[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
…Just curious what is your point?..
[/quote]
That my dog has better reading skills than you.
[/quote]
But, it’s an awesome dog…
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
…Just curious what is your point?..
[/quote]
That my dog has better reading skills than you.
[/quote]
You should retire then , I am sure the world would love to see your dog .
I did try to keep my posts to a minimum until I got Word installed on my new computer , but I have decided it sends the wrong message to people like you . So I apologize to any who do not ignore my posts , But I will post at will .
I think you should be checked for ADD , you seem to have trouble following a subject with out getting off track, just saying
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Tell them you think religion is pushing itself too far into our government…
[/quote]
Perhaps if you didn’t have a reading comprehension problem of significant magnitude you would’ve noticed the OP is from Ireland and speaking of Ireland and is not necessarily concerned in this case with religion “pushing itself into (your, the United States’) government.”
Perhaps.
[/quote]
I did not notice that he was from Ireland but I would imagine the Protestants vs Catholics
would have a negative effect in Ireland’s politics , perhaps
[/quote]
That’s in the tiny northern corner and seemingly seems to be at peace. We haven’t heard anything about it. I sure hope it’s over.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Religion doesn’t need to be useful for society. For the faithful, it comes first.
If anything, religion justify society (and everything else), not the other way around.
Society could dissapear in a breath, the eternal truthes of religion would not cease to be true, as they are transcendant.
Asking how “society need religion” actually reflect a quite defensive stance.
it’s indeed a quite irreligious, if not anti-religious question.
As soon as you ask it, you’re applying an utilitarian perspective on religion. And, to the eyes of a religious man, you’re actually asking how God serve Man, which is both absurd and blasphemous.
[/quote]
Not really. It’s not about how God serves man, but how man or society is better served because of the existence of religion and those with in the society that practice it. So it’s not blasphamy. It’s a debate question that he’s engaging in in class. Which is normal, they take a subjective, but somewhat inflammatory question and split up sides, and defend it. For a class it’s an exercise, because there isn’t really a right answer. There is no testable hypothesis, so it’s all speculation at best. But good points can be made and I am figuring that’s the point. The ability to argue and winners will be picked I assume.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
A ideal society doesn’t need religion. In such a society people treat one another with mutual respect for the sake of the act itself, and for the positive outcomes it creates for society as a whole. They don’t need to believe in supernatural entities in order to do this. By grounding themselves in reality, they circumvent the inevitable god wars that have plagued humanity during our entire history of creating religions to explain what we don’t understand.
Then again, the ideal society is a dream rather than reality. Many actually do need religion in order to treat others with respect, and thus society benefits in that regard from religion.
Die Religion ist das Opium des Volkes.[/quote]
LOL!!!
Religion is many things, but a numbing opiate it’s not. And Marx is and was a complete idiot. Everything he said was wrong. [/quote]
Religion is a drug that helps people be nice to each other. It is also a drug that helps people kill each other. Kinda like how alcohol creates happy drunks and violent drunks, depending on the person and the amount of alcohol.
Which is why I can’t categorically embrace or condemn religion. It has both positive and negative effects on society.
[/quote]
Uh no it’s not. If people are nice to each other it would be a side effect it’s not a Dale Carnegie course in how to win friends and influence people.[/quote]
I thought Catholics believed in following Christ’s commandment to love one another as he has loved us, and that in fact the entire law hangs on the commandment to love god and to love your fellow men? If your religious belief doesn’t motivate you to love and serve other people, what is the point?
[/quote]
The point is to love and serve God. Serving others is a way to do that and is certainly important, but God is number one. That relationship God and man is what religion is about. Man can be nice to one another with out faith. But we are also called to service not just politeness. People mistake being religious with being nice to everybody and taking everybodies crap. That shit ain’t true, some people need to be dealt with harshly, that’s just reality.
I am not going by my knowledge of you, but I am going by what you said. Look at what you said, you basically said that religious people are stupid (God of gaps), irrational (belief in God), and violent (wars are religious). Picking your opponents argument apart is key in debate, your post was a perfect example of what OP is going to run into in this debate, so actually what you posted was awesome.
But make no mistake, your did blow your whole “mutual respect = good society” non-sense when you said you don’t need religion to be respectful, but then you held religion in contempt, which is not mutually respectful.
