|
 Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
 Are Believers Rational Beings? 
#613124 - 04/19/02 05:41 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
from InfidelGod:
Believers are actually rational beings, we're just not ruled by logic.
from Webster:
rational: Consistent with or based on reason; logical
from www.dictionary.com:
reason: a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something that supports a conclusion or explains a fact
According to modern English language definitions, they most certainly are not (at least in the area of belief).
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
 WeirdShroomer
journeyman
Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 78
Loc: Sebia
Last seen: 21 years, 4 months
|
 Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: Swami]
#613134 - 04/19/02 05:51 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I see....And point is?
"Believers are actually rational beings, we're just not ruled by logic. "
Sound like load of crap to me.
--------------------
----weird-----
Smoking dynamite can seriously blow your mind
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: Swami]
#613136 - 04/19/02 05:55 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
1. Should a belief preface supporting evidence for that belief?
2. If so, is this not blind belief?
3. Is blindly believing in something a good thing?
4. If so, why?
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Lallafa
p_g monocle
Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: Sclorch]
#613146 - 04/19/02 06:11 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
"Is blindly believing in something a good thing?"
i think that it has potential to help an individual
but it has always been detrimental to humanity as a whole
beliefs justify actions that would otherwise be deemed immoral
the bible should have been 1 page
?do unto others?..?
--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: Swami]
#613177 - 04/19/02 06:42 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
There's two sides of the brain. The logical/rational side, and the emotional/creative side. Are you saying and/or implying that believers are missing the left side of their brain and/or never use it?
If so, are you missing the right side of your brain?
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: Swami]
#613184 - 04/19/02 06:49 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
It takes logic for me to form words and to be able to type them onto this computer. If I was being illogical, I would try to smashing my head into the moniter or perhaps foraging for various twigs in order to respond to your message.
What you are suggesting is illogical in and of itself.
Have you met any of us "believers" in real life? Do you know what makes us tick? Do you know that we come on this Spirituality and Philosophy message boards to discuss Spirituality and Philosophy, and that perhaps the things we say on this board are just that, and that we have lives outside of it? Do you know that Spirituality and Philosophy is not based in a world of logic and proof?
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: ]
#613220 - 04/19/02 07:34 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
There is such a phenomenon known as "Bad Logic".
Just because one side of the brain is known as the "logical" side, doesn't mean that all thoughts that come from that side are logically consistent.
"Have you met any of us "believers" in real life? Do you know what makes us tick?"
Yeah, I went to a Rainbow gathering or two... most of the people there are clinging to an Image of a trend from forty years ago (you honestly think being dirty and wearing tie-dye automatically make you a free thinker?). There were a few people that were relatively (compared to the rest of the nutcases) grounded... but even they didn't have all of their shit together.
"Do you know that Spirituality and Philosophy is not based in a world of logic and proof?"
Prove it. hehe
This kind of thinking is not productive. I will never believe in something blindly. I will run with a belief only so far... and only if I have to (life or death). Since I do believe in Fallibilism, my doubts are always working on my belief system. Honing, revising, reviewing... always looking for problems. Although it may seem like I am searching for infallibility, I am not. There will always be internal conflict. I am fully aware of this. But blindly believing something is not part of this conflict.
An example of this conflict?: Free Will or Determinism...
I can see both sides of this argument. Both are quite plausible and rational. And although I lean towards the Free Will end of the continuum, I doubt my position all the time... because of my lack of proof. There is no evidence of DOUBT in the "believer's" (in this case) argument. All we get are assertions and circularity.
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
raytrace
Stranger
Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: Swami]
#613253 - 04/19/02 08:20 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
According to modern English language definitions, they most certainly are not (at least in the area of belief).
not "at least in the area of belief", but merely "in the area of belief"
so, better: you are asking: "are believers rational in the area of belief?"
i would answer: no.
but you cannot say believers are irrational beings.
cause if you say so, at the same time artists are irrational beings. (art is not based on logic)
from what i know, you are also an artist, so you imply you are also an irrational being.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: ]
#613267 - 04/19/02 08:35 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
"There's two sides of the brain. The logical/rational side, and the emotional/creative side."
This is a gross oversimplification, and illustrates the results of pop science in our culture. There is a bundle of nerves connecting both halves of the brain known as the 'corpus callosum.' Work which brought up the idea of right and left brain thinking was based on studies of people with severe epilepsy who had radical surgery to sever this nerve bundle so that nerve impulses during an epileptic seizure would not travel to the other half of the brain and involve it in the seizure as well. In a healthy, physically normal individual both halves of the brain are communicating constantly.
To link creative with emotional and place them to the opposite of logical/rational is an arbitrary distinction. A rabid dog is emotional but I've never known any description of one which would describe it as creative. One of the most creative people in history, Leonardo Da Vinci, was obviously rational and scientific in his approach. Some studies suggest that the most creative people may have larger corpus callosums and hence more communication between each hemisphere of the brain. This implies that creative people are more likely to recognize relationships between concepts that the average person may miss.
A person who bases his decisions and beliefs on reason has just as much emotion if not more than a person who bases his decisions and beliefs on emotion. What seperates the two is that the rational person recognizes that emotion is not a tool of cognition and though his emotions may be considered as factor in making decision, his emotions do not rule his decisions. Whereas emotional people treat their emotions as tools of cognition and often use them as the final arbitrator of their decisions.
Edited by evolving (04/19/02 08:42 PM)
|
JPAtanat
member
Registered: 04/17/02
Posts: 101
Last seen: 20 years, 11 months
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: ]
#613285 - 04/19/02 09:12 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
it may be that you and Swami are the result of pop science in our culture. You are building your fortress of logic brick by brick - a seemingly inpenetrable fortress. But dare to suggest that a brick in the foundation is not right, and you will do everything in your power to protect your building from crumbling. If a few bricks are missing then everything else is thrown out of whack. The result is an obstinate belief (or blind faith) in science and the scientific method. Any reliance on intuition vanishes. The senses and raw experience are not to be trusted. And you failed to mention something: Emotion and "rational thinking" ar the same thing in that they are both activity of the mind. The mind can lead us only so far, but at some point we have to be willing to step into the unknown, to experience reality directly instead of categorizing conceptualizing testing and verifying everything, we must allow our ideas and preconceptions to crumble and relax a little in uncertainy, because ultimately that is where we all dwell. Convincing yourself that you know is delusion, and this is true for everybody, skeptics "believers" whatever. You have made it clear that you believe in fallibility, great. But if things are always subject to your own rationalizations, you will never see clearly.
|
JPAtanat
member
Registered: 04/17/02
Posts: 101
Last seen: 20 years, 11 months
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: Swami]
#613291 - 04/19/02 09:27 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Ok, I will attempt to respond to the question now.
