Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9054 total)
361 online now:
dwise1, jar, nwr (3 members, 358 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,271 Year: 5,917/14,102 Month: 65/438 Week: 109/83 Day: 11/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Conversations with God
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6083
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 26 of 382 (709166)
10-22-2013 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Phat
10-22-2013 4:19 AM


Re: Prayer: Listening, Talking, or Both?
One of my uncles was a Methodist minister and another was a fundamentalist preacher. Used to have some great discussions. But the one thing they both agreed on was that this laundry list nature of wants in prayer (Joan Baez syndrome) was near blasphemy.

Your "C" above says that you (the prayer giver) think god is blind or not paying attention; that he doesn't already know what you've done and why, and what you're going to do next.

Your "S" above says you think you have some power over god that you could demand from him and expect to receive. This god (supposedly) already knows your wants, your needs, what you would ask for and what you're going to get. He doesn't need any help or coaching from some lowly little worm. It's already set and there's not a damn thing you can do to change anything.

The only reason for prayer, they agreed, is to praise and thank, to show submission, which should be done several times each day. My Methodist uncle insisted on dedicated prayer with time to give sufficient praise and adoration. My fundamentalist uncle insisted that prayer could be as simple as a heart felt "Thank you" sent gods way. Of course I insisted that prayer of any kind was useless since there was nothing at the other end of the line to care.

They both forgave me my atheism though Uncle Mitch, the fundamentalist, just knew I was in the grasp of the devil and would pray to god to save my soul. He was not amused when I thanked him for adding me to his prayer laundry list.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Phat, posted 10-22-2013 4:19 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Phat, posted 10-31-2013 7:17 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6083
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 35 of 382 (710750)
11-10-2013 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Phat
11-10-2013 2:14 AM


Re: Prayer: Listening, Talking, or Both?
Far too many people have subjective evidence.

The problem with this piece of "evidence" is that literally millions of people have "subjective evidence" of every competing religion on the planet. In the past there was plenty of this personal emotional "subjective evidence" for religions that no longer exist. This type of evidence is not evidence at all and that is not a rationalization but a fact.

when it comes to God, absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence.

Well, thank you ,Carl, for that excellent sound bite that down through the decades has meant absolutely nothing.

The "absence of evidence" here is the lack of positive evidence showing the existance of such a thing. There is plenty of negative evidence against the existance of your god.

We don't really need to rehash this negative evidence here since these forums are chuck full of it, but I'll summarize.

Other than the emotionally subjective evidence in which you are so enamored above the only other evidence you can point to is your bible.

Yet we know as real hard fact, not rationalization, that the majority of the books of the OT began life as oral tales passed down the generations with embellishments until they were finally written down about 3500 years ago. Further that these same books, and later ones, went through major re-writes and amendment after the release from Babylon when the priests were desperate to win back the hearts, minds and purses of the people.

We know that the books of the NT were written many decades after the period of the events, not by their purported authors, but by anonymous others who never witnessed said events. And that one misogynistic self-appointed "disciple" a century afterword reformed the progenitor of your religion in his own image around the embellished myths popular in his time.

We know for fact, not rationalization, that the divinity of your savior was not from the books but from a vote of gathered clerics, and a close one at that, more than three centuries on.

We know that your canon was formed by political accommodation excising all books that did not meet the gathered tribal patriarchs' self-serving views, after expelling those who lost on the divinity question, especially anything showing equality and power of women and anything that challenged a formal male dominated hierarchy for the church.

Under these circumstances your bible, as a piece of evidence, is suspect at best and constitutes no evidence at all.

Finally, we have from history and from observation, seen the formation and demise of numerous religions. We know, as fact not as rationalization, how and why religions form and why and how their followers come to faith in their beliefs. And none of it has to do with any power of whatever deity is being proposed but is the product of social and peer pressures and youthful acculturation.

These are the hard facts we know. They rationalize nothing and only ignore the confusing of articles of faith for facts.