[quote]
Some of the believers on this board have argued that anarchy would ensue in the absence of religion, and for a portion of the population they would be right.[/quote]
I would say that’s wrong. There are some Godless societies granted they are massively oppressed, but they seem to get along.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
A ideal society doesn’t need religion. In such a society people treat one another with mutual respect for the sake of the act itself, and for the positive outcomes it creates for society as a whole. They don’t need to believe in supernatural entities in order to do this. By grounding themselves in reality, they circumvent the inevitable god wars that have plagued humanity during our entire history of creating religions to explain what we don’t understand.
Then again, the ideal society is a dream rather than reality. Many actually do need religion in order to treat others with respect, and thus society benefits in that regard from religion.
Die Religion ist das Opium des Volkes.[/quote]
“respect” and “positive” are derived supernaturally. In order to have a “positive” societal outcome, you must first define a universal positive direction. You can’t have people pull together in the same direction without it. And you can’t arrive at one without the supernatural.
If it’s individually defined, all moral codes break down in society by simple disagreement. While it is often argued that the absoluteness of a religious belief is a weakness that doesn’t allow flexibility, the other side of the coin has the opposite, and IMO much more severe, problem.
You even mentioned in on of the other threads, that you have, and your perfect world requires, faith in right and wrong. That is a religious belief. You are just too biased against the notion of religion to see it. You have faith in a universal moral code. It doesn’t get any more religious and supernatural than that.
Not to mention you are on here just to argue, and are presenting and arguing the opposite of what the OP asked about.[/quote]
People get confused about this all the time, but Sloth is the main offender 
Metaphysical <> Supernatural
Numbers are metaphysical. Numbers are not supernatural. Emotions are metaphysical. Emotions are not supernatural. Values are metaphysical. Values are not supernatural.
Numbers, emotions, and values don’t require a supernatural being in order to exist metaphysically. None of these things implies or requires the supernatural.[/quote]
Explain the difference.
You are saying that a universal morality is not supernatural?
It’s also important to note that none of those things you listed exist physically. The webster definition of supernatural is: “of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe”.
You are now getting into semantic games instead of addressing the issue.
You believe in and place your FAITH (from your own posting) in things that do not exist as a part of this universe and for which there is no evidence or justification.
You are more dogmatic and religious than many “Christians” I know.
And yes, Believing in metaphysical numbers would be just as supernatural as believing in a creator. Numbers don’t equate to religion only because people, including yourself, don’t believe in them. NOT because of any particular non-supernatural-ness of numbers. If I were to believe in the actual existence of abstract numbers, then yes that’s a supernatural belief. You are going to tell me that if I claimed the number 2 was a real thing, and not just a symbol or a concept, you’d be okay with that because numbers are metaphysical, not supernatural?[/quote]
I’m saying that all values, including those you agree with and those you disagree with, exist metaphysically just like all numbers and all emotions exist metaphysically. None of them are physical objects, and none of them are supernatural. They are completely natural, they are just metaphysical rather than physical.
If you feel an emotional rage upon reading this post, is your rage a real thing? Is it a natural thing? I don’t think anyone would argue that emotions are supernatural, so why would you argue that values are supernatural?[/quote]
I don’t see God’s existence as supernatural, but the most natural thing in existence.
absolutely.
My point was that the wording of the question itself is somewhat biased. And that this bias is, quite paradoxically, a bias against religion, because it presuppose an utilitarian paradigm.
In my book, criticizing the wording of a question at the end of your speech is one of the possible way to “win” this kind of debate (as long as you started by answering it honestly and in a more classical way).
It could open other (and often harder) questions too. What if society would NOT need religion ? Would that “disprove” religion, or would that make no real difference ? Is social utility a pertinent criterium to “judge” religion(s) ?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Tell them you think religion is pushing itself too far into our government…
[/quote]
Perhaps if you didn’t have a reading comprehension problem of significant magnitude you would’ve noticed the OP is from Ireland and speaking of Ireland and is not necessarily concerned in this case with religion “pushing itself into (your, the United States’) government.”
Perhaps.
