What is life anyways? Life is the exception of death.

Life after death? Am I in the same boat for hoping death after life after death after life?

You say death is the absence of life as if you knew this...

and if you know this, then I will know you have not taken it upon yourself to see this... truth, with a different perspective.

Gravity wrote:

You say death is the absence of life as if you knew this...

can you show us another way

Gravity wrote:

and if you know this, then I will know you have not taken it upon yourself to see this... truth, with a different perspective.

and how do we go about doing that. do we have to wear a straight jacket and run around, screaming.

Again, I understand this is the rational responders board so rational means logic and it appears that this is the defense mechanism of your choice, just as the scientist hides behind the science, religious behind the religious, the logicians behind their logic.

I don't think it is a defense mechanism to describe well, common sense logic. I don't believe religious people are hiding either, religious people are brainwashed into thinking a certain "absolute" truth WITHOUT using logic, but instead, faith. Scientists, Logicians use known empirical evidence and their brain to describe the reality which sourrounds them. Sceintists and logicians don't believe in absolutes where as the religious do. But none the less, it's not hiding.

well. the definition of brainwashing is: forcible indoctrination into a new set of attitudes and beliefs. I don't think the Rational Respondse Squad is forcing their attitudes or beliefs on anyone. They simply refute what is not logical. I also think that logical brainwashing is an oxymoron. Logic describes material truth. And material truth is indisputable. I will rephrase that scientests and logicians dto believe in some absolute truths, but these are truths that have withstood the test of scrutiny and time without change; IE, a chair will always be a chair. It is not imaginary, it is not metaphysical, it is material it is there. Your brain is your brain...a pencil is a pencil and I guarantee you there is no monster underneath my bed no matter how afraid I may be of that idea. That is indisputable. Tell me how that would be brainwashing, to refute all evidence regarding a monster under your bed. You are just exposing the truth and refuting a metaphisical argument which has no basis or proof.

Ha...if I show you a bottle, can you deny it's existence? It can be an empty bottle, but a bottle none the less. Would you say, this bottle is a projection of a metaphysical world for us to see, ie, is this bottle not even there? no..of course not...it is indeed here. material truth. However, having said that...I am not a logician. I never even took a course in logic, and I'm not a philosophist either, however I am a scientist and let me tell you this, in science the way we prove or disprove hypothesis is by material testing and observation, which I would assume, uses logic in order to make sense of what we are testing and observing. If I want to test the idea that there is a gas in an empty bottle there are ways to do so. And yes...there is gas, that's a material truth. Right? I can prove it by showing you. physical hard evidence...

As far as logic bein anthropogenic, I say of course it is..it has to be..otherwise how could us humans use it. Logic (in the philosophical sense) has been used for argumentative purposes..sets of rules designed to keep an argument concise and straightforward. Logic, is making sense..of things..and it has to be anthropogenic, I don't see monkeys or dogs use logic to make their points..and logic and science are not human's god...never was never will be and no one ever claimed them to be, but I guess you.

Science is this constant state of questioning. Which is good, otherwise we'd be stuck with God and fables as the absolute truth wihtout questioning.

But now you are assuming there is something beyond the universe. A priori argument. Why would you assume there is soemthing outside of the natural? what reason would you have, besides faith and fear of some sort of creator's retribution to have belief that there is something outside fo the natural being.

Our minds are designed to decipher what our senes percieve, although tihis is not flawless...it is what it is and logic follows that. Logic is flawed, I agree but it's better than blind faith.

Gas in a bottle is not a mer sensation, it is there...I can prove it. I can show you...so I don't get your drift.

I say this... if what you say is true...that we need to take off the "tainted glasses" then obviously you are all knowing. You now have taken the role of God. Because you are now telling me that the truth we see is only limited by our human experience. My question to you..how do you know this? How can you be so sure.. that there is something outside our senses?

To say all bachelors are unmarried is true, how can it be false? But it has nothing to do with material truth, because we defined bachelor and unmarried to be synonymous of each other, that bachelor be defined based on the being married

... life is the absence of death? Could dark be the absence of light? Or light be the absence of dark? As if we knew which was something and which one was nothing... We call one nothing so that the other can be something, life, yet we are more dead than we are alive, could it be? I don't know...

