To Theists: Why do you value hope more than truth?

There's no equal comparison. Religious people are usually the first to bring up the subject, since they want to make it public at every opportunity, and atheists simply have to counter it.

Atheism is not a belief in the sense that it will lead towards someone bringing it up unprovoked.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

When it is wrong, why does that happen?

Presumably... but then again why would I answer for you?

Does any of this sound truthful?

http://www.psipog.net/qna-pk-1.html

If not, then why so many believers?

That experiment would be invalid because matches and candles in water do not produce fire... which is a prerequisite for the experiment.

How I personally deal with emotions and the subjective is rather simple. I recognize them for what they are.

And no milk no doubt.

People do too.

They don't appear to be lviing fearfully... just realistically.

Boy meets girl, girl meets boy, they get it on. Males get jealous if they have bonded with a female and will sit all over them when the females are in heat.

Do you think that guy gets a religious experience living the way he does?

Do you think he is getting more out of life than those garage door worshippers?

I am just saying that most of the people whom do this type of thing are theists. Don't you find it interesting that they want to look and behave like other animals and yet they do it with hope?

I bring it up because you think humans would behave like animals in the absence of theism and yet there's a ton of theists who want just that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

“ Kenny JC

so your logic is that it takes one and not two to have an argument?

then why are you lurking around in a religious sub forum ..... unless you are just itching for the opportunity to be provoked

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

”

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Crunchy cat
“

bad philosophical foundations/processes - what else?

because the nature of asking what would be the result if one's philosophical foundations were upturned would draw a uniform response as indicated (ie - madness or adopting the new paradigm)

“

obviously the contributors find something truthful – what else?

that's my point (proper means = prerequisite)

how so given that selfishness, pride, lust etc reduce one's very ability to recognize (or even take affirmative action upon recognizing) such things?

cheer up
something is better than nothing

“

Meerkats do at a higher ratio
(how many people do you know live in an atmosphere surcharged with fear like your average meerkat colony?)

in other words its realistic that they live a fearful life
(from your and others descriptions of meerkats, their lifestyle certainly doesn't seem to leave much room for complacency)

you've forgotten what I referenced earlier how their is no courtship ritual - the male attacks the female until she submits – how quaint ....

“

no

if you think he does, I think you need to explain yourself

Its not clear how a human doing a rather unconvincing portrayal of the behavior of a leopard begins to even approach claims of transcendence.

In the case of the garage door worshippers, there exists a certain transcendental foundation (god exists, the pure devotee of god exists - jesus - and things connected to the pure devotee of god exist - Mary - all these three partake of the same spiritual quality - ie freedom of material ignorance/enlightenment etc)
I would argue that they are making a few errors on the platform of practice that could more readily discerned if they had a more solid foundation in theory

(in other words questions like what is the inextricable connection between strange lights/reflection and mary, what qualities manifest from taking association of things connected with transcendence as opposed to taking association of things connected with the mundane universe, etc need to be addressed)

what do you mean by the word "most"?
Given that in some parts over 90% of people advocate some sort of theistic ideal (based in varying degrees of theoretical soundness, as previously indicated) does that mean we can also say things like

"most people in jail are theists"
"most people who watch television are theists"
"most people who pick their noses are theists"
etc etc

anthropomorphism seems to be more about making animals adopt human qualities (like for instance the Lion King displays qualities more akin to paragon nobility than something to be encountered on the african savannah)

Actually I would argue that the leopard man was probably more influenced by ideas of evolution or contemporary scientific ideas (presented either in the medium of fiction or nonfiction - he seems to have quite a few books on his shelf) to take such drastic steps – you know, kind of in the category of people who get stainless steel surgically implanted to make themselves look more like star trek props

I mean in the sense of adopting qualities, not appearances - for instance the leopard man gets full marks (at least for earnesty) for adopting the appearance of a leopard but he hits the deck when it comes to qualities (he buys baked beans, goes to the pub and enjoys the odd novel)

similarly stuffed toys and the whole disney trip reflects human qualities with the appearance of animals (take your clicker with you the next time you get dragged to a disney production and count the didactic suggestions)

In other words my argument is all that we have in the way of distinctions between the qualities of animals and humans lies in qualities that are deeply seated in theism

 

SnakeLord,

What is wrong with the argument from design?