[/quote]
I did not notice that he was from Ireland but I would imagine the Protestants vs Catholics
would have a negative effect in Ireland’s politics , perhaps
[/quote]
That’s in the tiny northern corner and seemingly seems to be at peace. We haven’t heard anything about it. I sure hope it’s over.[/quote]
As I recall the OP was looking for opinions of the effects of religion on society, I would say the aspect of treating your neighbor as you wish him to treat you is good . But I believe the new Religion (At least in America) is mean spirited and very unChrist like
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Back on topic…
I think religion was absolutely necessary for our species. It provided a stepping stone to the concepts of morality. Unfortunately, its inability to change for anything but its own short term survival is condemning it to become obsolete over the long term.
[/quote]
Religion is not necessary to survival. But religion has evolved over time.
Religion will never go away. If you isolate and raise a people separate from all external variables, they will developed religion of some sort. Religion may be intrinsic to our nature, but it’s not nor ever has been necessary for our survival.
[quote]
Maybe one day we will understand why it is that we can call some parts of holy books a guide on morality (prohibitions on stealing and killing) and discard the other parts (beating children, selling women) as trash. Personally, I think morality is a built in mechanism which is similar/the same across most people, with the exception of sociopaths.[/quote]
Which Holy Book are your revering to? The bible, the one I use, advocates neither beating your kids or selling women. It’s just not in there. Somebody sold you a bucket of horseshit.
I would say that’s wrong. There are some Godless societies granted they are massively oppressed, but they seem to get along.
Some societies are officially godless, but even the best efforts of Uncle Joe didn’t make the Orthodox Church dissapear. Even the shamanic practices of the siberian peoples managed to outlive the soviets.
as far as i know, no society on earth has ever been truly godless.
Actually, each time a “traditionnal religion” is on a historical low, atheism/agnosticism are not the only things that rise : Superstitions, magical thinking and religious syncretism rise too.
The Renaissance : on 1 hand : the Humanists and the other hand : the witch hunts.
In the 19th century/early 20th : Marxism / spiritism, occultism and Theosophy. Lenine and Rudolf Steiner.
Today : the so-called “New Atheism” and various versions of scientism / New Age, astrology, OVNI’s mythos, and the californian version of buddhism/taoism.
[quote]kamui wrote:
absolutely.
My point was that the wording of the question itself is somewhat biased. And that this bias is, quite paradoxically, a bias against religion, because it presuppose an utilitarian paradigm.
In my book, criticizing the wording of a question at the end of your speech is one of the possible way to “win” this kind of debate (as long as you started by answering it honestly and in a more classical way).
It could open other (and often harder) questions too. What if society would NOT need religion ? Would that “disprove” religion, or would that make no real difference ? Is social utility a pertinent criterium to “judge” religion(s) ? [/quote]
I agree it’s a loaded question, I think it’s meant to be. But this kind of debate, say in a classroom setting isn’t won by being right, but by making points and dismantling the opponents points. It’s not one on the basis of the answer. Mainly there is no way to really know. It does presuppose a utilitarian paradigm, but I think it’s supposed to. At a macro level, utilitarianism isn’t a bad thing necessarily.
In reality religion isn’t necessary to society in the classic sense. However, I would argue religious fervor is an intrinsic trait in individual humans. Some apply it to religion, some apply it to other things like sports.
I would argue the religious tenets and having people who follow them are beneficial and can make a society better. Better because religious are called to care where caring is usually absent or would be absent by default.
You can live with out it, but it’s better is some segment does follow it… The reason is if your weakest link is bolstered and lifted up the tide carries all and all raise at least a little too.
[quote]kamui wrote:
I would say that’s wrong. There are some Godless societies granted they are massively oppressed, but they seem to get along.
Some societies are officially godless, but even the best efforts of Uncle Joe didn’t make the Orthodox Church dissapear. Even the shamanic practices of the siberian peoples managed to outlive the soviets.
as far as i know, no society on earth has ever been truly godless.
[/quote]
You are right.
Good stuff Kam… I do enjoy your perspective.
i think it would be a strong move to say that god is not real.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m saying that all values, including those you agree with and those you disagree with, exist metaphysically just like all numbers and all emotions exist metaphysically. None of them are physical objects, and none of them are supernatural. They are completely natural, they are just metaphysical rather than physical.
If you feel an emotional rage upon reading this post, is your rage a real thing? Is it a natural thing? I don’t think anyone would argue that emotions are supernatural, so why would you argue that values are supernatural?[/quote]
No, emotions don’t exist in any way shape or form. They are abstract concepts.