The philosophical difference here, phat, is that religionists accept non-fact and emotional faith as proofs of their position ignoring or rationalizing away all contrary facts where, in western empiricism, to ignore the facts and hold steadfast to positions contrary to the facts is not just illogical but is intellectually dishonest.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Phat, posted 11-10-2013 2:14 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Phat, posted 11-10-2013 9:27 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6083
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 45 of 382 (710790)
11-11-2013 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Phat
11-10-2013 9:27 AM


If a lawyer's lips are moving you know he's lying.
Bible On Trial Of course, my point is that these issues are far from settled in the court of public inquiry. For instance,

quote:
We know that the books of the NT were written many decades after the period of the events, not by their purported authors, but by anonymous others who never witnessed said events. And that one misogynistic self-appointed "disciple" a century afterword reformed the progenitor of your religion in his own image around the embellished myths popular in his time.


No...no we don't know this.

I sat through you lawyer's video's (all of them) and he does exactly what a lawyer is supposed to do. He presents his positive evidence, and only his positive evidence, in the most positive way possible. Not once was any of the abundant contrary evidence mentioned let alone discussed or refuted.

Right from the git-go he just assumes the 4 gospels were written by their titled authors. Never even questions the possibility this may not be correct. The majority consensus of biblical scholars disagree, for each of the 4 gospels, and they present compelling evidence that the titled authors could not have written these books. This evidence, this controversy over authorship, is not addressed in your lawyer's case. His case is biased in the one direction only and is not based on impartial evidence, but on the scraps of evidence with tangential relationships to the articles of faith at the base. It fails.

If you look at the scholarship of biblical researchers you will find that the majority are bible-believing religious people. Again the consensus of these scholars is that the 4 gospels were not written by their titled authors but by others yet unidentified.

And as for Paul, there isn't any doubt that his letters, his philosophy, his emotions, his prejudices, his interpretations of the oral stories he heard (the gospels not having been written yet) are the base upon which all of christianity is built. Your Jesus is secondary.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Phat, posted 11-10-2013 9:27 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Phat, posted 11-11-2013 10:38 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6083
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 47 of 382 (710848)
11-11-2013 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Phat
11-11-2013 10:38 AM


Re: Doubt is healthy...keep doubting
You have sought to find proof in order to disbelieve...I have sought proof in order to believe.

For the first part, no, I have no intent to anything. I see the facts, I hear the experts, your's, their's and other's. I read more experts and I see more facts. The facts lead down a path. I follow.

As for the second part, you are entitled. In a world where reality defies your beliefs I imagine it quite difficult to hold on to those beliefs. Find solace wherever you can. Your path is paved with different stuff. Too bad it ultimately leads nowhere.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Phat, posted 11-11-2013 10:38 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 11-11-2013 5:23 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6083
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 49 of 382 (710857)
11-11-2013 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Faith
11-11-2013 5:23 PM


Re: Doubt is healthy...keep doubting
Intellect is a gift of evolution and we didn't have to seek or ask for it. It is available to all people to varying degrees and we can use it or neglect it as we desire.

Our intellect is most powerful in curiosity, in questioning and doubting our own perceptions and the insistent perceptions of others and in testing, observing and modeling the works of the world around us.

One of the things our intellect has shown us is that we do not have to rely on magic or faith to coax the sun to rise in the morning since we know precisely why, when and how the clockwork of the heavens works. We know with certainty where the sun will break over our horizon, what path for what duration it will transit our skies and where and when it will transect the horizon again. We do not have to hope for this. We know it will happen.

Another thing our intellect has shown us is that the proposition that we are bad people, unworthy of this life, sinners whose only sins are being born and breathing, is reprehensible to reality, bankrupt of all humanity and is a most evil and violent philosophy worthy of nothing but rejection.

