Human Programming

I don't think you know what rational means.From your Message 145

quote:

---

However, rationality is a much broader term than logic, as it includes "uncertain but sensible" arguments based on probability, expectation, personal experience and the like

---

An argument can be rational even if it isn't logical because it can be based on other things like personal experience.

I wonder if you even read what I write?How many times have I said "The Map is not the Territory"?I believe in Jesus because I am a Christian. If I were a Muslim I would not believe in Jesus as the Son of God.What is your point?How many times must I repeat that all Maps must be tested against the Territory, that all Maps will have errors as well as places where they do correspond to the Territory. You do keep repeating that. Is it that you think repetitions increase validity? Is love rational? Is it rational to prefer chocolate to vanilla? A strawman is a fallacious argument setup so that it can be easily refuted. What you seem to be doing is creating a version of my beliefs that exists only in your imagination so that you can then refute it instead of actually addressing what I have said.I have some personal beliefs. I have never presented them as fact and try to be very careful about what can be supported by evidence and what can only be accepted on faith. I have never suggested anyone else should adopt my beliefs. I have never claimed that my Faith is based on anything other than personal experiences.I am a Christian. By definition there are a few, very few things which help define that membership. If I held a different set of beliefs I would a member of some other grouping.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hehe humm.. you were right when you said I wasn't going to like it There is no such thing as subjective evidence. Evidence is evidence, there is no subjectivness.As for your steps, they are flawed.
I'll point the logical flaws, you can tell me if I was right or wrong The belief of a soul comes from a conditionning. It has never been proved. You truly believe that soul exist but there is no evidence to point that there is. Where did you heard about soul ? probably not from science class . Doesn't that points to a conditionned belief ? No evidence, yet you believe ? what about the teaching of muhammed ? Or Ghandi, or Buhddha ? Weren't they true for what they claim to be ? even in your opinion ? This is like saying you believe jesus existed because what he said seems logical. (you can see the flaw in that conclusion) Like what ? like the ressurection, like eternal life after death ?.. Im sorry but I don't see how everything jesus said was true. If you'r talking about the morals he preached, then jesus wasn't the only one who preached them. People from very different religions preach the same thing (surely you must of came upon that when you studied other religions) I have no clue neither since im not a theologicien. But I can say that a man that preach loves and forgivness is great. A story about it doesnt make it through. Again if you studied various religions im sure you came up with similarities.I'll stop here and tell you frankly what I seeJesus said to love each other and in my opinion its a message that is moraly true and correct.Since the message of Jesus is true then he must have existed as the bible says, and if he existed he must have been the son of God and must have done all theses miracles. Thats what I resumed.It is extremly flawed. There is no critical thinking in your steps. You just accept every concept you were though as a child like the existance of your soul, and you dont even weight the other explanation brought forth by other religions. I don't see how you studied many religions...

Humm sorry I keep misreading you then I'll try to be more clear in my "interpretation" of what you are saying. I try reading what you write here a stab at it... My point is that you are conditionned to believe in jesus. If you agree that you would be muslim if you were born elswhere then you must agree that there is a conditionning.If I misread what you wrote please correct me.

That's false. If God appeared to someone in their mind then they might believe he exists. They would believe becuase of the evidense they saw and that evidence was not objective. It was subjective evidences. That is an unsupported assertion that I reject. True. We can't agree on what is evidence so lemme replace it with a 'reason'.I have reasons for believing in my soul other that conditioning/programming. I call it subjective evidence. The word "soul" I did not come up with. But that thing inside me that seems to exists as a supernatural component of my existence is there not because of conditioning, but because it is real, IMHO.
Even if I wasn't, or differently, condition/programmed as a child, I would still have said feelings and believe in my soul (I might just call it something different). I just use the commonly used word "soul" to describe it.If it wasn't possible to experience the soul without conditioning then how did the concept emerge? Who was the first conditioner? Sorta. Some of their teachings do not fit for what the were claimed to be for, IMO. A lot of what they taught I agree with but I don't agree with everything they taught. They had some really great teachings and some of them even fit with Jesus' teachings, some of them don't. No, those are things that cannot be tested. That's what I was talking about. That they're in other religions as well is further evidence that they are true. Thats the things that I lump into the can-be-tested group, not the resurrection n'stuff. Everything that Jesus taught that can-be-tested was morally true and correct. This makes it easier to believe the other things too. I think that it can considered a rational reason even if it isn't logicall sound. You can't use words like must. You're changing my argument(strawman) when you make it look like I'm saying that the truth of Jesus' teachings means that he has to be the Son of God. That would take the faith out of it. The critical thinking come in with determining if what Jesus preached was morally correct and true.