So, they exist somehow. Okay. Prove the number 1. Prove happy. Prove beauty. Prove right.[/quote]
If rage doesn’t exist, then what is it? An illusion?
Emotions, numbers, letters, concepts, values, attitudes, theories, etc. all exist but they are abstract rather than concrete objects. It’s tempting to think that because something is abstract it isn’t real or it isn’t natural, but in metaphysics that isn’t the case.[/quote]
No, they do not exist. They are not a part of the physical universe. Period. Please define your words like I asked. I don’t think you honestly know what they mean.
No abstract concept is, in any way, real.
What you fail to realize is that Being minus the supernatural equals the physical and only the physical. Value is not a thing. It is not defined or governed by any component of the universe. There are only passing electrons in your brain. Without god, we are chemical machines indistinct from a metal rod oxidizing into rust. You are a pretty smart guy and I’m torn between believing your lack of realization about your own beliefs is willful ignorance or if you are just barely short on introspection.
There is no rational distinction between believing an abstract concept ACTUALLY exists and believing that a God does. You start throwing around blatant contradictions claiming things exist, but not in the universe, and they aren’t supernatural. You then use terminology to try to hide the contradiction and refuse to actually assign definitions to that terminology, I can only assume because that would reveal the contradiction. You actually believe in the number 2 independently from electrical pulses in your brain? The number 2 exists? Not 2 apples, or 2 nickles, but the number itself.
I do honestly believe that religion in the past has been harmful to you. But I also think your hatred for it has made you obtuse and close minded about God. You absolutely refuse to let any light in for fear it would betray your ideological revenge on anything related to God.
I know I don’t really open up about my own personal belief as much as some on this board. I normally keep my dogma to myself and speak on these things in very general terms, but I really do pray for you. You must have been deeply wounded in the past to build up your wall as fully as you have.[/quote]
If your emotions don’t exist, what are they? Are you saying you don’t
have emotions? I’m not understanding your perspective here.
I was hoping Pat would chime in re: metaphysics, abstract/concrete
objects, etc. I’m not making this up, it is basic metaphysics. Maybe
coming from a fellow believer you would give him more credibility.
Here is a definition from Wiki:
[quote]An abstract object is an object which does not exist at any
particular time or place, but rather exists as a type of thing (as an
idea, or abstraction). In philosophy, an important distinction is
whether an object is considered abstract or concrete. Abstract objects
are sometimes called abstracta (sing. abstractum) and concrete objects
are sometimes called concreta (sing. concretum).[/quote]
You might also find this helpful:
[quote]The theory of abstract objects is a metaphysical theory.
Whereas physics attempts a systematic description of fundamental and
complex concrete objects, metaphysics attempts a systematic
description of fundamental and complex abstract objects. Abstract
objects are the objects that are presupposed by our scientific
conceptual framework. For example, when doing natural science, we
presuppose that we can use the natural numbers to count concrete
objects, and that we can use the real numbers to measure them in
various ways. It is part of our understanding of science that natural
laws exist (even if no one were around to discover them) and that the
states of affairs that obtain in the natural world are governed by
such laws. As part of our scientific investigations, we presuppose
that objects behave in certain ways because they have certain
properties, and that natural laws govern not just actual objects that
have certain properties, but any physically possible object having
those properties. So metaphysics investigates numbers, laws,
properties, possibilities, etc., as entities in their own right, since
they seem to be presupposed by our very understanding of the
scientific enterprise. The theory of abstract objects attempts to
organize these objects within a systematic and axiomatic
framework.[/quote]
Note that abstract objects do exist. They are simply
non-spatiotemporal and causally inefficacious. The number 7, the
emotion of jealousy, triangularity, and the value of hard work are all
examples of abstract objects.
On a side note:
Why is it that some believers disparage the motivations of people who
disagree with them? There are many believers (some on this board that
I both like and respect) who acknowledge that people can sincerely
disagree with them. But for some, it’s like the minute they see any
criticism, they put on blinders and portray the critic as unhappy,
hateful, and harmed by religion in some way, else how could they
possibly see the world differently?