Seems he was giving an example of the ocean of difference to (real) science, and atheism.

Jan.

 

No, you are skirting around the fact that religion is something that is forced on almost everyone before they are even old enough to make up their own minds. You have presidents who claim that atheists are not even citizens because it's one nation 'under god'. It's on your money, there are signs in the street that claim Jesus died for you, there are group prayers before sports events which you are expected to join, you can not get in to certain public schools unless you belong to certain religions.

I could literally go on forever. But how can atheism not react to it? I'll remind you that the original quote by emptyforceofchi started this... so why should "religion be left alone" when it, by design, is in our face every day.

See above. If religion was something personal for people then there would be no issue. A lot of superstitious behavior is relegated to peoples personal lives and their own time, but religion is different because it has more respect. And that has to stop.

A lot of things. Science goes with simpler more elegant explanations, and a sentient/intelligent first cause does not a simple explanation.

 

You will literally go on forever...rehearsing these comments of yours over, and over, and over again all the while amazed at your own stupidy/blindness...but alas, it will be too late.

:roflmao:

 

Argument from poor design is a starting place. This could turn into a very very long discussion if you want to get deeper than that.

There's this puddle sitting in a hole in the ground. It looks around the hole and notices that it fits the hole comfortably. "The hole must have been designed just for me!" he exclaims, not realising that the hole wasn't made for him, he just adapted to fit it.

From a personal perspective I can only recall the time when I crashed my car because some designer had given me a blind spot. Intelligent design indeed :bugeye:

 

Talk about being cryptic. I'm not interested in back-handed insults, if you have anything sensible to add then go ahead.

 

And what foundation is philosophy built on?

Are madness or adopting a new paradigm the only options?

Do you personally find it truthful?

I see... odd choice of wording. If a child whom knew nothing about philosophy put a piece of paper on fire, it burns, and the child learns the fire burns, is that philosophy?

Emotions might distract a person but they certainly dont nullify the ability to recognize them for what they are. Intelligence and education are likely key.

Now thats phiolosphy... other theists such as Yorda would outright disagree with that statement too.

Every Christian I know lives in fear of going to hell.

I've seen them live, the don't appear very fearful. They simply understand that predators exist and they have lookouts to help identify threats.

I've seen 4 of their courtship rituals. They all seemed to be mutually interested. Maybe that information you have is outdated.

He said this:

“As far as I’m concerned, if there is a paradise on Earth, I’m in it. You’re welcome to what you’ve got. I’ll keep this.”

What do you think of it?

That's an interesting response and it doesn't answer the question. Does you think the leopard man or a garage door worshipper are getting more out of life?

Maybe an example will help clear things up:

http://www.virtualhermit.net/~ottercomics/monastery/fred.htm

Religious leaders whom are 'furries' host real or virtual places of worship and they have plenty of attendees. So again, what do you think about that? Theists whom want to look and act like other animals?

Antropomorphism is about putting human qualities on *something* or putting *somethings* qualities on a human. You might recognize some of these examples. Bugs Bunny (human qualities on rabbit), Herbie (human qualities on a car), Mother Nature (human qualities on nature), Father Time (human qualities on time), and 'God' (human qualities on reality).

Do you think leopard man would adopt more physical and behavioral similarities to leopard if there was a means to do so?

What qualities would a dominantly non-Theistical society such a Britain have that are deeply seated in theism?

 

“ Crunchy cat

reasoning

for instance the reasoning of empiricism is
1) that the cause (noumenal) is objective
2) the senses (phenomenal) can reveal the cause

hence empiricism is held as unreasonable

yes
denial of the truth
or acceptance of the truth

(can you think of a third?)

what in particular?
the claim that psychic powers exist?
or the claim that their means of testing and attainment are valid?

yes
(break downs of "this is true/not true" is a major aspect of what philosophy is all about)

you've never encountered or experienced intelligence losing out to to lust/wrath/etc

for instance a jealous husband who kills his wife and her lover wasn't aware that murder carries a jail sentence?

or a person with diabetes doesn't know that eating an icecream will mess up their blood sugar levels?

if he comes to the cookie factory we won't give him anything to eat until he changes his mind