I think that Infidel's statement makes some sense. First, I think that the main thing here is that this term "believers" is really just referring to people that believe in things that are not scientifically proven. But scientific logic is not the only mode of thought, and it is not the only mode of rationalization (welcome to the spiritualiy/philosophy forum). I know few people who believe in something for no reason at all. Whether or not you consider their reasons to be "valid" and their logic to be "sound" can be argued forever, and that applies to science and logic as well. So whether or not someone is "rational" is simply a function of your own thinking and has no basis in fact.
Einstein said that there are two ways to look at the world: there are no miracles, or everything is a miracle.
I like that, and it seems to apply, so take it for what its worth....
Peace
Edited by JPAtanat (04/19/02 09:28 PM)
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: JPAtanat]
#613311 - 04/19/02 10:12 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Why can't you accept that believers can be rational.
Einstein believed in God, was he an irrational man?
Swami, you're a rational man.
Don't you believe in some things that cannot be proven logically or with physical evidence? Do you believe in a soul? Do you believe in Love?
I believe in Love, and I'm not talking about any physical manifestation of our animal beings - such as pheromones or anything, I'm talking about something that can't be seen or proved. Does that make me an irrational being?
Why do you put logic above all else. Can't you see the benifits of suspending logic for a moment and letting your mind soar. (that's not irrational is it?)
Is our purpose in life to find a truth that can be proved? Because if it can be proved - logically understood by the limited human mind - then it will only exist in the limited confines of our logical minds. It can only be a limited truth that can be known to us by logic.
I'm sure that chimps would only pursue a truth that can be grasped by their minds (if they could think logically). And ants would only understand things that make sense to them as well. And do we human beings only believe those things that can be known to us by our "logic"?
We belivers are interested in a deeper truth, a truth that CAN'T be proved by human logic - only directly experienced. If the "Ultimate Truth" was simple enough to be understood logically by human beings, I would be quite disappointed...
Please don't lump us all with the palm readers and psychics and all that other new age crap. The whole reason we are all here is to pursue a higher truth beyond the pop - parasychology bullshit and beyond your precious logic. And if that makes us irrational beings than so be it.
Skeptic: "We just don't know"
Believer: "We think we know"
who advances humanity?
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: JPAtanat]
#613312 - 04/19/02 10:13 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
"it may be that you and Swami are the result of pop science in our culture."
How so? Apparently, you don't understand me or the term 'pop,' which denotes 'popular.' What is popular is often times a fad, not often standing the test of time. Sometimes, what is popular may also prove to be timeless. Rational thought is hardly exemplified in the 'science' that often finds it's way onto the front page of the New York Times or as a topic of discussion on 'The Today Show.' These are items which are picked up in order to increase circulation or garner ratings. Sensationalism and political agendas are more important than scholarship in pop science.
"You are building your fortress of logic brick by brick - a seemingly inpenetrable fortress. But dare to suggest that a brick in the foundation is not right, and you will do everything in your power to protect your building from crumbling. If a few bricks are missing then everything else is thrown out of whack. The result is an obstinate belief (or blind faith) in science and the scientific method."
You know not of who you speak. I am not a scientific dogmatist, I have no blind faith in science. The scientific establishment is often as dogmatic as any religion. Your intuition has failed you.
"Any reliance on intuition vanishes. The senses and raw experience are not to be trusted."
Again, you are coming up with ideas based on your preconceived notions of how a person who tries to use the power of reason thinks. You must learn to be more open minded. All science and understanding of the universe begins with perception. However, when integrating new experiences and ideas, one should take into the account the context of how these were aquired and if they contradict one's understanding of the universe. If there is a contradiction, there are two possiblities. One, your perception is somehow incomplete or incorrect. Two, your current model of the universe is incorrect and needs adjustment.
If, while under the influence of 5 grams of p. cubensis, I were to have experienced meeting a space alien who told me he was Jesus Christ and he and his brethren were to be coming in 7 days to save the world I would take the ingestion of hallucinogens into account when attempting to integrate the experience into my understanding of the universe. To not do otherwise would be foolish.
"Emotion and "rational thinking" ar the same thing in that they are both activity of the mind."
Yes, like the colors for your 'desktop' of your computer and the function of the cpu are the same thing in that they both are part of your computer.
"The mind can lead us only so far, but at some point we have to be willing to step into the unknown, to experience reality directly instead of categorizing conceptualizing testing and verifying everything, we must allow our ideas and preconceptions to crumble and relax a little in uncertainy,"
When we step into the unknown we bring our minds with us, if we didn't, we would not be able to experience it. See my third point, above.
"But if things are always subject to your own rationalizations, you will never see clearly."
That's what Swami and I have been trying to tell you...
Edited by evolving (04/19/02 10:51 PM)
|
Anonymous
|
 Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: JPAtanat]
#613325 - 04/19/02 10:33 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
JPAtanat... and InfidelGOD
WELCOME to the Spirituality and Philosophy board. I have been waiting for you both. It's about time you showed up.
       
|
JPAtanat
member
Registered: 04/17/02
Posts: 101
Last seen: 20 years, 11 months
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: infidelGOD]
#613329 - 04/19/02 10:38 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
im not sure if you were replying to me or swami with you first line, but if oyu were responding to me, you misunderstood. I was suggesting that believers are just as rational as anyone else. Furthermore I agree with everything else you said. especially "can't you see the benefits of suspending logic..." and the search for truth that can only be directly experienced and not grasped by the human mind....
well said.
|
JPAtanat
member
Registered: 04/17/02
Posts: 101
Last seen: 20 years, 11 months
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: ]
#613345 - 04/19/02 10:59 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
My intuition has not failed me because no intuition was involved in that analogy. it was quite cearly contrived (although i thought it was clever nonetheless).
"Again, you are coming up with ideas based on your preconceived notions of how a person who tries to use the power of reason thinks" -evolving
i find this statement very hypocritical.