How many times on this board have I said BOTH positive and negative
things about religion? I have repeatedly said, even in this very
thread, that religion can BOTH hurt and help society. I have MIXED
feelings about religion. I think religion helps many people, but it
also has the capacity to hurt people. I benefited in many ways from my
religious upbringing, and have no bitterness toward those that
continue to believe. I recognize their sincerity, because I know that
I was equally sincere at the time I believed.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m saying that all values, including those you agree with and those you disagree with, exist metaphysically just like all numbers and all emotions exist metaphysically. None of them are physical objects, and none of them are supernatural. They are completely natural, they are just metaphysical rather than physical.
If you feel an emotional rage upon reading this post, is your rage a real thing? Is it a natural thing? I don’t think anyone would argue that emotions are supernatural, so why would you argue that values are supernatural?[/quote]
No, emotions don’t exist in any way shape or form. They are abstract concepts.
So, they exist somehow. Okay. Prove the number 1. Prove happy. Prove beauty. Prove right.[/quote]
If rage doesn’t exist, then what is it? An illusion?
Emotions, numbers, letters, concepts, values, attitudes, theories, etc. all exist but they are abstract rather than concrete objects. It’s tempting to think that because something is abstract it isn’t real or it isn’t natural, but in metaphysics that isn’t the case.[/quote]
No, they do not exist. They are not a part of the physical universe. Period. Please define your words like I asked. I don’t think you honestly know what they mean.
No abstract concept is, in any way, real.
What you fail to realize is that Being minus the supernatural equals the physical and only the physical. Value is not a thing. It is not defined or governed by any component of the universe. There are only passing electrons in your brain. Without god, we are chemical machines indistinct from a metal rod oxidizing into rust. You are a pretty smart guy and I’m torn between believing your lack of realization about your own beliefs is willful ignorance or if you are just barely short on introspection.
There is no rational distinction between believing an abstract concept ACTUALLY exists and believing that a God does. You start throwing around blatant contradictions claiming things exist, but not in the universe, and they aren’t supernatural. You then use terminology to try to hide the contradiction and refuse to actually assign definitions to that terminology, I can only assume because that would reveal the contradiction. You actually believe in the number 2 independently from electrical pulses in your brain? The number 2 exists? Not 2 apples, or 2 nickles, but the number itself.
I do honestly believe that religion in the past has been harmful to you. But I also think your hatred for it has made you obtuse and close minded about God. You absolutely refuse to let any light in for fear it would betray your ideological revenge on anything related to God.
I know I don’t really open up about my own personal belief as much as some on this board. I normally keep my dogma to myself and speak on these things in very general terms, but I really do pray for you. You must have been deeply wounded in the past to build up your wall as fully as you have.[/quote]
If your emotions don’t exist, what are they? Are you saying you don’t
have emotions? I’m not understanding your perspective here.
I was hoping Pat would chime in re: metaphysics, abstract/concrete
objects, etc. I’m not making this up, it is basic metaphysics. Maybe
coming from a fellow believer you would give him more credibility.
[/quote]
Okay, okay…you are right. Metaphysics, abstracts, etc. are not unreal things, but very real things. They are not material but I would hardly argue that material is the end all, be all of all existence. Further, I would actually argue the stuff of metaphysics is actually more real. What I mean by that is that you can make better arguments for their existence than you ever could for anything physical. It’s not that physical things aren’t real, it’s that our senses are an best flawed measuring utensils. We cannot rely on them for completely accurate information and we cannot ever rule out deception. It’s an epistomological limitation. Not only are metaphysical entities real, but for many metaphysical objects you can make pretty strong and nearly infallible deductive arguments for their existence. You cannot do the same for material objects.
When it comes to materialism, we basically understand material reality by consensus. I see an object and call it a chair, you see an object and call it a chair, we agree it’s a chair, therefore it’s a chair. If you have disagreement then you need a third party for verification. If you have a disagreement and have no consensus, you cannot identify things. Further, I have no way of knowing that the object I identify as a chair appears the same to you or not, whether we agree on what it is or not.
Metaphysics doesn’t suffer from the paradigm of human observation. It’s existence is discovered by reason and logic, rather than physical observation.
More about physical objects, the more you drill down on them, the less physical they become. If you could make youself smaller than an atom your world would be ruled by charges and forces. So even at their core, physical objects aren’t really all that physical, they just look and feel that way.
