A question that's always come across my mind is if they're actually is intelligent life beyond us. In my opinion, it's fairly ignorant to say that they're isn't - because there's thousands upon thousands of planets in goldilocks zones like how earth is. Obviously we've proven that there is life on other celestial objects (one example in our own solar system being Europa) I think that if there is intelligent life beyond humanity, that they're wondering what's beyond them as well. Since the dawn of time, humanity's asked itself "why are we here ?" and it'd be rather peculiar if other intelligent lifeforms didn't ask this question themselves and if they are more advanced than humanity, perhaps they've found out why they were put on whatever celestial object in whatever galaxy or even whatever universe.
On other things such as the existence of a deity, Growing up in a state known as the the buckle of the bible belt, I grew up as a Christian. Until I was about thirteen was when I started questioning the existence of God, and slowly progressed to agnosticism to know agnostic-atheism. (I'd go into detail, but this post is getting fairly lengthy as it is)
My first question is this:Because we have no proof that the bible is the actual word of god, and that if you weren't a man who was a testosterone filled asshole, you were probably killed one way or another back then.
Why does god not like gay people according to the words of the Bible? He never gives any explanations for it - heck, he never gives explanations for ANYTHING
Oh, and logic dictates that god is female.
Oh, and logic dictates that god is female.
And there's bound to be other forms of life in the universeLUCRIDITES
And there's bound to be other forms of life in the universe
and then when you tell christians this they say "oh well the old testament isn't supposed to be taken literally" Well if ALL of the bible is the word of god, and if god is the all knowing all powerful being he is, if i was him, i'd be pretty pissed if people just disregarded the first half of the bible.Oh, and logic dictates that god is female.
Nope. He (used as a genderly ambiguous term) must be both genders. Due to the fact that 'he made us in his own image'. Saying that, he must be schizophrenic too, as everybody is unique (which makes us have the similarity of all being unique, but that is something for another day). But, to be honest, the gender of an omnipotent, omniscient being that may or may not exist doesn't matter in the long run.
Plus, by the logic of the bible, we are all inbred, and any type of sex is technically incest (saying that, by rules of science, the same rule applies, from what I can tell).
And there's bound to be other forms of life in the universe
Well yeah, logic dictates that another form of life must exist somewhere. With a universe so huge, and the lack of explored planets, there is a high probability that there is life. My theory is that the other planets in this solar system used to be inhabited, but then they saw us and just thought '**** this, we don't want to be near them' and ran away.
My first question is this:God never says he dislikes gay people, just that it's a sin to have gay sex.
Why does god not like gay people according to the words of the Bible? He never gives any explanations for it - heck, he never gives explanations for ANYTHING
Oh, and logic dictates that god is female.
Anyway, I'm actually supposed to be writing 12-page paper on free will right now, and I only have 6 pages, so if you guys wanna throw some opinions at me...Ponies are awesome, and Fluttershy is best pony.
Well sir, that is a very good opinion, but you clearly misspelled Pinkie Pie.Anyway, I'm actually supposed to be writing 12-page paper on free will right now, and I only have 6 pages, so if you guys wanna throw some opinions at me...Ponies are awesome, and Fluttershy is best pony.
If you have to write a paper on free will, you could simply write about ponies, and claim you are exacting your free will. =DI threw Pinkie Pie into a paper I had to write about friendship! :gawe:
the existence of aliens, universes beyond our own, the existence of a deity, etc etc.
Try and get Twilight Sparkle in this one 8D"HIIIIIIII KAAAAAANT" 8D
Not like that. Something about how Twilight had a similar realisation about friendship.Try and get Twilight Sparkle in this one 8D"HIIIIIIII KAAAAAANT" 8D
But this one isn't about friendship, it's about freedom and free will. My friendship paper did have a mention of Pinkie Pie. I also titled it "Friendship is Magic", which i suppose technically could be considered plagiarism, but I got away with it. It was more of an essay answer to a quiz than a full paper.
Hmm, maybe I could link it for you. :gawe:
Scratch that. It has my real name on it.
What was that about an amoeba in Io ? Isn't Io an entirely volcanic planet ?It's pretty possible, I doubt we're the only planet/mass with life forms in 150 billion light-years of space.the existence of aliens, universes beyond our own, the existence of a deity, etc etc.
Existence of lifeforms different from our own : Possible but unknown. I'm not gonna claim I saw aliens.
What was that about an amoeba in Io ? Isn't Io an entirely volcanic planet ?It's pretty possible, I doubt we're the only planet/mass with life forms in 150 billion light-years of space.the existence of aliens, universes beyond our own, the existence of a deity, etc etc.
Existence of lifeforms different from our own : Possible but unknown. I'm not gonna claim I saw aliens.
From http://www.universetoday.com/37409/how-big-is-the-universe/ (http://www.universetoday.com/37409/how-big-is-the-universe/)What was that about an amoeba in Io ? Isn't Io an entirely volcanic planet ?It's pretty possible, I doubt we're the only planet/mass with life forms in 150 billion light-years of space.the existence of aliens, universes beyond our own, the existence of a deity, etc etc.
Existence of lifeforms different from our own : Possible but unknown. I'm not gonna claim I saw aliens.
It's 30 billion.