If god appears to someone in there mind (or someone tells you so) he is most probably deranged. According to what we can observe today. A lot of people claim to have received a DIVINE guidance to commit murder and such.If we follow you train of though, we must accept that they prove the existance of god.When in fact they doesn't at all. because someone saying they saw God in there head isn't evidence. And Im saying again there is no such thing as subjective evidence. Well you might reject it, but you accept that there is no fact proving that there is a soul. So why are you rejecting it ?Why do you believe in a soul, if there is no evidence given. (telling me that god told you there is a soul isnt an evidence, and that the bible says so, is even less of an evidence ) So you feel you have a thing inside of you that isnt you ? why doesnt I feel the same, why millions of people doesnt feel the same ? if it is REAL ? Could it be that you have the feeling because you were conditioned so ? I have no clue. And yet, new religions emerges now and then. like Scientology. And people still get conditionned to believe...Weird huh...

I said that I believed in Jesus because I am a Christian.I said that if I were a Muslim I would not believe that Jesus is the Son of GOD.Neither of those statements address conditioning but rather only the tenets of the two Maps.If you wish to address conditioning, then the conditioning I was subjected to was to Question, to Question everything and to continue Questioning, particularly to question ones own beliefs even more than the beliefs of others.I was not conditioned that Christianity was right while others were wrong. I began studying the Qur'an and Tao Te Ching and writings of Mencius and Confucius and Buddha and the Norse and German and Greek and Roman and Egyptian mythologies about 50 some years ago.I have had the opportunity to study many religions and have found much of value in all of them, particularly the Eastern Religions. My identification of a Personal Christianity is NOT simply a matter of conditioning.Throughout this thread you have taken the position that everyones Faith and in particular, any religious beliefs are simply the result of programming and conditioning.I believe that is overly simplistic and nothing but a strawman. There are many people who struggle over defining their Faith, that hold positions that run counter to their "Conditioning", that hold belief systems that are far more complex, changing and evolutionary than simple programming would suggest.It is, perhaps, as comforting for some to simply dismiss the fact that some peoples faith might not be just programming, as it is for the Fundies to dismissed Evolution as "simply folk who wish to be free from God's restraints".Both positions though are just strawman arguments, caricatures instead of actual representations.People hold beliefs for a variety of reasons. Some may well be simple conditioning and for those I have pity, whether the belief is theistic or atheistic.But other belief systems are held based on examination of other alternatives, independently derived, and held tentatively, constantly questioned, upheld or revised.For those who hold such belief systems I have nothing but the highest admiration.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If God appeared to someone in their mind then they might believe he exists. They would believe becuase of the evidense they saw and that evidence was not objective. It was subjective evidences. Don't extrapolate what I say to include things that I don't. I'm sayin that if God apeared to someone in their mind, then that would be evidence for that person and only that person, hence the evidence is subjective. We can avoid calling it evidence if you feel it doesn't fit your qualifications, I don't care. The point is that it is evidence to them. Because in my experience, my belief in my soul came from something other than conditioning. Well, for me there is the subjective evidence. Lets call it a 'reason' instead of SE so we can agree on our terms. So, for me there IS a reason to believe in my soul. One reason is simply that it seems to exist.When I look inside myself (metaphorically) and go "hrm, is there a soul in here?" I come up with the answer "yes". Absolutely, I don't reject that possibility. I dunno, maybe you don't have one Or maybe your interpreting the feeling as something different, or biasly ignoring it altogether (perhaps, because you think it comes from conditioning). Ah, but that is a new religion. I'm talking about the source of religion, in general. If it can only come from conditioning, then it couldn't have arrisen in the first place. There has to be some other cause which, admittedly, doesn't have to be god.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : syntax error