I suggested that perhaps when we are dead, we are simply awaiting life again, reincarnation was a possibility, although I cannot tell you why it was the possibility I should give on that particular day, at that particular moment

Science has not proven material truth. Science, can only prove science, in the scope of science. That is, physical science is not the study of existence, but the study of physical nature

As for this material truth you speak of, I again ask, do you have a bottle of it, or are you going to keep pretending that logic isn't anthropomorphically designed and bottled with human bottles. Then I would ask where you get this leap of faith to trust man from?

are you going to keep pretending that logic isn't anthropomorphically designed and bottled with human bottles. Then I would ask where you get this leap of faith to trust man from?

Anthropogenic and anthropmorphic tendencies are human nature, I agree which is why I respond to and believe in nothing but empirical evidence because as you a say, we're only humans. Assuming that there is no way for humans to know whether there is a god/world/extra-humanistic entitiy, ie..the supernatural, I will not default to that idea just because there is no way of me knowing, due to my limited human experience. Allowing yourself to "default" to the idea that since we're "limited by our human experience we have to believe in the supernatural", leads to a very detrimental human experience and society as history has shown. So I look at the reality of the world as I see it with my eyes, I look at the history of the world and of my own human experience and make sense of it...religion, and god are slowly choking the life out of this earth, they supress thought and speech. And frankly, you can argue the many philosophical points you want...but as my quote below says...philosophy is questions that may never be answered, religion is answers that may never be questioned. I will default to the safe humanistic side of things. Because, that is after all, all I know; ie emprical evidence and history.

I think I know why you let it be known that you are a theist. You want to prove a point, which is fine. I look at religion from a societal point of view. Let me make that clear. To prove that not all religious or theist people are ignorant is meaningless, when it comes to the societal problems, repressions and hypocrisy that religion has shown us through history. There are MANY rational theists out there, very smart ones, I know a few of them, but they, usually are on the my side when it comes to societal issues. They too, understand the dangers of religion. I know you're here to make a point, but that point is moot. I'll tell you why, because in the end, no matter how non-ignorant you want us to think you are (or in that case how non-ignorant you really are), it will not change how religion is affecting the millions of people in the world and it will not change the history of religion. I don't doubt you're smart. And I'm not even sure you're really a theist, but playing "devil's advocate" so to speak.

I agree with the statement that god doesn't choke the world, people do. Becuase, ha...alas, god doesn't exist. That is what I had meant anyway. It is people who use this idea of god in the form of religion, that choke the world. You speak from a philosophical and ideological standpoint; which I reject, empirically. I do not know much philosphy to argue with you on the subject, as said before, I'm not a theorist or a philosophist. But that does not mean I do not understand basic facets of reality and/or theory.

I believe empircal evidence, because empirical evidence is observable; testable and has withstood the test of time. Where as religion has not...it keeps changing but, not based on evidence, rather, ideology. Pagan religions, eastern religions, even within the tenets of one religion it has split along ideological lines; how many different factions of islam and xtianity and judaism do you have? (rhetorical question) all hating each other etc....
Back to the point.. my aim is to not become a philosopher as, perhaps, you are..which is why you are here debating; or just being an "asshat" to prove a point.

Theists are not necessarily our enemy, I agree. It is religion. It is what people have become BECAUSE of religion.

And with every action comes a reaction, hence us, outspoken atheists. Religion has become so extreme and detrimental that the only way to subdue it is to destroy the idea behind it all, the one unifying aspect of all religion: god. The few good apples left, are a minority in the grand scheme of things. I told a rational theist just the other day, if theism stemmed from your kind of ideologies. There would be no need for people like me, outspoken atheists to fight theism.

If billions of people on Earth believed the Earth was made of felt and recycled paper, than that would probably top the list. Instead we see billions of people believing in an invisible man in the sky, with the same amount of proof... NONE. We never said that all theists are irrational as it pertains to anything other than belief in god. Belief in god is irrational, this doesn't mean all people who believe in god are incapable of rational thoughts as it pertains to anything else, it simply means that their belief in god is irrational.

Where do you stop? You believe in an invisible man in the sky... do you also believe that invisible stars are penetrating Earths' atmosphere daily while little green men fly their helicopters at 60,000 feet and shoot those stars down with little pellet guns? If not, why not? You have the same amount of proof for both claims.