Recent measurements reveal that the Universe is at least 150 billion light-years in diameter. For comparison, its age is estimated to be about 13.7 billion years. Doesn’t make sense does it?
Not take the bible literally is the worst attempt to save a religion that claims to know the truth about everything. What the Bible teaches are so hateful, violent prone, and intuitively immoral, that it can only be justify by being the literal truth.There's nothing oppressive or immoral about the Bible. That you would even say such a thing proves that you understand little to nothing about it. And of course it's the literal and absolute truth. To say anything else is preposterous.
I don't know how anyone can swallow the oppressive teachings without believing in the literal truth of heaven and hell.
Maybe 123's talking about the Old Testament ? As I remember, God was pretty damn violent (not that there's anything wrong with that) back then.Every part other than the life of Jesus pretty much. Which includes old Testament and half of the New Testament. To say they are "hateful and violent prone" is really an understatement. Followers who take those parts literally also shown "hateful and violent prone" traits.
To be precise, it doesn't matter what I draw out of it since I neither believe nor follow it. What does matter is the huge among of hates and violence among those who does follows it. They can certainly find passages in the Bible that justify their behaviors.Not take the bible literally is the worst attempt to save a religion that claims to know the truth about everything. What the Bible teaches are so hateful, violent prone, and intuitively immoral, that it can only be justify by being the literal truth.There's nothing oppressive or immoral about the Bible. That you would even say such a thing proves that you understand little to nothing about it. And of course it's the literal and absolute truth. To say anything else is preposterous.
I don't know how anyone can swallow the oppressive teachings without believing in the literal truth of heaven and hell.
The Big Questions of the UniverseWill there be cake?
Yeah, well, I don't really see how you could take heaven and hell figuratively to be honest. Or why you'd want to since heaven is kinda one of the major perks of Christianity. Although, Valhalla sounds pretty neat too.Maybe 123's talking about the Old Testament ? As I remember, God was pretty damn violent (not that there's anything wrong with that) back then.Every part other than the life of Jesus pretty much. Which includes old Testament and half of the New Testament. To say they are "hateful and violent prone" is really an understatement. Followers who take those parts literally also shown "hateful and violent prone" traits.
As for intuitively immoral, that is based on the harms principle. You can always argue for other forms of moral system, but so far the only argument that came out is "divine will" which actually requires at least heaven and hell to be taken literally.
If you just read the Jesus part, that's not so bad.To be precise, it doesn't matter what I draw out of it since I neither believe nor follow it. What does matter is the huge among of hates and violence among those who does follows it. They can certainly find passages in the Bible that justify their behaviors.Not take the bible literally is the worst attempt to save a religion that claims to know the truth about everything. What the Bible teaches are so hateful, violent prone, and intuitively immoral, that it can only be justify by being the literal truth.There's nothing oppressive or immoral about the Bible. That you would even say such a thing proves that you understand little to nothing about it. And of course it's the literal and absolute truth. To say anything else is preposterous.
I don't know how anyone can swallow the oppressive teachings without believing in the literal truth of heaven and hell.
Nonviolent religions... you must mean Buddhism or Jainism ?Buddhism seems interesting.
And why the hell can I remember this all from RE?Because the Buddha is fat
Doesn't look very fat to me(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_4IqAMwAGn1w/SmiBu20J7iI/AAAAAAAARqQ/xBuvN9FeMaA/s400/buddha.jpg.jpeg)
Nonviolent religions... you must mean Buddhism or Jainism ?Buddhists have Kung Fu though, so they're nonviolent, but could still kick your ass.
I don't consider Buddhism a religion. I consider it a lifestyle. As a general rule, religions have to have some belief about the world in general (and this normally results in a god), otherwise you're just following a different way of life.
My first question is this:We wouldn't **** him. I mean, sure, he talks a big game, but he's kind of a creep. Always stalking us. Weirdo!
Why does god not like gay people according to the words of the Bible? He never gives any explanations for it - heck, he never gives explanations for ANYTHING
Oh, and logic dictates that god is female.
I don't consider Buddhism a religion. I consider it a lifestyle. As a general rule, religions have to have some belief about the world in general (and this normally results in a god), otherwise you're just following a different way of life.Buddhism certainly has it's own sets of supernatural beliefs which puts it in the category of religion. They just rely on the Karma and Reincarnation rather than God to lay down the moral judgments. It is run by the same trick, reward and punishment by supernatural forces. And for an extra kicker, Buddhism also believe in heaven and hell.
You do realize that is Budai and not Gautama Buddha right?Doesn't look very fat to me(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_4IqAMwAGn1w/SmiBu20J7iI/AAAAAAAARqQ/xBuvN9FeMaA/s400/buddha.jpg.jpeg)
Buddhism is a lenient religion, they give guidelines rather than rules, and don't pester you about random crap.But if you don't follow said "guidelines", you won't reach nirvana.
and face eternal suffering.Buddhism is a lenient religion, they give guidelines rather than rules, and don't pester you about random crap.But if you don't follow said "guidelines", you won't reach nirvana.
(http://www.rockbandaide.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/nirvana.jpg)
Heh, I knew a discussion about religion would bring frezal out of hiding.
By the way, God never actually said he hates gay people; he just reeeally doesn't like them having sex.
