared reality of sound quality can be measured. Assuming that we exist.
How have we got onto metaphysics?
My fault. Doesn't suit you, sir?
kimbers - Memberjust for sh!ts and giggles check out some of the scripture quoted on the times talkback
Not quite what I had in mind...
Or perhaps it was. How would I know? What do I mean when I say "mind"?
Steady the Buffs....
You don't.
But it is facile to use that as a get-out clause for all arguments, of course. But I think the idea does have relevance in theological discussions.
I once listened in to a conversation between two young people, a German lad and a Norweigan girl, on a train in Norway in the middle of the night. The girl was reading a bible, and the bloke had struck up a conversation about it. The girl had an answer for all his questions, but they were dependent on her own religious outlook. So for example, she said that any time she ever doubted her faith, that meant it was the devil trying to get her to refute God so she ignored it. No doubt Woppit would think she was an idiot; I wont' say what I thought of her.
But it was interesting that all her Christian ideas were fully backed up and verified [i]within her own belief system[/i]. She was using her own ideas circularly to back herself up. Daft, you'll say, but to her it was totally logical and conclusive. Therefore, her reality was founded upon Christian ideas and made perfect sense.
This is a practical example of subjective reality. I'm not going to pass judgement on her or her ideas, or say whether I think this is 'right' or not, since my idea of right is not universal 🙂
Assuming that we exist.
My point.
As I said above Woppit's verifiable shared reality of sound quality can be measured. Assuming that we exist.
Assuming your instruments are working correctly...
But it is facile to use that as a get-out clause for all arguments, of course. But I think the idea does have relevance in theological discussions.
Hm. Pretty useless, then.
I've just remembered.
Many years ago, there was a band called "Hambi and the Dance". Pretty avant-guard bunch operating on the extreme fringes of an off-the-wall genre.
Anyway, I once heard that the lead singer, "Hambi", had become convinced that reality was subjective and any experience of it was his own creation, therefor he should accept with equanimity whatever he threw at himself...
He was last seen, by my interlocutor, dressed in rags and sitting on the floor, blank-faced, in the middle of a public bar whilst people threw stuff at him and kicked him when they passed.
I think I'll pass on the "no objective reality" punt, thanks.
That's me done on this one.
Hm. Pretty useless, then.
You read both sentences there?
I think I'll pass on the "no objective reality" punt, thanks.
Now you're being dim.
EDIT: I bet he checks back and posts again 🙂
molgrips - MemberAs I said above Woppit's verifiable shared reality of sound quality can be measured. Assuming that we exist.
Assuming your instruments are working correctly...
Assuming all other variables remain the same too!
So for example, she said that any time she ever doubted her faith, that meant it was the devil trying to get her to refute God so she ignored it.
Now I have to take my hat off to this, it is a genius bit of self defense.
As an aside, what do you think the tally is between the numbers of people killed in the bible by God and by the Devil?
As an aside, what do you think the tally is between the numbers of people killed in the bible by God and by the Devil?
None.
(Couldn't resist it).
[URL] http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/who-has-killed-more-satan-or-god.html [/URL]
God 2,391,421
Devil 10
The main question is, is the premise that religion is based upon true or false.
is it ? If it were demonstrable then it would cease to be faith. For that matter, I don't care how many gods there are, and believing there may be more than zero of them does not compel one to heed their supposed injunctions.
Lifer, that just tells you what the bible authors thought God was all about. The veracity of the bible is a different debate from the existence of God...
That's why it was an aside. The Gory of God.