Later in the same segment you mention putting things into context, however there is no context for existence. also the statement "...if they contradict one's understanding of the universe" isnt our understanding of the universe the very thing that is in question? trying to "fit things in" to our imposed "context" is the root of most of our misunderstanding of this world.
About perception. (working definition of perception for this entry: raw sensory experience + thinking, objectifying) Yes i believe that perceptions can be wrong. But subtract the thinking and there is no error possible. When I type into the kepyboard there is no question about the sensations it produces in my fingers. Questions only arise when you try to pigeon-hole what that experience is and reduce it to abstract meanings. A model of the universe? I'd sure like to see one sometime. but i think you are talking about context.
emotion and rational thikning are the same because they are both functions of our "model of the universe" we react to the world emotionally and rationaly on the same terms and these terms (as i have said) are whats to be questioned.
yes we bring our minds, and the rest of us. thinking is a tool to be used sparingly. not something to live our lives by.
"But if things are always subject to your own rationalizations, you will never see clearly" Yes you and Swami continue to tell us this, and continue to fail to recognize it yourselves.
Peace
|
JPAtanat
member
Registered: 04/17/02
Posts: 101
Last seen: 20 years, 11 months
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: ]
#613349 - 04/19/02 11:02 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
thank you shroomism.
its good to know that my comments are appreciated.
Peace
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
 Believers ARE Rational Beings [Re: JPAtanat]
#613350 - 04/19/02 11:03 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Thanks Shroomism,
and JPAtanat:
I was responding to Swami
- clicked the wrong "Reply" - 
|
skaMariaPastora
Utopiate
Registered: 03/14/01
Posts: 443
Loc: MA
Last seen: 20 years, 6 months
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: Swami]
#613354 - 04/19/02 11:07 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Why has there been so much debate lately about the merits of strict rationalism vs. faith? Why does our community seem to be polarized between these two extremes? Polarizations just lead to tensions and animosity between the groups. I think we should all work towards accepting each other more. Its obvious that in any group of people there will be a variety of opinions. However, they are all scattered throughout the reason/faith coordinate system. There is no need to divide people into two piles.
|
Anonymous
|
|
And thank you.. Ska
finally some words of wisdom
I'm all for the skeptic viewpoint, but when that skeptic viewpoint just keeps coming back and telling me/us that we don't make sense, fail to use logic, belief is for the weak, etc etc ad nasuem.. I tend to get very defensive and get blinded by something akin to frustration. I'm all for science, but I don't like science telling me what to believe, tearing apart my statements and pointing out the flaws in what they think is bad logic, and basically mocking. I am guilty of doing the same things, which I don't like.
This forum is for the open sharing of ideas where people should accept and be accepted. This is not a debating zone of Spirituality VS. Science. Everyone's viewpoint is valid, but it crosses the line when people start telling other people what they should think/do/believe in. I want to start seeing some peace in this place. If you think someone is using bad logic, or deluding themselves... let them delude themselves. People are allowed to have their own view on reality without having someone come and try and change it to fit their view of reality. If you don't like the way someone views reality, or interprets the world, that is your problem, not theirs. Leave the sarcastic comments or attacks on someone's character and/or thinking process to yourself.
I'm all for an equal balance of believer and skeptic. But not when it is believer VS skeptic. This is not a battle, this is a place where people come to share their ideas, beliefs, and philosophies. I don't like to see a very wise person like ChemicalBlue come here and share his revelations with us, only for them to be shot down by the first "rational person" who reads it.
So in conclusion, share your ideas. Do not attack people for sharing their thoughts, and above all, show everyone respect. I will do the same.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: JPAtanat]
#613419 - 04/20/02 12:39 AM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
'My intuition has not failed me because no intuition was involved in that analogy. it was quite cearly contrived (although i thought it was clever nonetheless).'
Whether your statement was intuition or contrived, it was way off the mark. You don't understand me, I do not have blind faith in science. Human understanding of the universe is quite incomplete. Some scientific theories currently generally recognized as being true will most certainly be superseded or proven false in the future, of this I have little doubt. This is why they are called theories. I will restate, the scientific establishment is often as dogmatic as any religion. Do you disagree with this?
'"Again, you are coming up with ideas based on your preconceived notions of how a person who tries to use the power of reason thinks" -evolving
i find this statement very hypocritical.'
How is this hypocritical?
'Later in the same segment you mention putting things into context, however there is no context for existence.'
What do you mean, 'there is no context for existence'? I was referring to the context of how experiences are aquired. Context can mean, your state of mind, including but not limited to: fatigue, anger, fear, joy, sorrow, intoxication (degree and type), neurological damage, hypoxia, desire, denial, etc. Context also refers to the physical circumstance, including but not limited to: amount and type of light, haze, smoke, reflections, refractions, noise, distance of observed phenomena, physical or chemical irritation to your sense organs, wind, physical barriers between you and the observed phenomena (such as a window, trees or a screen), etc.
'also the statement "...if they contradict one's understanding of the universe" isnt our understanding of the universe the very thing that is in question? trying to "fit things in" to our imposed "context" is the root of most of our misunderstanding of this world.'
I don't know about 'imposed' context, it doesn't matter if a context is imposed or not, what matters is how context affects our perceptions (see previous point). Please read a little more carefully, I will restate for you: 'If there is a contradiction, there are two possiblities. One, your perception is somehow incomplete or incorrect. Two, your current model of the universe is incorrect and needs adjustment.' (emphasis added)
'A model of the universe? I'd sure like to see one sometime. but i think you are talking about context.'
Well, you probably missed this class in school because they didn't have it. The world that you experience is modeled within your mind, you see it every conscious moment of your life. Part of this model is very basic and doesn't vary much from person to person, perceptions of colors and sounds being an example. Another aspect of the model is your ideas about how the world works. When waiting to cross the street and observing cars travelling toward the intersection you make certain assumptions based upon your model so as to help you navigate through life without becoming a big red splat on the pavement. If your model is incorrect (say you're under the influence of shrooms and the cars appear to be travelling very slowly), it could mean your death.
'emotion and rational thikning are the same because they are both functions of our "model of the universe" we react to the world emotionally and rationaly on the same terms and these terms (as i have said) are whats to be questioned. '
How can two things that differ in qualities and function be the same? To use another analogy. I have a model airplane, the paint job is not the same as the motor. They both are parts of a model airplane, this is true. But that does not make them the same. How can you say that emotion and rational thinking are the same? If they were, why do we distinguish between the two? People do not react to the world emotionally and rationally on the same terms. This is utter nonsense.