Heh, I knew a discussion about religion would bring frezal out of hiding.Yeah, because he can't get any.
By the way, God never actually said he hates gay people; he just reeeally doesn't like them having sex.
You have a point. He hasn't fathered any children for at least 2000 years.Heh, I knew a discussion about religion would bring frezal out of hiding.Yeah, because he can't get any.
By the way, God never actually said he hates gay people; he just reeeally doesn't like them having sex.
Even then, it was just him in disguise.You have a point. He hasn't fathered any children for at least 2000 years.Heh, I knew a discussion about religion would bring frezal out of hiding.Yeah, because he can't get any.
By the way, God never actually said he hates gay people; he just reeeally doesn't like them having sex.
Born to a virginEven then, it was just him in disguise.You have a point. He hasn't fathered any children for at least 2000 years.Heh, I knew a discussion about religion would bring frezal out of hiding.Yeah, because he can't get any.
By the way, God never actually said he hates gay people; he just reeeally doesn't like them having sex.
Now why is MNB defending the Bible; I wouldn't have pegged him for a Christian. Just playing devil's advocate? (Or God's advocate, as I suppose it would be in this case.)Most people argue about religion not to convince others to believe, but just to erase contradictory evidences such that they can continue believing in it themselves.
Also arguing about religion is pointless. We're all too set in our beliefs to be convinced one way or the other from posts on an internet forum.
I will say I am Christian because there is plenty of evidence for God's love if you look with an open mind, and because existence without God or heaven seems to me rather short, brutal, and utterly meaningless, and I'll leave it at that. Further elaboration would only turn into another pointless argument.
existence without God or heaven seems to me rather short, brutal, and utterly meaningless, and I'll leave it at that.Exactly. Life is short and meaningless (brutal doesn't have to apply to all), which is why you should spend what little time you have enjoying yourself. Why wait for an afterlife when you could be out living it up with this one?
existence without God or heaven seems to me rather short, brutal, and utterly meaninglessPrecisely why I'm a theist. But all religions have those restraints on them that makes them all look really rather stupid if you take a step back from them. Which is why I don't really follow a proper religion, though me and Suzume used to have fun with his made up Pseudoshintotheism and he'd make up some really silly rule that we'd follow for a day and then ditch
Maybe you can try thisexistence without God or heaven seems to me rather short, brutal, and utterly meaninglessPrecisely why I'm a theist. But all religions have those restraints on them that makes them all look really rather stupid if you take a step back from them. Which is why I don't really follow a proper religion, though me and Suzume used to have fun with his made up Pseudoshintotheism and he'd make up some really silly rule that we'd follow for a day and then ditch
I will say I am Christian because there is plenty of evidence for God's love if you look with an open mind, and because existence without God or heaven seems to me rather short, brutal, and utterly meaningless, and I'll leave it at that. Further elaboration would only turn into another pointless argument.
FIFYI will say I am Christian because there is plenty of evidence for God's love if you look with an open mind, and because existence without God or heaven seems to me rather short, brutal, and utterly meaningless, and I'll leave it at that. Further elaboration would only turn into another pointless argument.
Personally I have seen things that could lead to the BELIEF there is an all-powerful entity guarding us, but this doesn't mean I should accept it as empirical truth, because most of these aren't examined enough under the critical eye of reason, and there are also many things that can make MYSELF believe there is no such thing as a god as the Bible presents it.
Besides, that god you claim to exist should know that he should present itself unambiguously to humanity, if he is well-intentioned. I have not seen any irrefutable proof of God existing.Free will unfortunately must come with this ambiguity, to present himself to humanity further than through his book will eliminate free will.
And you do not think that with an open mind, you can see existence without god or heaven as something different from being short, brutal and meaningless ?You can prevent aging, but you cannot be immortal. A risk of dying for reasons outside of aging will always exist.
Short ? We're improving on that. Besides, biological immortality exists. Though it is certainly for very simple organisms, and it's sure going to be VERY HARD to reach, maybe we can reach that one day.
Brutal, not necessarily, as frezal said.Maybe we just happen to live a very sheltered life. Even then, none of us can avoid death eventually.
And meaningless... you deny the right of godless or heavenless human beings to give meaning to their life ? Or you do not accept an individual's right to give an individual meaning to it's life, accepting only the notion of meaning of life if they are shared by a large community, such as the whole of a religion ? That seems pretty gloomy and even tyrannical to me.Actually without an external authority life itself cannot have a meaning because meaning requires interpretation, which requires life. Meaning happens during each episode in life where sentient being reflects on itself subjectively.
Also, this is not a pointless argument. This is about the nature of existence itself ! As you say that it is a pointless argument, you sound like you want to avoid a religion argument.I find arguing over this topic quite pointless, since I don't have the arrogance to claim that I know about the nature of existence itself. However the method of "faith" consistently fails in finding truth for just about everything thus far, so I am comfortable with calling bogus for all things determined with such method.
I don't consider Buddhism a religion. I consider it a lifestyle. As a general rule, religions have to have some belief about the world in general (and this normally results in a god), otherwise you're just following a different way of life.That's what a religion is.