I am afraid DD, forlife is correct. Metaphysical reality is still reality even if not physical. I know what you mean, but your wording is poor. Further, by the same logic, you would render God himself not real. He is, by and large, not material.
[quote]
Here is a definition from Wiki:
[quote]An abstract object is an object which does not exist at any
particular time or place, but rather exists as a type of thing (as an
idea, or abstraction). In philosophy, an important distinction is
whether an object is considered abstract or concrete. Abstract objects
are sometimes called abstracta (sing. abstractum) and concrete objects
are sometimes called concreta (sing. concretum).[/quote]
You might also find this helpful:
[quote]The theory of abstract objects is a metaphysical theory.
Whereas physics attempts a systematic description of fundamental and
complex concrete objects, metaphysics attempts a systematic
description of fundamental and complex abstract objects. Abstract
objects are the objects that are presupposed by our scientific
conceptual framework. For example, when doing natural science, we
presuppose that we can use the natural numbers to count concrete
objects, and that we can use the real numbers to measure them in
various ways. It is part of our understanding of science that natural
laws exist (even if no one were around to discover them) and that the
states of affairs that obtain in the natural world are governed by
such laws. As part of our scientific investigations, we presuppose
that objects behave in certain ways because they have certain
properties, and that natural laws govern not just actual objects that
have certain properties, but any physically possible object having
those properties. So metaphysics investigates numbers, laws,
properties, possibilities, etc., as entities in their own right, since
they seem to be presupposed by our very understanding of the
scientific enterprise. The theory of abstract objects attempts to
organize these objects within a systematic and axiomatic
framework.[/quote]
Note that abstract objects do exist. They are simply
non-spatiotemporal and causally inefficacious. The number 7, the
emotion of jealousy, triangularity, and the value of hard work are all
examples of abstract objects.
On a side note:
Why is it that some believers disparage the motivations of people who
disagree with them? There are many believers (some on this board that
I both like and respect) who acknowledge that people can sincerely
disagree with them. But for some, it’s like the minute they see any
criticism, they put on blinders and portray the critic as unhappy,
hateful, and harmed by religion in some way, else how could they
possibly see the world differently?
How many times on this board have I said BOTH positive and negative
things about religion? I have repeatedly said, even in this very
thread, that religion can BOTH hurt and help society. I have MIXED
feelings about religion. I think religion helps many people, but it
also has the capacity to hurt people. I benefited in many ways from my
religious upbringing, and have no bitterness toward those that
continue to believe. I recognize their sincerity, because I know that
I was equally sincere at the time I believed.[/quote]
[quote]LaPointe wrote:
i think it would be a strong move to say that god is not real.[/quote]
Been tried. Turns out to be, not so strong.
really? what high-level semantic techniques were used to undermine it? they must have been very sophisticated ones…
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m saying that all values, including those you agree with and those you disagree with, exist metaphysically just like all numbers and all emotions exist metaphysically. None of them are physical objects, and none of them are supernatural. They are completely natural, they are just metaphysical rather than physical.
If you feel an emotional rage upon reading this post, is your rage a real thing? Is it a natural thing? I don’t think anyone would argue that emotions are supernatural, so why would you argue that values are supernatural?[/quote]
No, emotions don’t exist in any way shape or form. They are abstract concepts.
So, they exist somehow. Okay. Prove the number 1. Prove happy. Prove beauty. Prove right.[/quote]
If rage doesn’t exist, then what is it? An illusion?
Emotions, numbers, letters, concepts, values, attitudes, theories, etc. all exist but they are abstract rather than concrete objects. It’s tempting to think that because something is abstract it isn’t real or it isn’t natural, but in metaphysics that isn’t the case.[/quote]
No, they do not exist. They are not a part of the physical universe. Period. Please define your words like I asked. I don’t think you honestly know what they mean.
No abstract concept is, in any way, real.
What you fail to realize is that Being minus the supernatural equals the physical and only the physical. Value is not a thing. It is not defined or governed by any component of the universe. There are only passing electrons in your brain. Without god, we are chemical machines indistinct from a metal rod oxidizing into rust. You are a pretty smart guy and I’m torn between believing your lack of realization about your own beliefs is willful ignorance or if you are just barely short on introspection.