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

actually most christians I know are complacent about committing sins ("Jesus died on the cross for our sins, so we've got the green card to heaven") and strike me as too complacent (I've even heard one guy describe himself as being in a state of contaminated purity)

but anyway, since you bring it up, fear has its proper application, even in spiritual life, however the nature of giving up sin (which is the green card for hellish existence) is actually pleasure and not fear

BG 2.59The embodied soul may be restricted from sense enjoyment, though the taste for sense objects remains. But, ceasing such engagements by experiencing a higher taste, he is fixed in consciousness.

so in comparison to your household, would you say that meerkats have a greater or lesser number of devices and social structures to help deal with the issue of other living entities coming along and eating them?

perhaps

a worm could say the same thing about living in a dog turd

the pleasure of the senses are relative
the pleasures of the spiritual realm are transcendental and absolute
big difference

I thought it was obvious
the garage door worshippers are getting more
at least they have some degree of knowledge

but once again, are they acting like animals
or are they using animals (in particular ones that don't have genitals and have big cute eyes, that don't urinate and pass stool where ever the fancy takes them, who don't get the blood sucked out of their punctured eyeballs by predators, who don't engage in sex with total disregard to surrounding - actually with no genitals, they don't have sex at all - who don't vomit, who don't smell each others back sides, etc etc) as a device of narrative (eg - parable) to discern that have inherent relevancy to humans or as an introduction to how one can get into the groove of chewing on an antelope's throat naked on all fours?

if god has a human form and if we are constitutionally eternal fragmental parts and parcels of him, it would certainly explain why in the ignorant mode of life (ie this world we exist in at the moment) we have the habit of endowing other objects with ideal human qualities in a mood of awe, attachment and superiority

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

he doesn't have the means to not read books and not go to the pub?
I bet if there wasn't a film crew there he would sit on his butt and pick his nose like any other run of the mill hermit

lol - its a bit hard to say, since theistic foundations are well and truly part of the cultural landscape (unless for instance the legal system has been radically revamped so that it doesn’t bear a single trace of semblance to biblical reference points, eg – the 10 commandments) - if you really want to know the answer to such a question, try going to a place like africa or PNG, which has a long history of rather low level religious principles - there you can encounter people who's ideas of "goodness" is that they can kill you and be the good guys (and that makes you the bad guy since after killing you they can take all your possessions)

 

And what foundation does reasoning sit upon?

I think you just found a third. Insanity, denial of the truth (another truth substitute), and acceptance of the truth. Any more options?

The page as a whole. Does it sound truthful?

When a chimp does the same thing, is it practicing philosophy? What about a bird?

I've never experienced emotional extremes which I could not recognize.

Is Yorda a he or she? I think 'it'

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

would rather die than have a change of mind.

That's interesting as I know alot of Christians whom are terrified they wont make the cut. It has been my observation that this fear limits their ability to experince pleasure in general.

I would say they have a greater awareness of predators than my household.

perhaps

I am not sure if a worm would have the mental capacity to comprehend 'paradise'.

Do you think leopard man is just living a pleasure-of-senses life? I can't imagine bathing in a cold stream naked is very pleasurable.

I don't know. I am willing to bet that the leopard man has enough knowledge to understand light and shadow.

Heh, that subculture goes way beyond cutsie / sexless costumes. I would say that 95%+ of it is the attraction to predatorial features, violence, and sex. Don't let limitations in costume design and budget fool you. Take a look at some of these images from the mind of a typical member of the subculture:

http://www.rabbitvalley.com/department_1221_0_0.html

Also, go into any search engine and type 'Yiff' and see what kind of images come up. If these people had the means of altering themselves further and enjoyed eating raw flesh, you can certain be assured they would be engaged in bloody feasting orgies with a healthy does of sodomy. Then off they go to worship 'God'.

Of course, putting everything in human terms by slapping human features on it is a survival tactic that allows for things such as prediction of intent.

If he could change his physiology and psychological makeup some more so he could hunt deer and eat them raw, do you think he would?

Ok, then let me re-ask the question. What qualities does this mini-African society have that are deeply rooted in theism?:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0821/p01s02-woaf.html

 

“ Crunchy cat

reasoning is a function of intelligence (discrimnination)
intelligence is a function of ego (what I think I am)
ego is a function of the consciousness (being alive as opposed to dead)
consciousness is a a function of the soul (eternal fragmental part and parcel of the absolute)
the soul is a contingent potency of god
god is the cause of all causes

ok?