Do not get me wrong- I am not for organized thought- I am not for herd mentality, and this is what organized religion is. However, you will not hear me defend religion, but rather, theism. And if you would look less sparingly at your forum pals, you would see that it is theism in general that gets the wrap. Why, it is the first "irrational precept" to believe in god(s). As if, lacking belief in god is necessary for rational thought, and as if rational thought was greater than abstract thought. I can assure, this is one of the few times you can trust me, I consider myself a theist, however I believe in a god in a completely unconventional way, that only Carl Jung has come close to- so one with a different definition of theism may consider me atheist, as I have become to the monotheistic religions.

This is one thing I have tried to overcome, one need not read to become a philosopher, only to become a philologist. The basic facts of reality, however, is broken down in the realm of philosophy. The idea of god does not choke, rather the religious choke. The idea of god is a painting, a side-effect in the least, really. Much of what the common religious theist attributes to god can be broken down psychologically as something having absolutely nothing to do with god. The biblical god is nothing more than a fictional character living in a poem. When this biblical god is animated by the religious, with their holy paintbrushes, the picture that is painted comes from themselves, their inner conciousness, and unconciousness, their desires, their thoughts, their hopes, their dreams, etc. This painting in turn is set loose on reality, and on society, and their desire for herd mentality attempts to remove the people's paintbrushes from them. But the religious' god, their painting, is nothing more than a painting that we do not find artistic enough. You can criticize the painting, yes, this is too easy, usually one can open a bible to do this, just to show how non-biblical the Christian really is. But if you wish to solve the problem of religion, you need not look to the painting, but to the painter.

But to prove a point would be hypocritical of me, to suggest a wrong, that is my deed. That is why my reputation is an asshat, that is, because you will rarely hear me agree with you, but rather, disagree with you. And to those shallow enough to not understand my disagreements, I shall be an asshat, as I can be nothing more. Higher culture is necessarily misunderstood.

Let us play these games, and look at this sentence with a ... rational, eye. To say people have become something, because of something else, is to suppose that the something else is the cause of the something. Example, you die, because of the venom from a snake bite. But look again at religion, is it venom? Or does it contain venom? I hope you would say the latter, than we are to refit our analogy, you die, because of a snake, where the snake is analogous to religion, and the venom inside, all the despisable attributes of religion that infect, as you would say it. But keep in mind, that not all snakes bite and kill, so you have to redo your analogy, you die, because of a snake that happened to bite you. Now you can say, people are poisoned, because of their snake bite injecting venom.

But is religion analogous to a snake biting a human and injecting poisons? I would say not, I would say religion is rather, man biting man and injecting poisons. Suddenly the analogy breaks apart, what people have become BECAUSE of religions, and religion has happened BECAUSE of what people have become. I do not feel the need to explain the circular logic to you (I do love playing with fallacy however). Rather, I say your statement is not correct, rather, it is what people have become BECAUSE of people's venom. And then I tell you, this last statement has no religion in it, so it is also true that you too have venom in you, as do I, as do we all. That venom is called human. It is in some humans' nature that religion should become their vessel for poison. It is others' nature that other vessels should be used to spew poison, and atheism/lack-of-religion, is no escape.

Define your theism, if you would.

God is war. Among the collective unconcious of the world, we naturally have piece with this war, we claim war on god. In the act, we become gods, and realize we've been gods all along. The collective unconcious is the defining bit to reality, in which all humans are connected and receive their sense of reality, while most take the role of ignorant gods. My best guess is that reincarnation is an intimate piece of the puzzle, not so much because we come back to life, but more that we never necessarily die. We are of one being, in my opinion- owing to the natural psychology of such complex minds that all should adhere to similar intuition. Strangely enough, my newest source of theism has been the bible, however. The Abrahamic God said, let there be light... if I am correct, in that few of us are god, it is symbolic of, "let there be reality" - the simple axiomatic beginning of the world we would know. -I don't mean so much the beginning of time, just the breakdown of all things we have come to be brainwashed with by perception, and the absolute pure defining of reality. The story I read today, the tower of babel, involves dripping arrows falling from the sky. However, these are merely abstractions from the bible, which is simply a taking a look at the psychology of human antiquity. The gods of Olympus were also gods of war, and humans projected their inner selves on them- as we naturally anthropomorphically define gods. I do not mean to say war in the sense as WWII, I mean to say the sense of war as in disagreement with god. For if an omnipotent omniscient being ever existed, and it created us the way it did, and we were to speak with it, how do we know that this god is not an illusion? Not a lie? Is a god? And when this being tells us "No," we can naturally say, "I disagree." - And that is a snippet of it- which will probably change by next week, as most my beliefs do.