What I said is : My point is that you are conditionned to believe in jesus. If you agree that you would be muslim if you were born elswhere then you must agree that there is a conditionning.I didnt say if you were muslim, I said if you were BORN elsewhere you would be muslim (the elswhere i was referring too was a muslim family somewhere in the world...) No, the position I had is the belief in [insert any religious book] is conditionned. Faith is nothing without the religious book. And so, I'm plainly saying if you believe in the bible you have been conditionned to do so. There are exceptions. But it doesn't matter i'm talking about the majority of the people.Take any man who believe in [any religion]. Most likely-His family believe in the same religion
-His entourage
-He went to a religious school
-other factors (life threatning experience etc..)There is always a correlation between belief and education. ALWAYS. Most people can't question there own belief, because there is too many things unanswered and conditionned to believe in.- Is there a soul ?
- Did Jesus existed ?Theses are unanswerable questions(for now), but if you want to question whats is TESTABLE in the bible you come up with a LOT of things that make no sense. Things that are illogical.Are women made from a rib ? or from clay and mud ? Does reality shows a designer ? all theses question are answerable and guess what, it's nothing like said in the Bible or Qu'ran.So again, I do not want to put word in your mouth, but I just want to make something clear, faith in the main religious belief in the world today (excluding bughism, cuz I know nothing about it) is illogical.The interpretation of the bible keep changing as we figure out more of our entourage.Facts : The earth is billions of years old
Faith : Oh well you can't read the bible LITTERALLY(or some actually still believe the earth is young DESPITE all the facts, that is conditionning, that is not asking question about our belief)Facts : The order of creation is not the same as the Bible
Faith : Some explanation for what the genesis really meantFacts : The rabbit doesn't chew the cud
Faith : ....Facts : The earth is spinning around the sun
Faith : Well even though we used to burn people with such though (for being unholy), yes the earth is spinning around the sun, but the bible when you read it really well doesn't say otherwise! (again a matter of interpretation)Facts : There was no flood
Faith : Some say yes (with explanation that makes no sense) some agree that this part is a pure fabrication.etc etcHistory has shown that our ignorance was to blame most of the time. Our ignorance gave birth to the God of fire, our fear of death gave birth the eternal life.Of course God could exist (i've stated that I really don't know..) but it's logically impossible for God to be as described in the Bible or the Qu'ran...So again, Faith in God really is only Faith in God THROUGH a medium. And right now, thoses medium are full of mistakes. You might say again that the maps are not perfect, but that is simply your interpretation. That is not a fact. And when we deal in reality, we deal with facts.

Again, there is NO such things as subjective evidence. If in your example God appeared to a man, and ONLY 1 man, how can it be proved? It is impossible, and so, it is NOT an evidence.If you really think there is a subjective evidence, why aren't you muslim. God appeared to Muhammed. It is a subjective evidence no ? AH it is only a subjective evidence when you say so....See how subjective evidence makes no sense.And by the way its not that it doesn't fit my qualification, it's simply a new definition you invented.Herte is a link to what evidence is, from now on we should use the definition that is accepted throughout the world.
EvidenceThere is scientist in your name, yet this is the least scientifical explanation for something I've ever heard Because you feel there is a soul, it basis enough for you to believe there is one.An example following your chain of though, and i 'll use the SAME EXACT way of thinking.So, for me there IS a reason to believe that the earth is stationary. One reason is simply that it seems to be stationnaryThis is the exact same way of thinking. And its wrong. Something thats seems to be isn't necessarly true. I do not know the source of religions. But if I follow the train of though, Scientolody doesn't condition people since it couldn't have arisen.Well, I think that believing in some alien super force that sent souls of defeated aliens on earth takes quite a bit of conditinning.

Yet my point is that I do not agree with your assumptions. You have made that assertion over and over again.You also conflate the word Faith as and act instead of the designation of a particular set of beliefs.You said: but the term conditioning and programming are both quite different than Educated.You seem to be assuming that the only reason someone believes in something is due to outside influences. You say that you do not believe in religion; am I to assume that you did not arrive at that position through critical thought, analysis, education and reason?Is it not possible that someone might also arrive at a position of Faith through critical thought, analysis, education and reason?I have addressed the rest of your post here several times. I have also pointed you towards other sites which also address the questions you ask. Once again, are you not simply making irrelevant assertions? There are many descriptions of GOD in both the Qur'an and in the Bible. There are other sacred scriptures as well.All of them have one thing in common.They were written by men, men of a particular era, culture and milieu. How exactly is my saying that they are just Maps, and imperfect, not a fact? Did you not, in the message that I am replying to, point out areas where they were in error?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So you disagree. Well the only way to settle this is with studies. I'll try to find one. (I though that mere observation was enough to give credit to my point ) But anyways we'll discuss that point again then. Conditionment comes from education. Not school type of thing, but how your parent educated you (English isn't my first language, maybe it isn't the best term) No I seem to be assuming that the belief IN a religion today (not directly in God but in God as described by a religion) is indeed only though. It is not something you get with no external influence. You don't start believing in Jesus or Muhammed unless you have been indoctrined so. (there is exception, but lets focus on the generalities) No mhh sorry missed the links i'll go check again Yes so is hercules, greek mythology or the work of socrate. Yet you believe in Jesus. And that belief comes from conditionment. There is NO EVIDENCE for Jesus tp have ever existed other then the bible. And we have quite a lot of historical evidence of that time.So if you believe in Jesus it can only be because you believe the Bible is genuine. And I have yet to hear a logical explanation for that. Well then what about Zeus, or Hercules or Jack and the beanstalk.. why don't you believe theses to be maps, the moral of most fable are also true. Why is that the Bible is more of a map then the Greek mythology ?PS : I don't think I misunderstand your position. Maybe i'm just making myself to vague. How can you logically believe in Jesus and Not in Zeus ? This is a good question maybe I shouldve asked earlier...OH and thanks for everyone replying, I really do enjoy the conversation Edited by Kader, : No reason given.