“

if one denies something that is truthful because it doesn't appear truthful, that is not a different state of being (even though it may confer different results)
for instance I could accidentally give you $5 instead of $10 because of two reasons
1) I was trying to cheat you (duplicity , an aspect of madness)
2) I sincerely thought the 5 was a 10, but made an error of judgment, thus my state of being in giving you a 5 would be nondifferent from me giving you a 10

I didn't investigate it too thoroughly but there are various claims being made at various levels - if you are asking whether something is truthful you have to be specific (for instance if I ask "Is the sky truthful", people probably wouldn't even begin to understand how to answer that)

certainly

if you had an emotional extreme that you couldn't recognize, how would you know?

furthermore, even with the emotional extremes you did recognize, was recognition sufficient to control the influence that they exerted on your senses and intelligence?

“

oh you would be surprised - a hungry person can very easily change their opinion

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

To be fearful of falling into illusion (that is falling under the control of vice), is the proper state for a theist. It helps sharpen the discrimination

pleasure has many avenues of expression - some in the medium of illusion and some in the medium of proper awareness

and what do you think is the likely reason for that?
(How many people have been eaten by roaming animals in your house over the past 15 years?)

“

certainly has the capacity to comprehend pleasure - let me tell you they won't just make camp in any old piece of poo - they have standards

distinction is also a pleasure
there are also pleasures of austerity

(ever had an uncle who always asks you to punch him in the guts regardless of how big you grow up to be or how aged and sick he becomes?)

regardless, its all a case of different strokes for different folks

whether he understands the significance or god, the significance of god's pure devotee and the significance of thing's related to god's pure devotee, we can only speculate .....

not sure what you are you arguing here ....
they're mostly theists?

ditto above

once again, I'm not sure how you would go from here to any serious discussion of religion
.... I mean the alternative that people possessed of different desires use animals as a function of narrative to suit their various whims is somehow not tenable?

perhaps - perhaps not

I don't know, but he does have the means not to read books and not go to the pub.

probably similar ones that he would have been socialized around during his youth - to say whether that involves things other than christianity requires further research

 

So the hierarchy is:

Philosophy
Reasoning
Intelligence
Ego
Consciousness
Soul
God

If the hierarchy was:

Philosophy
Reason
Brain
Reality

Would reason or philosophy be affected?

If there are only two states then, can a person re-establish hope if the truth is known, they hate it, and lack the cognitive agility to deceive themselves into further denial?

More specific it is. Do you find the claims of the existence and behavior of telekensis on that page as sounding truthful?

What about a computer that can simulate bird learning?

Feedback most likely; however, I am not sure it's possible for me to encounter an emotional extreme and not recognize that an emotional extreme is present at the very least. What about you? Have you ever experienced an emotional extreme and not recognized it for what it was?

Yes. In fact in my childhood, I would sometimes "play the part" because other people expected a certain behavior from me in the presence of an emotional extreme. Naturally, I stopped doing that when I decided to place my values above the expectations of others.

Hunger is an illusion according to Yorda.

Between the passing fear of being eaten by a predator and the constant fear of being tortured eternally, I wonder which is more preferable?

Could theism hinder the ability to experience pleasure to the point of rendering one psychologically unhealthy?

There's simply more of us and we're group-based predators.

I am sure they do and yet they cannot envision paradise.

I agree, and for someone to say they are living in paradise suggests something a little deeper than distinction and austerity. How many people do you know think their life is paradise? I personlly don't know any.

Well he is human regardless of his body modifications... and he anthropormphizes everything like the rest of us.

Not only do all those theists want to look and behave like other animals... they are entralled by the sex and violence of their animals of choice. They want it. You asserted that if a society's hope is demolished then people would live like animals... yet here is a group of theists whom really really wants to do just that above and beyond... and they're full of hope. From a Christian standpoint, such behavior is immoral, evil, and of the devil... yet the Christians of that culture seem to be immune to that contradiction. They seem to have invested their hope in an even more complex infrastructure than theism alone. The supposed 'truth' of theism that tells them they are evil is overridden by this hope is devalued. What do you suppose does this where these bizzare theists values their hope over their theistical truths?

That one can be objectively tested and proven against your own subjectivity btw.

That's true, and does it make him any less genuine for not doing so?