Quote:

But you yourself said that we are seeing everything through human "tainted" glasses, which would in essence then make philosphy tainted. Because it was thought up by humans.

Very clear observation.

Quote:

As far as the painting metaphor...ok?? none the less, all idealistic metaphor. But I get your drift, even though I think you argument is verbose.

You are lucky to see me write with verbosity, I favor brevity.

Quote:

I think by already setting the rule that you would rarely agree with me/us/whoever, you are in a sense, predetermining and prejudging, everyone here are you not? Is not the power of dialogue to try to understand? Both in agreement or disagreement? The reason why this thread is even here, is to have discussion. The point being, if you want us to understand your arguments..than explain ahead..

You will hear me criticize logic a lot, yet I am still fond of dialectic, how is this so?

Quote:

ok.....I don't think that your fallacy and circular logic example is even an issue...so the point is that we are humans and that is the problem. No matter what or how we think...we are the fallacy of the universe..then, I ask you, how is your theism any better than our atheism?

It isn't. I am not here to convince you that theism is right, rather I am here to convince you that you may be wrong- especially in the irrational precept of theism or faith.

My point was that religion isn't the problem, rather the faculty within us willing to accept religion and let it dominate. The same faculty doesn't only feed on the religious though- so finally, you may see why I only consider fools to believe atheist vs. theist.

Sapient wrote:

So, where is your god visible?

You are not ready to hear my theism.

My point is, don't judge people on their beliefs (and rationality is an attribute of a person, not an attribute of a belief, hence rational people do not believe irrational things- you may say it is irrational to believe something, but not simply that a belief is irrational itself) but by their actions.

God is war. Among the collective unconcious of the world, we naturally have piece with this war, we claim war on god. In the act, we become gods, and realize we've been gods all along. The collective unconcious is the defining bit to reality, in which all humans are connected and receive their sense of reality, while most take the role of ignorant gods. My best guess is that reincarnation is an intimate piece of the puzzle, not so much because we come back to life, but more that we never necessarily die. We are of one being, in my opinion- owing to the natural psychology of such complex minds that all should adhere to similar intuition. Strangely enough, my newest source of theism has been the bible, however. The Abrahamic God said, let there be light... if I am correct, in that few of us are god, it is symbolic of, "let there be reality" - the simple axiomatic beginning of the world we would know. -I don't mean so much the beginning of time, just the breakdown of all things we have come to be brainwashed with by perception, and the absolute pure defining of reality. The story I read today, the tower of babel, involves dripping arrows falling from the sky. However, these are merely abstractions from the bible, which is simply a taking a look at the psychology of human antiquity. The gods of Olympus were also gods of war, and humans projected their inner selves on them- as we naturally anthropomorphically define gods. I do not mean to say war in the sense as WWII, I mean to say the sense of war as in disagreement with god. For if an omnipotent omniscient being ever existed, and it created us the way it did, and we were to speak with it, how do we know that this god is not an illusion? Not a lie? Is a god? And when this being tells us "No," we can naturally say, "I disagree." - And that is a snippet of it- which will probably change by next week, as most my beliefs do.

You are lucky to see me write with verbosity, I favor brevity.

You will hear me criticize logic a lot, yet I am still fond of dialectic, how is this so?

It isn't. I am not here to convince you that theism is right, rather I am here to convince you that you may be wrong- especially in the irrational precept of theism or faith.

My point was that religion isn't the problem, rather the faculty within us willing to accept religion and let it dominate. The same faculty doesn't only feed on the religious though- so finally, you may see why I only consider fools to believe atheist vs. theist.

LeftofLarry wrote:

At first, it sounded much like Jihad you were talking about. A struggle within so to speak. I have to say, this is indeed different a more philosophical thiestic defintion than I am used to hearing.

I still have some things I need to figure out, for one, my extreme lack of psychology knowledge. I have other questions as well, with a collective unconcious, it may seem that if everyone on the earth were to be sad, then you would too, rather I disagree with this. Perhaps emotion, and ultimately, faculty, is spared, or even quantized. As well, some of it is just stipulation, I hope to find evidence so I am not just crawling in the dark. Another hurdle is individuation, or the famous Schopenhauren term, principium individuationis, there has to be to an extent, since I also uphold the existential doctrine that existence precedes essence - to an extent. So, I am far from done, but, I am also far from having the time to study now. So what I have now is random thoughts waiting for me at bus stops and stumbling solace as I commute between classes.