To be rational and to rationalize are two different things as well;
rational - showing reason; not foolish or silly; sensible; as a rational argument.
rationalize - to devise superficially rational, or plausible, explanations or excuses for (one's acts, beliefs, desires, etc.)
|
JPAtanat
member
Registered: 04/17/02
Posts: 101
Last seen: 20 years, 11 months
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: ]
#613446 - 04/20/02 01:28 AM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
i am frustrated and i hardly have the energy to respond to all of this. i would be saying the same things a different way anyway......
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: ]
#613457 - 04/20/02 01:37 AM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Thank you all for responding.
from InfidelGod:
Believers are actually rational beings, we're just not ruled by logic.
from Webster:
rational: Consistent with or based on reason; logical
Let's try one more time to see if the light bulb goes on. A definition should be able to be substituted for a word and retain about the same meaning.
Believers are actually logical beings, we're just not logical. or
Believers are actually consistent beings, we're just not consitent.
All I did in this thread was to show that that statement was incongruous, yet not one believer jumped on InfidelGod - in fact shroomism welcomed him to the flock with open arms. It was he, and not the Swami who insulted believers with this ludicrous statement. It seems that many "believers" invoke emotion wherever possible and have trouble grasping simple concepts.
Am I being insulting yet again? Even with the very clear caveat , they most certainly are not (at least in the area of belief). many still went ballistic.
This was a test in reading comprehension and knee-jerk reaction. Most of you failed miserably by substituting what you think I meant instead of what I wrote.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
 Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: Swami]
#613505 - 04/20/02 02:56 AM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
"Believers are actually logical beings, we're just not logical. "
?!?!?!??!?!?!?!???!?!!?!??!!??!?!?!?!?!?!!!!
How did you get that from:
"Believers are actually rational beings, we're just not ruled by logic."
So now you are ACTUALLY CHANGING MY WORDS to prove a point.
It is one thing to be logical
it is another thing to be ruled by logic
If you are ruled by logic, you are incapable of seeing things in any other way.
Why is it impossible to be a logical person and yet not allow logic to limit (rule) me.
When you changed my words, you assumed that being logical is the same as being limited by logic. Well Swami, I see logic as a foundation, not a ceiling to understanding.
To rephrase:
Believers are actually rational beings, but we do not let logic limit us"
I'm sorry but I don't see the incongruity. Please enlighten me.
You only see the incongruity after changing the meaning of the original statement.
You're fond of quoting people and picking apart their logic, sometimes you quote out of context... But actually changing the meaning ??
"This was a test in reading comprehension and knee-jerk reaction. Most of you failed miserably by substituting what you think I meant instead of what I wrote."
the irony....
|
Insomniac
Stranger
Registered: 03/17/02
Posts: 35
Last seen: 13 years, 2 months
|
 Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: ]
#613516 - 04/20/02 03:18 AM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
If, while under the influence of 5 grams of p. cubensis, I were to have experienced meeting a space alien who told me he was Jesus Christ and he and his brethren were to be coming in 7 days to save the world I would take the ingestion of hallucinogens into account when attempting to integrate the experience into my understanding of the universe. To not do otherwise would be foolish.
Doesn't our perception of everything basically just boil down to chemical reactions in our brains? And while under the influence of shrooms there's just a different set of chemical reactions going on isn't there? So to the functioning body what is it exactly that makes one experience any more real than another?
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: infidelGOD]
#613528 - 04/20/02 04:00 AM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
?!?!?!??!?!?!?!???!?!!?!??!!??!?!?!?!?!?!!!!
Violating every known rule of punctuation. Emotion above all, social norms be damned.
That's right. Ignore the caveat underscoring the reading comprehension difficulty.
One more time with the caveat added at the end of the statement for utmost clarity:
Believers are actually logical beings, we're just not logical in the area of belief. or
Believers are actually consistent beings, we're just not consistent in the area of belief.
Or as you prefer, we can add the totally superfluous "ruled by":
Believers are actually logical beings, we're just not ruled by logic in the area of belief. or
Believers are actually consistent beings, we're just constrained by consitency in the area of belief.
I fail to understand how a logical being can be illogical or a consistent being can be inconsistent.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
 Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: Swami]
#613567 - 04/20/02 05:47 AM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
sigh..
see how convoluted logic can get?
"Or as you prefer, we can add the totally superfluous "ruled by":"
totally superfluous?
It is not superfluous, it was the point of my earlier post - that not being ruled by logic is not the same as being illogical.
When I say that I am not ruled by logic, I mean that I don't let the conventions of logic prevent me from believing that something exists. I can believe in things that can never be proven logically. Does that make me illogical?
You should know that logic can never say for certain that something does not exist. It can only prove a positive. So logic can never be a limit to knowledge, it is a foundation to knowledge. Logic can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, so why is it illogical to believe in God? It isn't logical to believe, but it isn't illogical either. Some things exist completely outside the realm of logic.
Is it absolutely impossible to be logical and still have an open mind?
"I fail to understand how a logical being can be illogical or a consistent being can be inconsistent."
I never said either of these things yet you still insist on putting words in my mouth.
For clarification, my original statement:
"Believers are actually rational beings, we're just not ruled by logic."
Or as you prefer:
"Believers are actually rational beings, we're just not ruled by logic in the area of belief."
Or as I prefer using the above definition:
"Believers are actually rational beings, but we don't let the conventions of logic prevent us from believing that something exists"
Can I get a straight answer as to why any of these statements contain a contradiction?
You can disagree if you want but please abstain from substituting words, take them at face value.
|
Tannis
ZoneTrooper
Registered: 12/13/01
Posts: 508
Loc: MD.USA
Last seen: 20 years, 6 months
|
 Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: infidelGOD]
#613641 - 04/20/02 08:21 AM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
We should do lunch sometime........I enjoyed your post.......
I am a "believer" if the only other choice is "skeptic". As a believer, I can experience the benefits of things in life without having completely mapped them out logically or scientifically.
The other side of this coin though is that as a believer, I don't have to be an idiot who just excepts everything that happens or that I experience. I question everything as to its origins and I think that this makes me different than the person who just swallows anything. Like I said, I'm a believer but only if the only other choice is skeptic.