Religion is a different way of life centred around a belief that usually - but not always - centres around one or more deitiesI don't consider Buddhism a religion. I consider it a lifestyle. As a general rule, religions have to have some belief about the world in general (and this normally results in a god), otherwise you're just following a different way of life.That's what a religion is.
Yes and Buddhism is way way of life centered around a belief in reincarnation and nirvana and and all that cool stuff, so it's a religion.Religion is a different way of life centred around a belief that usually - but not always - centres around one or more deitiesI don't consider Buddhism a religion. I consider it a lifestyle. As a general rule, religions have to have some belief about the world in general (and this normally results in a god), otherwise you're just following a different way of life.That's what a religion is.
Is Brony a religion?Yes and Buddhism is way way of life centered around a belief in reincarnation and nirvana and and all that cool stuff, so it's a religion.Religion is a different way of life centred around a belief that usually - but not always - centres around one or more deitiesI don't consider Buddhism a religion. I consider it a lifestyle. As a general rule, religions have to have some belief about the world in general (and this normally results in a god), otherwise you're just following a different way of life.That's what a religion is.
I can be, if you actually base your life around it.Is Brony a religion?Yes and Buddhism is way way of life centered around a belief in reincarnation and nirvana and and all that cool stuff, so it's a religion.Religion is a different way of life centred around a belief that usually - but not always - centres around one or more deitiesI don't consider Buddhism a religion. I consider it a lifestyle. As a general rule, religions have to have some belief about the world in general (and this normally results in a god), otherwise you're just following a different way of life.That's what a religion is.
We could make it one. During one of the previous censuses somewhere, in the box labeled "Select your religion. If Other, please specify.", so many people wrote 'Jedi', that it had to be recognised as a religion. There's no reason why it wouldn't work with Brony. =DIs Brony a religion?Yes and Buddhism is way way of life centered around a belief in reincarnation and nirvana and and all that cool stuff, so it's a religion.Religion is a different way of life centred around a belief that usually - but not always - centres around one or more deitiesI don't consider Buddhism a religion. I consider it a lifestyle. As a general rule, religions have to have some belief about the world in general (and this normally results in a god), otherwise you're just following a different way of life.That's what a religion is.
On a similar note, I said I'd put down unicorn the next time the census came round.We could make it one. During one of the previous censuses somewhere, in the box labeled "Select your religion. If Other, please specify.", so many people wrote 'Jedi', that it had to be recognised as a religion. There's no reason why it wouldn't work with Brony. =DIs Brony a religion?Yes and Buddhism is way way of life centered around a belief in reincarnation and nirvana and and all that cool stuff, so it's a religion.Religion is a different way of life centred around a belief that usually - but not always - centres around one or more deitiesI don't consider Buddhism a religion. I consider it a lifestyle. As a general rule, religions have to have some belief about the world in general (and this normally results in a god), otherwise you're just following a different way of life.That's what a religion is.
When I'm actually old enough to fill in a census, my religion is going to be PseudoshintotheismWhat exactly would Pseudoshintotheism mean? Pseudo means not genuine, and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Shinto already a theistic religion?
It'll be a test to see if I can make it fit on the paper
Pseudoshintotheism was a religion my best friend made up for laughs, since he was an ex-Shinto and I was a theist (ex-Christian, to be exact), so we combined the two and then added pseudo to the beginning because it isn't a real religionDo you mean atheist, or were you a theist who didn't ascribe to any particular religion?
However, I think I'd be more tempted to put down Reason or Logic, or SCIENCE!That's something I can agree with.
I was a Christian, but didn't agree with their views, so I ditched their rules and took to science instead. I believe what's proven, but I don't believe that the world's creation is by chance. Hey, maybe God's dead, or off making another universe.Well, then you aren't necessarily a theist, there's deism, pantheism.
I am tempted to take up Odin worship.Well, he did fulfil his promise to rid the land of ice giants... ;)
:idea2:Couldn't care less about Jotunn since they don't seem to exist. What I want is Valhalla.I am tempted to take up Odin worship.Well, he did fulfil his promise to rid the land of ice giants... ;)
Valhalla doesn't seem to exist just as much as Jotunn do, but feasting and battling does sound like an interesting afterlife...:idea2:Couldn't care less about Jotunn since they don't seem to exist. What I want is Valhalla.I am tempted to take up Odin worship.Well, he did fulfil his promise to rid the land of ice giants... ;)
Valhalla doesn't seem to exist just as much as Jotunn do
You can't prove the non-existence of leprechauns.Valhalla doesn't seem to exist just as much as Jotunn do
you can't prove the nonexistence of afterlife !
Well that was a random counter... also a weak one.You can't prove the non-existence of leprechauns.Valhalla doesn't seem to exist just as much as Jotunn do
you can't prove the nonexistence of afterlife !
Well that was a random counter... also a weak one.You can't prove the non-existence of leprechauns.Valhalla doesn't seem to exist just as much as Jotunn do
you can't prove the nonexistence of afterlife !
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence!You could say the same thing about anything, a teapot orbiting the sun between Mars and Earth's orbits, invisible flying unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster etc.