There is no rational distinction between believing an abstract concept ACTUALLY exists and believing that a God does. You start throwing around blatant contradictions claiming things exist, but not in the universe, and they aren’t supernatural. You then use terminology to try to hide the contradiction and refuse to actually assign definitions to that terminology, I can only assume because that would reveal the contradiction. You actually believe in the number 2 independently from electrical pulses in your brain? The number 2 exists? Not 2 apples, or 2 nickles, but the number itself.
I do honestly believe that religion in the past has been harmful to you. But I also think your hatred for it has made you obtuse and close minded about God. You absolutely refuse to let any light in for fear it would betray your ideological revenge on anything related to God.
I know I don’t really open up about my own personal belief as much as some on this board. I normally keep my dogma to myself and speak on these things in very general terms, but I really do pray for you. You must have been deeply wounded in the past to build up your wall as fully as you have.[/quote]
If your emotions don’t exist, what are they? Are you saying you don’t
have emotions? I’m not understanding your perspective here.
I was hoping Pat would chime in re: metaphysics, abstract/concrete
objects, etc. I’m not making this up, it is basic metaphysics. Maybe
coming from a fellow believer you would give him more credibility.
Here is a definition from Wiki:
[quote]An abstract object is an object which does not exist at any
particular time or place, but rather exists as a type of thing (as an
idea, or abstraction). In philosophy, an important distinction is
whether an object is considered abstract or concrete. Abstract objects
are sometimes called abstracta (sing. abstractum) and concrete objects
are sometimes called concreta (sing. concretum).[/quote]
You might also find this helpful:
[quote]The theory of abstract objects is a metaphysical theory.
Whereas physics attempts a systematic description of fundamental and
complex concrete objects, metaphysics attempts a systematic
description of fundamental and complex abstract objects. Abstract
objects are the objects that are presupposed by our scientific
conceptual framework. For example, when doing natural science, we
presuppose that we can use the natural numbers to count concrete
objects, and that we can use the real numbers to measure them in
various ways. It is part of our understanding of science that natural
laws exist (even if no one were around to discover them) and that the
states of affairs that obtain in the natural world are governed by
such laws. As part of our scientific investigations, we presuppose
that objects behave in certain ways because they have certain
properties, and that natural laws govern not just actual objects that
have certain properties, but any physically possible object having
those properties. So metaphysics investigates numbers, laws,
properties, possibilities, etc., as entities in their own right, since
they seem to be presupposed by our very understanding of the
scientific enterprise. The theory of abstract objects attempts to
organize these objects within a systematic and axiomatic
framework.[/quote]
Note that abstract objects do exist. They are simply
non-spatiotemporal and causally inefficacious. The number 7, the
emotion of jealousy, triangularity, and the value of hard work are all
examples of abstract objects.
On a side note:
Why is it that some believers disparage the motivations of people who
disagree with them? There are many believers (some on this board that
I both like and respect) who acknowledge that people can sincerely
disagree with them. But for some, it’s like the minute they see any
criticism, they put on blinders and portray the critic as unhappy,
hateful, and harmed by religion in some way, else how could they
possibly see the world differently?
How many times on this board have I said BOTH positive and negative
things about religion? I have repeatedly said, even in this very
thread, that religion can BOTH hurt and help society. I have MIXED
feelings about religion. I think religion helps many people, but it
also has the capacity to hurt people. I benefited in many ways from my
religious upbringing, and have no bitterness toward those that
continue to believe. I recognize their sincerity, because I know that
I was equally sincere at the time I believed.[/quote]
So how is god not metaphysical? You still didn’t define exist, or supernatural.
And I only said what I did, because you are often thoughtful and insightful, but seem to shut that part of you down when tackling certain subjects.
You believe and even have faith in objects that have no basis in the physical universe. You have no reason to believe in them and no evidence to suggest them with no ability to completely define or quantify them. That is religion.
There is no rage. Never experienced it. Never captured or measured it. Nope. Not real. Show me evidence rage exists. Now what? you have no foot to stand on because of simple contradiction.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m saying that all values, including those you agree with and those you disagree with, exist metaphysically just like all numbers and all emotions exist metaphysically. None of them are physical objects, and none of them are supernatural. They are completely natural, they are just metaphysical rather than physical.