I went through many times of doubt and skeptism. They were the darkest times of my life and the times where I made my greatest and most hurtful mistakes.
With me though, if I get enough evidence that I can jump off the cliff and there will be water deep enough below to cushion my fall......I will jump......not only in the physical world but also in the psychic and the spiritual. I don't have to have it all figured out in order to enjoy myself. I go with my intuitive feelings and they have never disappointed me. Life is an adventure for me. I love speed and always try to see how fast I can go and how high I can fly. Following my intuitive feelings makes me alive and positive. When I didn't follow them I started to get cynical, I was suspicous and carried weapons, and used drugs in a suicidal manner. In fact I was suicidal for a long time.
For me, not being a believer is to be a real "bad assed fucking bastard" of a person, who would just as soon kill you as look at you. As a believer, I heal and help others.
I am also the investigator. Not a skeptic, but not the person who believes everything I am told. When I work with people, I only want to hear what is troubling them and not the whole story as they understand it. I often refuse to have contact with the person and have another member of my team interview them, then I walk in cold to the house or situation and see what I pick up. I always look for natural cause first and have told people that their situation is "natural" not "supernatural".
One example of this was a family who stated that their son saw a demon in his room. The boy was about 5yrs old and would scream and cry nearly every night and report seeing a demon. It turned out that the family was involved in a church that believed demons did just about everything from causing headaches to giving bad TV reception. I told the family that there was no demonic problem and that their 5 yr old was playing them for attention. They were not impressed and would have been happier if I had created some elaborate staged production but the truth was that it was a 5 yr old was out smarting them for attention.
Like I said, I am a believer but I'm not stupid! Many people want to squirm out of their responsibilities and blame something else.
There is another side to this as well. This is where believer and skeptic part ways...... Even though I stay grounded and question situations around me.....I don't know everything....and when my intuition kicks in and tells me this or that is happening.....then I jump....the leap of faith....which any skeptic is truely appalled with.
But then I look to my track record......leaping works for me!
Maybe believers are the grasshoppers, and frogs in life and the skeptics are the lizards, and ants.........we both get where we are going but by different means.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: infidelGOD]
#613649 - 04/20/02 08:33 AM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
This appears to me to be a very simple correlary without any twisting on my part. Please help me to see the error of my ways.
from Webster:
rational: Consistent with or based on reason; logical
Is this an acceptable definition? Yes or no.
Does rational equate to logical? Yes or no.
Does rational equate to consistent? Yes or no.
Original: "Believers are actually rational beings..."
I should be able to snip the sentence here without any distortion. Is this a problem? Yes or No.
Correlary: Believers make rational decisions.
So far so good? Yes or No.
Substitution: Believers make decisions based on logic and consistency.
Does this still follow? Yes or no.
Do believers sometimes make decisions based on faith or belief? Yes or No.
from Webster:
illogical: not observing the principles of logic
A person making a decision not using the rules of logic is making an illogical decision.
True or false?
A person making an illogical decision cannot be considered rational (at that moment.)
True or false?
Please add your rant after you point out which line of reasoning is faulty.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: ]
#613653 - 04/20/02 08:38 AM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
This is not a debating zone...
Yes it is!
Spirituality and Philosophy:
For discussion of the spirituality surrounding mushrooms and our everyday lives.
Webster:
discussion: consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
WeirdShroomer
journeyman
Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 78
Loc: Sebia
Last seen: 21 years, 4 months
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: Swami]
#613760 - 04/20/02 11:08 AM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I didn't know one big truth about me. I always thought that I'm not actually "believer".
We all believe in many things and newer question them.
If I experience telepathy. and say : "Yes, I think it exist"...... am I believer?
I never saw someone levitating or someone who is telekinetic.
But I don't say that is bullshit. And I don't say I believe... I just don't know.
I call that open mind.
When I don't know I try to learn.
I don't have proof for or against so I don't know and I like to hear others.
I love you all people.
I love CACA because he thought me how fanatic look... and I will never become one.
I love Swami because he show me that he is similar to CACA in some things ( no offence Swami you are not CACA ) and that many things that look different are similar in origin.
I think they both want to "sell" their truth.
I don't agree with Shroomism in many things but I like to read his posts.
Discussion is one thing arguing is another.
Many good treads at some point start to "loop"......
I'm not believer and I'm not skeptic...Can I be just human with opinion and not to worry that someone is gonna dissect my thoughts and take them out of context just to prove nothing?
Are believers rational?
Yes...We are all rational...that's my opinion.
I just want to say that all above is my opinion and that I don't say its truth.
------weird------
--------------------
----weird-----
Smoking dynamite can seriously blow your mind
|
raytrace
Stranger
Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: Insomniac]
#613790 - 04/20/02 11:31 AM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
your perceptions may indicate you that you are dead, while at the same time a doctor examining you finds you perfectly well. trying to convice your life insurance company about the reality of your death, because reality boils down to chemical reactions, and ask for money, since the contract doesn't mention resurrection, won't do you any good.
there is a need for objectivity to enable interaction between people. reality has to do with objectivity. anything experienced by someone alone is subjective, and can be a halucination until confirmed by others. the model of reality is built by the various intersecting subjective perceptions that form an objective model.
i don't understand "something is real for observer A and not for observer B". reality cannot be relative, it is a convention for people to avoid relativity in order to interact.
accepting something you perceived, while in a state of altered brain chemistry, as real, is risky, as such experiences tend to be highly subjective.
of course someone may perceive things that don't belong to the model of reality as is now. the model of our reality evolves and some day these things may be incorporated if validated, or they may never be accepted.
please, anyone, correct me
Edited by raytrace (04/20/02 11:33 AM)
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Believers ARE Rational Beings [Re: Swami]
#613839 - 04/20/02 12:43 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
How convenient to ignore my "rants" in favor of your "logic"
Alright let's start with the truncated version:
"Belivers are rational beings"
This statement can only be cantradictory if you assume that belief and logic are mutually exclusive. I don't think that - that's why I made the statement. If you think differently, that is your interpretation.
"Do believers sometimes make decisions based on faith or belief? Yes or No."
Yeah I sometimes make decisions based on faith.
If that makes me an irrational being than every single human being on Earth is an irrational being. If I solve a math problem using intuition (sometimes), is the answer irrational and invalid?