I don't have to prove jack. That's what faith is for. You're either gonna believe or you're not. And if you're not, you probably wouldn't believe even if Jesus Christ himself came down from heaven and kicked you in the balls. And for your information, those flying unicorns are pretty awesome, and they're not really invisible; they just use optical camouflage.The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence!You could say the same thing about anything, a teapot orbiting the sun between Mars and Earth's orbits, invisible flying unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster etc.
The burden of proof is on those making the unfalsifiable claims, not those denying them.
I don't have to prove jack. That's what faith is for.And that's exactly the problem with having "faith", blindly following a load of nonsense without any supporting evidence just because you were brainwashed at a young age.
Solid fact? What is a solid fact? Everything you see is a result of your perception, and it is thus impossible to determine that what you perceive is in fact a reflection of reality. Thus, you have to have faith in your own perceptions if you are to believe anything at all is true.
Mathematics is the one absolute truth in the universe because it's principles can be proven solely through logic. Thus, it is synthetic a priori knowledge. My main point however, is that you cannot prove the existence of the chair you sit in any more than you can prove the existence of a God, unless you have faith in your own perception. Yet to not believe in your own perception would be considered illogical.You've seen The Matrix at some point, haven't you? :P
Probably, MNB does seem to be using the "brain in a vat" argument to try and refute the entire knowledge of the human race.Mathematics is the one absolute truth in the universe because it's principles can be proven solely through logic. Thus, it is synthetic a priori knowledge. My main point however, is that you cannot prove the existence of the chair you sit in any more than you can prove the existence of a God, unless you have faith in your own perception. Yet to not believe in your own perception would be considered illogical.You've seen The Matrix at some point, haven't you? :P
Not the entire knowledge of the human race, just everything based on perception.Care to explain what human knowledge isn't based on perception?
As I said, math. Math is pure logic, which means it is a priori. Everything else, however, requires faith in your own perception, not to mention the perceptions of others who almost certainly do not perceive thing exactly as you do.Not the entire knowledge of the human race, just everything based on perception.Care to explain what human knowledge isn't based on perception?
Sure math is pure logic, but if you can't trust your senses that means you can only use it in your mind without it being subject to mistakes.As I said, math. Math is pure logic, which means it is a priori. Everything else, however, requires faith in your own perception, not to mention the perceptions of others who almost certainly do not perceive thing exactly as you do.Not the entire knowledge of the human race, just everything based on perception.Care to explain what human knowledge isn't based on perception?
I'm not saying you're necessarily a brain in a vat. I'm saying that you aren't necessarily seeing the world as it really is, but you have to BELIEVE you are because to do otherwise would be illogical, which means that everything you know is based on FAITH.Sure math is pure logic, but if you can't trust your senses that means you can only use it in your mind without it being subject to mistakes.As I said, math. Math is pure logic, which means it is a priori. Everything else, however, requires faith in your own perception, not to mention the perceptions of others who almost certainly do not perceive thing exactly as you do.Not the entire knowledge of the human race, just everything based on perception.Care to explain what human knowledge isn't based on perception?
Besides, if I were a brain-in-a-vat, I would have no way to know, none at all, and unless I can trust my own perceptions and the perceptions of others I would have no way of knowing anything.
You have to believe, and trust your senses. Something you can't see, smell, hear, touch, taste... is it really there? That's where faith comes in. Something you can't perceive with your sensesBut that's the thing! Even something you CAN see, hear touch, or taste may not be real. The senses are easily fooled, and it could all be an illusion, so it's really no less logical to believe in something you can't see than to believe in what you can see.
You have to believe, and trust your senses. Something you can't see, smell, hear, touch, taste... is it really there? That's where faith comes in. Something you can't perceive with your senses
How about this? Prove to me that you are your own entity, and not just an alternate personally that I have created for myself.You have to believe, and trust your senses. Something you can't see, smell, hear, touch, taste... is it really there? That's where faith comes in. Something you can't perceive with your senses
So believing that there is actually another living breathing human being typing any post other that which belongs to the user is technically faith, to a certain degree. I remember hearing something exactly like this back in primary school, I think it was in the form of 'if you can't see it, does it truly exist? If you are at home how do you know that any of the other people actually exist?' or something like that...no idea why I still remember that.
If that were the case, then you could either summon a post from him when you desire, or have him disappear when you desire. As this doesn't happen, we can assume that he is his own entity, as if he were one of your alternate personalities, you could choose to disregard his presence and wipe him from existence with sufficient training.How about this? Prove to me that you are your own entity, and not just an alternate personally that I have created for myself.You have to believe, and trust your senses. Something you can't see, smell, hear, touch, taste... is it really there? That's where faith comes in. Something you can't perceive with your senses
So believing that there is actually another living breathing human being typing any post other that which belongs to the user is technically faith, to a certain degree. I remember hearing something exactly like this back in primary school, I think it was in the form of 'if you can't see it, does it truly exist? If you are at home how do you know that any of the other people actually exist?' or something like that...no idea why I still remember that.
But what you can see must be based on something - whether its light reflecting off an object and being recieved through your retinas to be processed by your brain...or whether it's the abuse of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide reacting with your brain to cause it to accidentally process random lightwave patterns as lightwaves that could be those reflecting from an object. Either way, the retinas could be damaged, the brain might not be processing the correct information...it's not down to faith, just the preserving of the mind, not looking directly at the Sun, and the lack of LSD abuse.You have to believe, and trust your senses. Something you can't see, smell, hear, touch, taste... is it really there? That's where faith comes in. Something you can't perceive with your sensesBut that's the thing! Even something you CAN see, hear touch, or taste may not be real. The senses are easily fooled, and it could all be an illusion, so it's really no less logical to believe in something you can't see than to believe in what you can see.