Our intellect has shown us that we are the masters of our own destiny. That we rule our own minds and our own actions. That we need not ask for purpose or salvation or revelation from anything other than ourselves, our society and our species.

Faith is a gift from God ...

No. Faith is your nom de fora.

Would you like a cup of tea, M'lady?

(_)?

Edited by AZPaul3, : added thought


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 11-11-2013 5:23 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 11-11-2013 10:52 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6083
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


(5)
Message 61 of 382 (711004)
11-14-2013 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by ramoss
11-13-2013 7:41 PM


Re: Belief and Sanity
Why do you think there is salvation, and what are we being saved for?

Because you are a bad person. You are a force of evil in the universe, unworthy of love or meaningful life. You committed the gravest sin in the cosmos. You got born. Shame.

But, Hallelujah! Give me your money and I will tell you that you are all better so you can die knowing you are not really dead.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by ramoss, posted 11-13-2013 7:41 PM ramoss has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Phat, posted 11-15-2013 8:57 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6083
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


(2)
Message 67 of 382 (711224)
11-15-2013 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Phat
11-15-2013 8:57 AM


Re: Belief and Sanity
Getting rid of religion wont stop human greed and lust for power.

No it won't. But it will get rid of about 15,000 excuses for it.

One of the most important lessons that any human can learn is humility and obedience ...

Humility is no problem. Despite my ample common looks, fetching if scraggly beard, higher than low intellect and strong borderline sexual prowess there are (hard to believe I know) weaknesses in my skills and personality. Humble I got in spades.

Obedience is another matter. One can be forced into obedience by a stick or one can comply in respect. Your god's sticks are neither long enough nor strong enough to reach me and the vile nature and evil attributes ascribed to your god in his (supposedly) own books defy any level of respect from a decent man.

So, no. No obedience.

And the one thing I do not need to be humble about is the fact that me ... mankind ... my brain is considerably more powerful than your god's nostrils; that I can, as I have done so many times before, consign any of the gods to oblivion with just a thought. Besides, my dick is way bigger than his.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Phat, posted 11-15-2013 8:57 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Phat, posted 11-16-2013 3:45 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6083
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 73 of 382 (711307)
11-17-2013 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Phat
11-16-2013 3:45 PM


Re: Belief and Sanity
You can't use the excuse that "my Gods" attributes and character are limited to books.

The only descriptions of your god's attributes, personality and history are in "his books." If the faith is to be believed those books are an autobiography written by various anonymous ghostwriters as dictated by the authorized holy spirit. The Word Of God, right? The only ones said to be straight from the man himself, right?

Are you suggesting that your personal "knowledge" of your god, and the differing knowledge of billions of others of the faithful across some 15,000+- competing creeds, is more authoritative of god's words than his own written books?

Thus, you wont get away with the simple excuse that you "disagree" with the books.

But, I don't disagree with the books. There is nothing with which to disagree. The vile nature and evil attributes ascribed to your god are right there in black and white for all the world to see and (supposedly) written by himself. His own description of himself; a violent, jealous, warmongering god with no empathy for the pain he inflicts and with a thirst for death and the shedding of human blood. And proud of it.

I would highly doubt that He would smite an honest man, long stick or not.

Um ... Job comes to mind, here. And don't give me any of this "the devil made him do it" crap. Satan did it at your god's command so say the (supposedly) authoritative words of god himself. And this he inflicted on a man he himself describes as his most devout, pious and "perfect" man. Pure unadulterated mean.

Like voodoo, those sticks only work on those who want to believe, those who think he and his reach are real.

Can't touch me.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Phat, posted 11-16-2013 3:45 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6083
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 98 of 382 (884542)
02-23-2021 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Stile
02-23-2021 11:17 AM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
But that requires knowing the difference, and attempting to honestly judge when we should and should not use each method.

So we can know quickly and most probably be wrong or we can get it right eventually.

What’s missing is the nuance of each choice.