"from Webster:
illogical: not observing the principles of logic"
Like I said, it is not illogical to believe in something than logic can neither prove nor disprove. Therefor logic and belief are not mutually exclusive.
"A person making an illogical decision cannot be considered rational (at that moment.)
True or false?"
"at that monent"? Can I consider everyone to be irrational becuase we were all irrational beings at birth.
My statement "Believers are rational beings" refers to the entire being. It does not say that we have never made an irrational decision. By adhering to your strict definition of being a rational being, only a person who follows logic 100% of the time can be considered a "rational being"
By your own definition, you are not a rational being, nobody is.
Believers follow logic most of the time and when logic fails, we follow intuition. That does not make us irrational. That makes us human.
It is not an illogical decision to believe in something beyond logic.
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Believers ARE Rational Beings [Re: infidelGOD]
#613896 - 04/20/02 02:00 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
raytrace-
it is a convention for people to avoid relativity in order to interact.
Nice and neat.
Really, logic is only about interaction between people. When it comes to imagination, relativity reigns supreme. However, it is when the imagination/ interaction line is blurred that we get conflict between people. If the unprovable topics are chosen to be discussed, there should be a caveat explaining that the topics cannot be proven and so forth...
However, when your interaction is somewhat dependent on your particular unprovable dogma, we run into problems. True, nobody is perfect, but basing your interaction (even loosely) on logic allows for LESS misinterpretation and better feedback (you're posting here for feedback, right?). So, if we want feedback from people with different perspectives on the world, then we have to interact in a somewhat ordered fashion (so as to not offend or annoy... this keeps the emotional outbursts to a minimum as feelings have not been hurt).
So, a rational being doesn't have to be rational 100% of the time... they should only have to try (I know it is hard sometimes) to be as rational as possible when INTERACTING with those people with different points of view.
So, unless we are all agreed on a certain issue (like say, the War on Drugs... you'll notice, we never argue to the death about this. Why? Because we all agree- the WOD is bullshit.), I think logic should govern our relations in this forum.
Does this make sense?
(I'll post this separately for those who might not read this thread.)
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
JPAtanat
member
Registered: 04/17/02
Posts: 101
Last seen: 20 years, 11 months
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: ]
#613900 - 04/20/02 02:04 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
There is one thing I wish to address (now that i am well reseted) in evolving's response.
I will attempt to explain what it is I mean by "there is not context for reality" If you cannot immediately grasp this concept, it may be hard to understand, and it will certainly be hard for me to explain but i will try.
This is reality. You are reading this post. Itis the ultimate reality and absolutely nothin exists outside of it. The past and the future are contained within this one moment. You may think that we have accumulated knowledge of the past, but it is in books and memories and those are only real right now. Because of this THERE IS NO COMPARISON. Let me take your example of being under the influence. It does not matter because whn you are, say, drunk, you are DRUNK! there is no sober part of you that is saying, "well this experience is what it is because i am drunk and i know what it is to be sober" but you only know what it is to be sober as a drunk person! When you are drunk, the whoole world - your entire existence is drunk! You CANNOT put it into any context! And so it goes for any other mental state there is INCLUDING mind states that are considered straight or sober. I will repeat: there is no comparison because at that moment it is everything. INsomniac also made this point. Therefore (tthis ties into someone else's response too) the basis of existence is SUBJECTIVE.
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: JPAtanat]
#613903 - 04/20/02 02:08 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
the basis of existence is SUBJECTIVE
Until we interact.
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Insomniac
Stranger
Registered: 03/17/02
Posts: 35
Last seen: 13 years, 2 months
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: raytrace]
#613916 - 04/20/02 02:33 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I agree with the need for some sort of objectivity and all that, especially given the circumstances in which we live with one another.
I was just trying to point out that at the level of the functioning body there is no way to discern whether one experience is more real than another, and maybe there is something more to that, that could be worth investigating. Then again my knowledge of how the human body works is limited so I could be totally wrong.
|
JPAtanat
member
Registered: 04/17/02
Posts: 101
Last seen: 20 years, 11 months
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: Sclorch]
#613919 - 04/20/02 02:36 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
there is absolutely no reason why interaction would make existence objective. instead it forces us to come up with abstract concepts and symbols that have common meanings among people. this does not make the xperience of it objective. The BASIS of existence is subjective. It cannot possibly be objective. for me this ia a huge part of spirituality: discovering what lies behind all the ideas and concepts and dwells only on the plane of Pure Existence. And that is subjective.
An if i may go a little deeper with this. There is no cinstant or solid entity which composes the self. the self is a couple of things. On the abstract level it is our personality; how we think we do things, act and react etc. But in the presen moment - the only moment or Reality and Truth, we are an unfolding of sights sounds smells tastes physical sensations and mental activities. They are completely fleeting. there is noting solid about existence, and therefore nothing objective about it.
Peace
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Believers ARE Rational Beings. [Re: JPAtanat]
#613942 - 04/20/02 03:06 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
"So, a rational being doesn't have to be rational 100% of the time... they should only have to try (I know it is hard sometimes) to be as rational as possible when INTERACTING with those people with different points of view."
I completely agree
"Really, logic is only about interaction between people. When it comes to imagination, relativity reigns supreme. However, it is when the imagination/ interaction line is blurred that we get conflict between people. If the unprovable topics are chosen to be discussed, there should be a caveat explaining that the topics cannot be proven and so forth... "
We are discussing unprovable topics in this forum.
I believe in things that logic cannot prove nor disprove.
That does not make me illogical.
I was only defending my beliefs in this thread which started with Swami quoting me out of context (if you want the full post that the statement was lifted from, see the thread titled "skeptic system")
"Are believers rational beings?"
I would have to say .... THIS believer is a rational being.
Most believers in this forum are rational beings.
Are we rational 100% of the time? No.
Does that make us irrational beings? No.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Believers ARE Rational Beings [Re: Sclorch]
#613953 - 04/20/02 03:16 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
So, unless we are all agreed on a certain issue (like say, the War on Drugs... you'll notice, we never argue to the death about this. Why? Because we all agree- the WOD is bullshit.), I think logic should govern our relations in this forum.
The WOD is to any logical mind an irrational stance. The WOD is perpetuated by "believers" in a certain religious moral code. WOD supporters are irrational beings (on that issue).
Why is everyone struggling with this concept?