You might find it an interesting study then. I won't provide any spoilers

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

“ Crunchy cat

depends whether one requires statements of truth to validate such hierarchies (in other words is there any one making a claim of directly perceiving such a hierarchy or are we just talking concepts - if we are just talking concepts we could slap anything down in a game of word association

philosophy
Reason
rulers
tinned spaghetti

yes, through the agency of number one

no

simulate or imitate?
(given that outside of science fiction novels, computers are yet to even come close to anything like consciousness, and that consciousness is the prime requisite for learning, I think you have to explain yourself)

feedback from what?

if you couldn't recognize it, how would you know?

the whole issue strikes me as absurd
How can I recognize something I can't recognize?

so you have never had the experience of say, over eating more than what your body dictates as sufficient?

well no more cookies for Yorda

hence there is a difference between anticipating hell and participating in hell

not if applied properly

guess there are few pros that come with the human form of life then

“

apart from participating in an environment ideal to his senses, what is leopard man's notions of paradise?

why?

lol - I know quite a few

There's no such thing as only one extreme - there is always two
(have you heard of the word mechanomorphic)

given the links you provided I can't see how you come to that conclusion

no
I asserted that issues of religion is the only thing that separates human society from animal society

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

what are you talking about?

because they sometimes use cute bunnies as a narrative device to explain issues of higher human values?

given our previous points of discussion, I don't understand what you are talking about

“

testing whether god is an anthropomorphic phenomena?
I doubt it

considering that real leopards don't do these things, I guess so

given that he mentions having association with christianity as a child, it appears the cat is already out of the bag

 

SnakeLord,

Those personal opinions of "poor design" are irrelivant, as they make no difference to the fact that things do look designed.

It was designed, that's the point.
Why don't you agree that "argument from design" is possible evidence of God?

Jan.

 

Those personal opinions of 'design' are irrelevant as they make no difference to the fact that only simpletons think they've been designed.

Why are you trying to espouse your personal opinion as 'fact'? I'm sorry, I see nothing that indicates design - and, to those that claim that it is, one can start with ID, (incompetent design). If there was a designer, it's an idiot.

Says who?

If you were to conclude that there was some form of design, I don't see how you get from there to jesus/allah etc etc.. One could just as easily assert that the universe was farted into existence by an omnipotent invisible penguin or some smart aliens that did it merely for kicks.

However, I don't see 'design'. That you do is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. Don't then assume that everyone else must agree with you.

 

SnakeLord,

Based on what we understand as "design", the portion of the universe which we can comprehend seems designed for a purpose, despite our personal opinion. Even your humanist god, Dick Dawkins agrees that some things seem to imply design.
The "argument from poor design" you dug up, is yet another nonsense attempt by some atheists to make light of this simple fact.

Liar! :bugeye:

Your opinion, outside, of my enquiry, is of no importance.

 

That is your personal opinion and you're entitled to it. Stop trying to stick it on me.

Humanist god what? Have you ever seen me quote him etc? I've not even read one of his books. Try again.

Ah I see. :bugeye:

I was talking about my eyes.. duh.

Yeah, and inimical to leprechauns and mermaids and floaty invisible turnips too :bugeye: Stop being silly. I do not have a belief in gods - there is simply nothing to be inimical to.

Anything but? That wasn't the argument. Try again.

Oh I see. Do yourself a favour and just make my reply for me.

[Jen] You believe in design

[Snake] Yes I do, I am your servant *ohmmm*

Would save us both some time and give you the only answer you're going to accept.

When one sees design it is because they have mistaken the hole in the ground as a perfect match for the puddle without realising the puddle has just adapted to fit the hole.

Enjoy it.

 

I'm not a theist (although I'd prefer the label agnostic to atheist) but I'd like to try to answer the original question. I'll stand with Kant in saying you can't prove or disprove the existence of god, so it really becomes a matter of pragmatism. There are some real benefits to believing in a diety of some sort as well as some drawbacks. Research suggests that it helps with recovery from illness. Believing in god (although not attending religous services) is associated with greater productivity (at least at a population level). It appears to be a good way of warding off certain fears/anxieties that might otherwise prey on one's mind (serving as an opiate for those who can't afford tranquilizers, etc.).

I imagine there are some other benefits as well. I can't see it becoming such an important part of human culture without it having helped some people.