You’re starting to piss me off with your annoyances. Typing it again doesn’t make it true. 1) Nothing is proved (except mathematical proofs).
2) Evidence is not proof
3) I’m not Muslim because I don’t believe Muhammad. Yes, I would consider God’s appearance to Muhammad as subjective evidence but that doesn’t mean I have to accept the evidence
4) You did not show me how subjective evidence makes no sense. Here’s some quotes from your link to the definition of evidence, bold added for emphasis.

quote:

---

Evidence in its broadest sense, refers to anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion

---

If I assert that God exists and use a subjective feeling to determine that truth for myself and only myself then that feeling is evidence for me, by (your) definition. It doesn’t have to prove anything to be considered evidence and it only has to be objective if you want it to be evidence for someone other than me.

quote:

---

Philosophically, evidence can include propositions which are presumed to be true used in support of other propositions that are presumed to be falsifiable.

---

So the evidence doesn’t have to be proven, it can be presumed to be true and still be evidence.

quote:

---

The term has specialized meanings when used with respect to specific fields, such as scientific research, criminal investigations, and legal discourse.

---

You are using a specialized meaning of the word evidence and applying it outside of its respective field. I have no scientific evidence for the existence of my soul. But I do have something that I’ve used to determine that I do have a soul and, by definition, it can be considered evidence since anything that is used to determine the truth of an assertion is evidence.

quote:

---

The most immediate form of evidence available to an individual is the observations of that person's own senses.

---

Our senses are subjective and they are the most immediate forms of evidence.

quote:

---

Even simple sensory perceptions (qualia) ultimately are subjective; guaranteeing that the same information can be considered somehow true in an objective sense is the main challenge of establishing standards of evidence.

---

So not only can evidence be subjective, in a sense, all evidence is subjective.Do you now understand how evidence can be subjective or are you too stubborn to admit that you were wrong? Scientifical thanks for that one, that was funnyBut seriously, I don’t accept said reason for believing in my soul as scientific evidence. That’s why I use the term ”subjective evidence’, so that it is differentiated from everyday run-of-the-mill evidence. Your arguing that my subjective evidence is not scientific (or whatever criteria you’re using) evidence so then it is evidence at all. Right, but the earth seeming to be stationary IS evidence that it is stationary, by the definition of evidence. Just because there is evidence of something doesn’t mean that it is true. There is evidence of thing that are false, but it is still evidence nonetheless. That is soo annoying You didn’t even come close to following my train of thought.

The Bible is NOT more of a Map than Greek Mythology. How many times must I say this. All religions are but Maps, none are the actual Territory.All Maps will have areas of greater correspondence with the Territory, and areas where there is lesser or even total disagreement with the Territory.I brought up Jack and the Beanstalk way back in this thread as a perfect example. Other good examples are the Pied Piper or the parables of Jesus.While none of these are factually correct, they are also all true from the point of view of teaching lessons.The Bible is the same. There are many parts of the Bible that are simply not factually true. The flood certainly has not happened in at least the last 600,000 years, the Exodus and Conquest of Canaan certainly never happened as described in the Bible, there was never a confusion of languages that stopped the building of a tower, the descriptions of Creation found in Genesis are incorrect.Those things have nothing to do with the validity of the message of the Bible.As to other myths, they too are but Maps. And in places they can be tested against a Territory. Where the Maps do not correspond to the Territory, it is the Map that is wrong.You continue to claim conditioning.If my Christian beliefs were solely the result of conditioning, why would I be testing the Map against the Territory?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes you are absolutly right. I was wrong to argue on that. But why I did argue is simply because I am taking in consideration the scientifical value of theses evidence.Since science is the only way we have to understand the world around us.

quote:

---

guaranteeing that the same information can be considered somehow true in an objective sense is the main challenge of establishing standards of evidence.

---

Personal evidence is not something we should base anything on.
I mean, you can then simply say that to you the sky is red and that is evidence enought to believe it is so. Thats not how it should be. First you must validate thoses evidence against what we know.And so If god appears to someone, it is (you were right) an evidence FOR HIM. But is it an evidence we can base ourselve to believe ? Of course not. (the example of Muhammed) Ill try to explain why I said that
If it can only come from conditioning (teh religious belief)
then it couldn't have arrisen in the first place.Well first I think that Scientology followers are conditionned (there is nothing logical in there belief, how can someone blindly belief in Xenu an evil ruler of the univers otherwise ?)If we agree they are conditionned, then If i follow your train of thoughs it couldn't have arisen in the first place. Understand how I came with this conclusion ?