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: infidelGOD]
#613955 - 04/20/02 03:20 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I can believe in things that can never be proven logically. Does that make me illogical?
Yes.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
|
Why has there been so much debate lately about the merits of strict rationalism vs. faith? Why does our community seem to be polarized between these two extremes?
Because the world is polarized by believers trying to shove their ideas down the throats of others.
The WOD is certainly polarizing.
Palestine and Israel are polarized.
Racism and homophobia are polarizing.
The Christian and Muslim worlds are polarized.
These stances are all possible because people hold onto irrational beliefs. They are impossible positions to maintain in a questioning mind.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: ]
#613973 - 04/20/02 03:40 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
People are allowed to have their own view on reality without having someone come and try and change it to fit their view of reality.
We should just allow the WOD to continue and not question it? We should just allow religious wars to wage out of control? Or should we attack ignorance whenever it rears it's ugly head?
If you don't like the way someone views reality, or interprets the world, that is your problem, not theirs.
Tell me that if/when you get 15 years for growing fungus (I wish that on no one, but some of us here WILL get popped.)
I am guilty of doing the same things, which I don't like.
Then stop.
If you think someone is using bad logic, or deluding themselves... let them delude themselves.
That is contrary to the nature of a debate.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: WeirdShroomer]
#613975 - 04/20/02 03:40 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I think they both want to "sell" their truth.
Ask people to question things is hardly selling a truth. I have not proposed a position that I want anyone to adopt; there is no dogma, no list of beliefs.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: Swami]
#614048 - 04/20/02 05:44 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
"We should just allow the WOD to continue and not question it? We should just allow religious wars to wage out of control? Or should we attack ignorance whenever it rears it's ugly head?"
Ask people to question things is hardly selling a truth. I have not proposed a position that I want anyone to adopt; there is no dogma, no list of beliefs."
So we shoud attack the "ignorance" of believers??
It sounds like you are selling a truth. You have proposed a position and you do have a list of beliefs.
And why do you insist on grouping all believers together. I don't think you can fairly campare us with the WOD or religious zealots.
Should I group all skeptics together? A lot of people in the church are skeptical of paranormal activity (the non religious kind).
"I can believe in things that can never be proven logically. Does that make me illogical?
Yes."
No.
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: infidelGOD]
#614054 - 04/20/02 05:59 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I can believe in things that can never be proven logically. Does that make me illogical?
Every logical person knows that logic can't prove a negative. It cannot say that something does NOT exist.
If you say that I am illogical for believing in free will, you should be able to PROVE that free will does NOT exist.
Logic can only prove that something DOES exist. That is why logic is the FOUNDATION of all knowledge. It can never be a LIMIT to what we can know.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: Swami]
#614060 - 04/20/02 06:11 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Heh, I just find this whole thing really funny right now. Hehehe.... oh man it's too much, oh I love it.. *cackle*
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: ]
#614089 - 04/20/02 06:50 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Of course it is funny - that is the real point!
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
skaMariaPastora
Utopiate
Registered: 03/14/01
Posts: 443
Loc: MA
Last seen: 20 years, 6 months
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: Swami]
#614184 - 04/20/02 09:49 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Why has there been so much debate lately about the merits of strict rationalism vs. faith? Why does our community seem to be polarized between these two extremes?
Because the world is polarized by believers trying to shove their ideas down the throats of others.
Believers in illogical thought aren't the people that shove things down people's throats, its believers in anything. Swami, you have a strong belief in the logical methodology and as a result, advertently or not, you try to shove this fact down people's throats. Believers in Allah do the same thing, as with believers in the Christian God, or in Aliens. What we need to learn is that what our meager monkey minds can comprehend is not, just because we can reason it, true. Believing in something is saying that your brain can comprehend reality perfectly and others can't, and are therefore wrong. It is closing your mind up to other viewpoints.
I don't consider myself a "believer" mainly because I don't hold concepts that closely for them to be classified as a belief. I try to consider ideas, but don't let them run my mind. I'm not ragging on being logical or having faith, I'm saying that people should live with open minds. The world is polarized because people let their self-righteous ideas govern their interactions.
|
gnrm23
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 08/29/99
Posts: 6,488
Loc: n. e. OH, USSA
Last seen: 14 hours, 16 minutes
|
|
"man is not a rational animal; man is a rationalizing animal"
(attributed to robert a heinlein)
--------------------
old enough to know better
not old enough to care
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
|
So when an irrational belief system impacts one's life, one is supposed to just roll over?
I bark a lot on this forum merely as a trick to bring people into the discussion, but I do not in any way interfere in the lives of others as I have no agenda.
If enough of us were awake there would be no more war. Rigid unwavering thinking is what causes damage.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
JPAtanat
member
Registered: 04/17/02
Posts: 101
Last seen: 20 years, 11 months
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: Swami]
#614222 - 04/20/02 11:21 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
you are arguably the most guilty of rigid unwavering thinking, Swami. It is a strict belief in rationalism that is one of the very causes of rigid unwavering thinking. There are some people who believe in things completely even if there is no evidence or experience to support it. That is too bad. But most of us simply believe in possibility, and while you will not admit it, for many of the things being discussed (ie things that cannot be proven scientifically) your rigid thought has already ruled out possibility.
Peace
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: JPAtanat]
#614240 - 04/20/02 11:56 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Agreed.
Now let's all sit down and take a few hits from the bong.
No.. that won't work. Obviously no one is going to WIN this debate. How about a fight to the death?  Winner take all.
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: JPAtanat]
#614750 - 04/21/02 01:36 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Let's clear some things up...
belief 3: conviction of truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon esp. when based on (here we go) examination of EVIDENCE.
I think the polarization occuring in this forum is really about EVIDENCE. So-called "believers" aren't even complying with Webster's definition of the word. They don't have evidence, all they have is blind faith. There is no blind faith in logic and rationalism. There is ample evidence to support the use of logic.
Q: Why are believers so intolerant of good reasoning?
A: Because it would compromise their belief system.
There are many possible reasons for a person not wanting to change their belief system (I'm not going to go into it). But can't you "believers" see what is happening?
Listen, I don't have all the answers and I don't pretend to. But a little logic goes a long way.
or many of the things being discussed (ie things that cannot be proven scientifically) your rigid thought has already ruled out possibility
When I was a child, I was scared to death of the dark, because of the monsters out there. If I still held that belief today, would you believers hold it against me?