This is ridiculous, sure your senses can be fooled from time to time, but the chance that every single one of your senses, and those of other people can all be fooled into experiencing the same thing is so infinitesimally small the only logical conclusion is that what is being experienced is real.You have to believe, and trust your senses. Something you can't see, smell, hear, touch, taste... is it really there? That's where faith comes in. Something you can't perceive with your sensesBut that's the thing! Even something you CAN see, hear touch, or taste may not be real. The senses are easily fooled, and it could all be an illusion, so it's really no less logical to believe in something you can't see than to believe in what you can see.
It's real to us, perhaps, but it may not be real in the absolute sense.This is ridiculous, sure your senses can be fooled from time to time, but the chance that every single one of your senses, and those of other people can all be fooled into experiencing the same thing is so infinitesimally small the only logical conclusion is that what is being experienced is real.You have to believe, and trust your senses. Something you can't see, smell, hear, touch, taste... is it really there? That's where faith comes in. Something you can't perceive with your sensesBut that's the thing! Even something you CAN see, hear touch, or taste may not be real. The senses are easily fooled, and it could all be an illusion, so it's really no less logical to believe in something you can't see than to believe in what you can see.
i don't think you're real. i'm ameganerdbombtheistIt's real to us, perhaps, but it may not be real in the absolute sense.This is ridiculous, sure your senses can be fooled from time to time, but the chance that every single one of your senses, and those of other people can all be fooled into experiencing the same thing is so infinitesimally small the only logical conclusion is that what is being experienced is real.You have to believe, and trust your senses. Something you can't see, smell, hear, touch, taste... is it really there? That's where faith comes in. Something you can't perceive with your sensesBut that's the thing! Even something you CAN see, hear touch, or taste may not be real. The senses are easily fooled, and it could all be an illusion, so it's really no less logical to believe in something you can't see than to believe in what you can see.
Please explain how something that can be felt, seen, heard, tasted and smelt by every living person (Minus those who lack certain senses) could not be real.It's real to us, perhaps, but it may not be real in the absolute sense.This is ridiculous, sure your senses can be fooled from time to time, but the chance that every single one of your senses, and those of other people can all be fooled into experiencing the same thing is so infinitesimally small the only logical conclusion is that what is being experienced is real.You have to believe, and trust your senses. Something you can't see, smell, hear, touch, taste... is it really there? That's where faith comes in. Something you can't perceive with your sensesBut that's the thing! Even something you CAN see, hear touch, or taste may not be real. The senses are easily fooled, and it could all be an illusion, so it's really no less logical to believe in something you can't see than to believe in what you can see.
I'm glad you asked!Wat.
Now, imagine that you're a prisoner in a cave, facing the back wall, and tied up in such a way that you cannot move or turn your head. Now imagine that you have no memory of ever being anywhere but this cave; it's as if you have always been there. As you are facing the wall of this cave, the guards make shadow pictures on the walls, and make sounds that echo off the wall of the cave so it as if they are coming from the shadows. For you and the other prisoners, these pictures are all you know that exist in the world. You make observations about the shadows, categorize them, name them, and those who can name the most details about these shadows, or discover new things about them are thought to be especially clever. Now, imagine that you are supposed to be released. The guards untie you and begin to lead you to the surface. As you walk towards the surface, the sunlight begins to reach you, and to your unaccustomed eyes, it is so unbearably bright that you try to return to the cave, but the guards force you out into the sunlight, and fist, you cannot even open your eyes because the sun is so bright, but eventually your eyes adjust, and you see the wold in it's full glory and finally realize that the tings you saw in the cave were merely poor imitations of what is on the surface. Now imagine, after spending some time on the surface, you wish to share the wonders you have seen with your old friends in the cave. When you return however, they they claim you are a madman and continue to gaze at the shadows.
I think if that situation actually ever occurred the person who saw the outside world probably would think that he/she himself/herself would be crazy, had died and gone to heaven, etc..I don't see how it has anything to do with what I asked though.
If the people were in there so long then that world is reality. Perhaps not for the guards, but it's certainly the prisoners' reality.
how something that can be felt, seen, heard, tasted and smelt by every living person (Minus those who lack certain senses) could not be real.
how shadow pictures that can be felt, seen, heard, tasted and smelt by every living person in the cave could not be real.
He changedExcept for the fact that the shadows are real.how something that can be felt, seen, heard, tasted and smelt by every living person (Minus those who lack certain senses) could not be real.
tohow shadow pictures that can be felt, seen, heard, tasted and smelt by every living person in the cave could not be real.
But they aren't REAL. They're simply images what is real.He changedExcept for the fact that the shadows are real.how something that can be felt, seen, heard, tasted and smelt by every living person (Minus those who lack certain senses) could not be real.
tohow shadow pictures that can be felt, seen, heard, tasted and smelt by every living person in the cave could not be real.