If you feel an emotional rage upon reading this post, is your rage a real thing? Is it a natural thing? I don’t think anyone would argue that emotions are supernatural, so why would you argue that values are supernatural?[/quote]
No, emotions don’t exist in any way shape or form. They are abstract concepts.
So, they exist somehow. Okay. Prove the number 1. Prove happy. Prove beauty. Prove right.[/quote]
If rage doesn’t exist, then what is it? An illusion?
Emotions, numbers, letters, concepts, values, attitudes, theories, etc. all exist but they are abstract rather than concrete objects. It’s tempting to think that because something is abstract it isn’t real or it isn’t natural, but in metaphysics that isn’t the case.[/quote]
No, they do not exist. They are not a part of the physical universe. Period. Please define your words like I asked. I don’t think you honestly know what they mean.
No abstract concept is, in any way, real.
What you fail to realize is that Being minus the supernatural equals the physical and only the physical. Value is not a thing. It is not defined or governed by any component of the universe. There are only passing electrons in your brain. Without god, we are chemical machines indistinct from a metal rod oxidizing into rust. You are a pretty smart guy and I’m torn between believing your lack of realization about your own beliefs is willful ignorance or if you are just barely short on introspection.
There is no rational distinction between believing an abstract concept ACTUALLY exists and believing that a God does. You start throwing around blatant contradictions claiming things exist, but not in the universe, and they aren’t supernatural. You then use terminology to try to hide the contradiction and refuse to actually assign definitions to that terminology, I can only assume because that would reveal the contradiction. You actually believe in the number 2 independently from electrical pulses in your brain? The number 2 exists? Not 2 apples, or 2 nickles, but the number itself.
I do honestly believe that religion in the past has been harmful to you. But I also think your hatred for it has made you obtuse and close minded about God. You absolutely refuse to let any light in for fear it would betray your ideological revenge on anything related to God.
I know I don’t really open up about my own personal belief as much as some on this board. I normally keep my dogma to myself and speak on these things in very general terms, but I really do pray for you. You must have been deeply wounded in the past to build up your wall as fully as you have.[/quote]
If your emotions don’t exist, what are they? Are you saying you don’t
have emotions? I’m not understanding your perspective here.
I was hoping Pat would chime in re: metaphysics, abstract/concrete
objects, etc. I’m not making this up, it is basic metaphysics. Maybe
coming from a fellow believer you would give him more credibility.
[/quote]
Okay, okay…you are right. Metaphysics, abstracts, etc. are not unreal things, but very real things. They are not material but I would hardly argue that material is the end all, be all of all existence. Further, I would actually argue the stuff of metaphysics is actually more real. What I mean by that is that you can make better arguments for their existence than you ever could for anything physical. It’s not that physical things aren’t real, it’s that our senses are an best flawed measuring utensils. We cannot rely on them for completely accurate information and we cannot ever rule out deception. It’s an epistomological limitation. Not only are metaphysical entities real, but for many metaphysical objects you can make pretty strong and nearly infallible deductive arguments for their existence. You cannot do the same for material objects.
When it comes to materialism, we basically understand material reality by consensus. I see an object and call it a chair, you see an object and call it a chair, we agree it’s a chair, therefore it’s a chair. If you have disagreement then you need a third party for verification. If you have a disagreement and have no consensus, you cannot identify things. Further, I have no way of knowing that the object I identify as a chair appears the same to you or not, whether we agree on what it is or not.
Metaphysics doesn’t suffer from the paradigm of human observation. It’s existence is discovered by reason and logic, rather than physical observation.
More about physical objects, the more you drill down on them, the less physical they become. If you could make youself smaller than an atom your world would be ruled by charges and forces. So even at their core, physical objects aren’t really all that physical, they just look and feel that way.
I am afraid DD, forlife is correct. Metaphysical reality is still reality even if not physical. I know what you mean, but your wording is poor. Further, by the same logic, you would render God himself not real. He is, by and large, not material.
I’m working from his own premise that the supernatural is dumb. I’m trying to get him to acknowledge the blatant contradictions in his own belief system.
[quote]LaPointe wrote:
really? what high-level semantic techniques were used to undermine it? they must have been very sophisticated ones…[/quote]
“Can’t detect him with my 5 senses therefore he does not exist.” ~ That was the basics.