I bet you would. So why don't I have that thought today? I mean, what if I thought that the monsters could only be seen by ME at night, when I was alone (and they also wouldn't show up if there was a detection device nearby)...
Would you then tell me that I was right?
"Little Sclorch, of course there are monsters there... they want to kill you. They'll wait until you go to sleep and..."
I don't think you would.
So, why am I no longer afraid of the dark?
Well, I never found any evidence to continue supporting that belief I had as a child. I logically concluded that I should no longer be scared of the dark, because there were no monsters out there.
Does this sound like the cold, hard, rigid, scientific logic that you hate so much?
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: Sclorch]
#614832 - 04/21/02 03:25 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Afraid of the dark - afraid of the light?
"So, why am I no longer afraid of the dark?
Well, I never found any evidence to continue supporting that belief I had as a child. I logically concluded that I should no longer be scared of the dark, because there were no monsters out there."
I would like to hear your logic proving that monsters do not exist.
You found no evidece - so therefore it must not exist?
You know, I have a picture of a forest with NO bigfoot in it. It must mean that they don't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
"belief 3: conviction of truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon esp. when based on (here we go) examination of EVIDENCE."
I don't know where you got this definition but it is certainly not the "belief" that we are discussing. I have "belief" in things that no amount of evidence can ever prove or disprove.
"Q: Why are believers so intolerant of good reasoning?
A: Because it would compromise their belief system."
I have a high tolerance for good reasoning.
According to your definition of "belief", logic is also a belief system because it is based on the examination of evidence. It is not my goal to compromise your belief system, your belief system is already limited by definition because logic is limited.
The real problem is that it is easier to defend skepticism than belief. When we believe in something, the burden of proof is on us, but the things we believe often cannot be proved. The skeptics see this as unacceptable because they demand PROOF of our beliefs. Well, they will never get it.
They say we are "intolerant of good reasoning" when it is often they who are intolerant.
As a believer, I am not intolerant of good reasoning. I always try to keep an "open mind" about being skeptical...
i just might switch over because I'm so sick of defending unprovable beliefs. It must be a lot easier to be a skeptic. But then, what fun is that?
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: infidelGOD]
#614941 - 04/21/02 06:26 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I would like to hear your logic proving that monsters do not exist.
See what I have to deal with day and day out, Sclorch?
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: infidelGOD]
#614945 - 04/21/02 06:40 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
And why do you insist on grouping all believers together. I don't think you can fairly campare us with the WOD or religious zealots.
I am intuiting that you are actually asking a question.
If I said Al Gore had a beard and Bin Laden had a beard, would you ask me if I was accusing Al Gore of being a terrorist? No, I would be comparing a characteristic, not a moral code.
I said it was the same, unquestioning mindset (lack of rationality) that leads to irrational acts such as the WOD. These people (drug prohibitionists) accept certain things on faith without question or even supporting evidence.
I equated unquestioning mindsets with unquestioning mindsets. This is not a hard concept for a logical, rational mind to grasp.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
JPAtanat
member
Registered: 04/17/02
Posts: 101
Last seen: 20 years, 11 months
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: Sclorch]
#615075 - 04/21/02 10:13 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
infidel already mentioned many of the things that i would like to say...
Q: Why are rationalists so intolerant of things beyond reason?
A: Because it would compromise their belief system.
All I believe in is POSSIBILITY. I feel that science and logic inhibit you from seeing clearly. You see through the lens of reason, but reason is highly fallible. My intent is to remove all conditionings or lenses: science/logic, culture, social and behavioral conditionings - ALL CONDITIONING. It is my faith that that is the way to Truth. Whether you call it a blind faith or not is irrelevant. You have lots of lenses on, so you are not well equipped to judge whether or not anyone's faith is blind or not. I am interested in experience, right now, as it is. Classifying and conceptualizing does not interest me. However I absolutely do not hate science. I think that at this point it is essential. But it should not define or rule life. We should strive to eliminate any terms that rule our lives. You cannot deny your preesnt experience. That is what I want to learn about. That is why I came to this board - to discuss the possibilities of experience. Not to prove my experience to any skeptics. Really, there is no good reason to believe anything anyone says here. But thats a pretty shitty way to have a discussion, so maybe we should work more on suspending our disbelief and judgements and maybe we can have an open, productive conversation.
Peace.
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: JPAtanat]
#615232 - 04/22/02 02:32 AM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
"I would like to hear your logic proving that monsters do not exist.
See what I have to deal with day and day out, Sclorch?"
You wouldn't have to deal with it if you stopped quoting people out of context.
Such tactics I expect from a high school debate team. But from the Swami?
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: Swami]
#615244 - 04/22/02 03:23 AM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
"I said it was the same, unquestioning mindset (lack of rationality) that leads to irrational acts such as the WOD. These people (drug prohibitionists) accept certain things on faith without question or even supporting evidence."
I intuit that you logic is becoming incoherent.
I don't have the same moral code as the WOD or religious zealots. You are grouping everyone that "accept certain things on faith without question or even supporting evidence".
Including everyone who believes in free will?
That would include most scientists and some of the greatest artists and philosophers throughout history. Are they like the WOD?
At some level you do accept certain things on faith.
Do you believe in free will?
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
 Re: Are Believers Rational Beings? [Re: infidelGOD]
#615769 - 04/20/02 11:06 AM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Actually, I do think there is such a thing as free will. I think I'll bring up some William James....
James developed the idea that neither freedom of the will nor determinism is provable. Whatever action one chose, the determinist would insist that, given antecedent conditions, no other alternative was possible. The defender of free will would insist that within the act of choosing are indeterminate possibilities, and that the choice once made is not epiphenomenal, but rather a necessary condition of the action. Each side employs different metaphysical postulates about possibility. On what grounds does one choose between postulates in philosophy? Consequences, both logical and practical, are decisive. Logically, on the postulate that we live in a deterministic world, science itself would have no more rational or truth-bearing status than voodoo or numerology (reeks of "believers" eh?). What one believes would be the end product of cellular and other physical causation, and if what one asserted to be true happened to be true, this would be due to good fortune rather than rational insight. So unrestricted determinism is self-defeating.
I could go on, but I think that is a good outline for why I lean towards free will.
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 all )
Learyfan
seeker
Makaveli
Swami
Sclorch