But they aren't REAL. They're simply images what is real.He changedExcept for the fact that the shadows are real.how something that can be felt, seen, heard, tasted and smelt by every living person (Minus those who lack certain senses) could not be real.
tohow shadow pictures that can be felt, seen, heard, tasted and smelt by every living person in the cave could not be real.
That's philosophy for you.Congratulations on wasting everyone's time with your "you need faith in your senses" nonsense that you have no supporting arguments for.
It's only nonsense because you cannot even grasp the concept of what I am saying. Instead, you blindly cling to your own narrow perceptions. You are like the men still in the cave, who do not want to come out and see the light.That's philosophy for you.Congratulations on wasting everyone's time with your "you need faith in your senses" nonsense that you have no supporting arguments for.
What at all in that little story of yours had to do with somebody being fooled by their senses into believing something was real when it wasn't?It's only nonsense because you cannot even grasp the concept of what I am saying. Instead, you blindly cling to your own narrow perceptions. You are like the men still in the cave, who do not want to come out and see the light.That's philosophy for you.Congratulations on wasting everyone's time with your "you need faith in your senses" nonsense that you have no supporting arguments for.
Do you really need me to spell it out for you? The shadows aren't real in the truest sense because they are merely a poor copy of what truly is. YOU ARE STUCK IN THAT CAVE!What at all in that little story of yours had to do with somebody being fooled by their senses into believing something was real when it wasn't?It's only nonsense because you cannot even grasp the concept of what I am saying. Instead, you blindly cling to your own narrow perceptions. You are like the men still in the cave, who do not want to come out and see the light.That's philosophy for you.Congratulations on wasting everyone's time with your "you need faith in your senses" nonsense that you have no supporting arguments for.
In real life we aren't stuck in a cave watching shadows on a wall, we can walk around to get a better view of things, we can feel things, we can use precise equipment to look at things on a microscopic scale, this kind of interaction with the world is far more advanced than looking at shadows on a cave wall.Do you really need me to spell it out for you? The shadows aren't real in the truest sense because they are merely a poor copy of what truly is. YOU ARE STUCK IN THAT CAVE!What at all in that little story of yours had to do with somebody being fooled by their senses into believing something was real when it wasn't?It's only nonsense because you cannot even grasp the concept of what I am saying. Instead, you blindly cling to your own narrow perceptions. You are like the men still in the cave, who do not want to come out and see the light.That's philosophy for you.Congratulations on wasting everyone's time with your "you need faith in your senses" nonsense that you have no supporting arguments for.
But, that doesn't change the fact that your only proof that you're seeing the world as it really is is your own belief that you are doing so.In real life we aren't stuck in a cave watching shadows on a wall, we can walk around to get a better view of things, we can feel things, we can use precise equipment to look at things on a microscopic scale, this kind of interaction with the world is far more advanced than looking at shadows on a cave wall.Do you really need me to spell it out for you? The shadows aren't real in the truest sense because they are merely a poor copy of what truly is. YOU ARE STUCK IN THAT CAVE!What at all in that little story of yours had to do with somebody being fooled by their senses into believing something was real when it wasn't?It's only nonsense because you cannot even grasp the concept of what I am saying. Instead, you blindly cling to your own narrow perceptions. You are like the men still in the cave, who do not want to come out and see the light.That's philosophy for you.Congratulations on wasting everyone's time with your "you need faith in your senses" nonsense that you have no supporting arguments for.
Remind me again how this isn't a brain-in-a-vat argument?Because it's a brain in a cave argument. It's more than 2,000 years older than the brain in a vat argument. :coolface
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH SNAP.Remind me again how this isn't a brain-in-a-vat argument?Because it's a brain in a cave argument. It's more than 2,000 years older than the brain in a vat argument. :coolface
[sarcasm]Oh no, I could never have forseen such an event! Clearly your brain in a cave argument is far more valid than the brain in a vat argument.[/sarcasm]Remind me again how this isn't a brain-in-a-vat argument?Because it's a brain in a cave argument. It's more than 2,000 years older than the brain in a vat argument. :coolface
They're both quite valid, but I can use an even better one!Arguments generally need supporting evidence to be considered valid.
Say you make contact with a race of aliens who see in a different portion of the light spectrum than we do. They see a polar bear and make the assertion that the polar bear is pink. You say the polar bear is white. Who's right?Both of us, as we are both seeing different parts of the spectrum. Yet, also neither of us as colour is just a construct of the mind.
Awnser to every question on this topic:42. :coolface
42.
:coolface
Ontopic:
Why there is life on earth?
That just proves my point. You both see what you perceive to be reality, yet your perceptions of it are entirely different.They're both quite valid, but I can use an even better one!Arguments generally need supporting evidence to be considered valid.Say you make contact with a race of aliens who see in a different portion of the light spectrum than we do. They see a polar bear and make the assertion that the polar bear is pink. You say the polar bear is white. Who's right?Both of us, as we are both seeing different parts of the spectrum. Yet, also neither of us as colour is just a construct of the mind.
Edit: Null point anyway, if the aliens are seeing the polar bear a different colour either:
A. The alien's brains translates wavelengths into colours differently to our brains, in which case there would be no way to know that there is a difference, let alone communicate it.
B. The aliens visible wavelength differ to our own and other light reflecting off a polar bear is interpreted by their minds into what would be pink to us, and once again, there would be know way to know or communicate the difference.
:rolleyes:That just proves my point. You both see what you perceive to be reality, yet your perceptions of it are entirely different.They're both quite valid, but I can use an even better one!Arguments generally need supporting evidence to be considered valid.Say you make contact with a race of aliens who see in a different portion of the light spectrum than we do. They see a polar bear and make the assertion that the polar bear is pink. You say the polar bear is white. Who's right?Both of us, as we are both seeing different parts of the spectrum. Yet, also neither of us as colour is just a construct of the mind.
Edit: Null point anyway, if the aliens are seeing the polar bear a different colour either:
A. The alien's brains translates wavelengths into colours differently to our brains, in which case there would be no way to know that there is a difference, let alone communicate it.
B. The aliens visible wavelength differ to our own and other light reflecting off a polar bear is interpreted by their minds into what would be pink to us, and once again, there would be know way to know or communicate the difference.
But, it would still be an entirely different reality....
But that's exactly what makes it a different reality, the fact that it is perceived differently by two groups. If they are perceiving the "same" reality differently, where is the original reality that they are both viewing? How does one know if the humans are viewing it right and the aliens Copy A, or the other way around, or if we're both wrong and humans are viewing Copy A and aliens Copy B, and the true reality is still out there? You don't know, because you never actually know if you're "outside the cave" or not, so to speak.But, it would still be an entirely different reality....
nope. It will be a different perception of the same reality.
I see someone else can't tell the difference between "reality" and "colour".FTFY
Reaility - The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them: "he refuses to face reality".and tell me how seeing different colours counts as a different reality. By that logic people who are colour blind live in a different reality to those of us who aren't.
If two different people see things in two different colors, how can you know what color the object actually is? What if the aliens see shapes differently? How do you know what shape it actually is? There is no way to tell the state of things as they actually exist because your perception is limited to telling how things are to you. It cannot tell you anything about things-in-themselves.I see someone else can't tell the difference between "reality" and "colour".FTFY
Seriously though, look at the definitions of reality,QuoteReaility - The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them: "he refuses to face reality".and tell me how seeing different colours counts as a different reality. By that logic people who are colour blind live in a different reality to those of us who aren't.
If two different people see things in two different colors, how can you know what color the object actually is?Colour, as I told you earlier, is not an actual, physical characteristic of objects. If you can come up with some way that aliens could I'd love to humor you with an answer. Shape can be perceived through touch as well as vision, blind people can get a rather good idea of an objects shape simply by touch.
What if the aliens see shapes differently? How do you know what shape it actually is? There is no way to tell the state of things as they actually exist because your perception is limited to telling how things are to you. It cannot tell you anything about things-in-themselves.If you can come up with some way that aliens could see shapes as other shapes, I'd love to humor you with an answer. Shape can be perceived through touch as well as vision, blind people can get a rather good idea of an objects shape simply by touch. Please stop acting as if vision is the only sense that exists and that it is wrong all the time.
If two different people see things in two different colors, how can you know what color the object actually is? What if the aliens see shapes differently? How do you know what shape it actually is? There is no way to tell the state of things as they actually exist because your perception is limited to telling how things are to you. It cannot tell you anything about things-in-themselves.The object is the color that is reflected into the eye when light bounces off of it. But you're still using examples pertaining to senses, which god is not, does not and will/can not
If I said that I could see God? What basis would you have for telling me otherwise? You only have your own perception to go off of!If two different people see things in two different colors, how can you know what color the object actually is? What if the aliens see shapes differently? How do you know what shape it actually is? There is no way to tell the state of things as they actually exist because your perception is limited to telling how things are to you. It cannot tell you anything about things-in-themselves.The object is the color that is reflected into the eye when light bounces off of it. But you're still using examples pertaining to senses, which god is not, does not and will/can not
If I said that I could see God? What basis would you have for telling me otherwise?I'd ask for evidence, you wouldn't be able to give any, ergo you are either lying, or were hallucinating.
Right, time for a video. =) I think it's somewhat relevant to the discussion currently going on. Should probably warn for some expletives ahead if the play button is clicked.Seen it before. And it's pretty irrelevant to my current argument. Mr. Michin is a great comedian, but he's no philosopher.
So, holistic medicine is bullsh**, yet believing that we can't trust our own senses and the senses of others isn't?Right, time for a video. =) I think it's somewhat relevant to the discussion currently going on. Should probably warn for some expletives ahead if the play button is clicked.Seen it before. And it's pretty irrelevant to my current argument. Mr. Michin is a great comedian, but he's no philosopher.
Holistic medicine really is bullsh** though.
That is correct. Problem? :coolfaceYes, the fact that, as Scourge said, holistic medicine at least appears to work due to the placebo affect, where as you still haven't come up with any good arguments as to why nobody's senses can be trusted. You used Plato's Cave to try and make your point, but didn't come up with any arguments to support the fact that we are inside the "cave".
Placebo Effect is simply a mind over matter scenario. I use them a lot, often accidentally, to feel what I imagineQFT.
Well, it is, kinda. It's a problem with your brain overriding your sensesNot the same thing as your senses being wrong, or "lying".