On a short term basis where the stakes are minimal one can go stupid and wrong without too much hurt. The longer the term to decide then there is plenty of opportunity to let evidence guide us in the direction of reality.

The religious rub comes in those instances where the decisions are imminent and the consequences are fatal. Stupid and wrong doesn’t seem a viable option as history has already shown. Where hurt is concerned, even snap decisions must be evidence-based to the best of our incomplete understanding. Some priest saying some god is pointing to the promised land is no basis for decision-making when harm is concerned.

So, unless the decision to be made is as mundane as “what’s for lunch?” there actually is only one choice.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Stile, posted 02-23-2021 11:17 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Stile, posted 02-24-2021 12:26 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6083
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 101 of 382 (884562)
02-24-2021 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Stile
02-24-2021 12:26 PM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
I don't like the analogy. No one lives in a cell free to leave but refuses to do so unless there is a damn good reason.

But I'll give it to you.

For whatever reason our poor monk decides to finally have an adventure, whether from curiosity or boredom, you can be sure he won't be barging through the door at full tilt. He's been in that cell forever. He has no idea how to conceive of anything outside his cell, outside his life's experience. He will step carefully, looking, listening, feeling, gathering info and forming an idea about what may be ahead

We're dealing with human beings here not robots. In situations of the unknown humans are afraid of their own shadow. He will not close his eyes, imagine himself protected by the shield of god, and rush out to see what awaits, unless he's already a demented religious moron with no critical thinking skills. Again the analogy fails.

He will slowly explore, acquire data and assess what he has found.

Evidence-based information has already given him the idea that there is a "beyond" the door. Evidence-based information has already informed him that there is someplace outside his cell where his food comes from. Either curiosity or boredom, neither of which are faith-based phenom, will send him onward to explore, not some god voice.

He will decide whether to stay or go based on the reality of the evidence around him, that he knows there is something beyond and he has the curiosity (not a belief-based phenom) to go see ... or not.

Some of the most important decisions in my life are based on my feelings -> like who I chose to pursue for a wife.

While your emotions are certainly strong and seem front and center in your decision making, if you look at the details you'll find that the emotion is conjured by the reality. You may not have noticed it but I assure you there was a whole lot of evidence gathering and fact assessment that went into that choice.

A for instance of the subtlety involved from my own wife-selecting experience. One of the big evidence-based facts that helped me decide was the fact that she was female. That helped a lot.

I assure you the same fact-based assessment, along with thousands of other small evidences, are the actual basis for your emotion and your decision.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Stile, posted 02-24-2021 12:26 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Stile, posted 02-24-2021 3:40 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6083
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


(2)
Message 105 of 382 (884570)
02-24-2021 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Stile
02-24-2021 3:40 PM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
Because curiosity is belief-based (a feeling.) It is not scientific.

What is this scientific? You mean fact-based decision making?

Remember we're talking about decisions here. How do we decide?

No one is going to go through reams of paper drawing flowcharts of decision trees to decide whether to punch a nazi in the nose. Yes, you always punch the nazi in the nose. Besides, the smart kids these days use computers to draw those things.

If curiosity is in our monks brain then that is a fact that will impact his decision. If boredom is there then so that too will impact his decision. If sedentary rut is in his brain .. well you get the picture. Stir well.

He may not sit down and methodically mull each pro and con but he will be deciding based on the facts he knows already and the options open to him. Either that or he is just a brain-dead trappist monk and he isn't even thinking on the question.

My main point was the issue of saying "decisions are scientific or they are unimportant!" This is, easily, not true.

I hope that is not a point of contention. Important decisions should be based on the facts presently at hand. And that includes all attendant emotions, conflicting and reinforcing, that may have any impact.

Even though all emotions, all feelings, carry an actual factual stream of experience that created it, using that feeling as your decision guide is folly. Not only do facts differ between people, their reactions, their emotional responses can differ with known facts.

Emotions, feelings, are too different between people to be effectively used in group situations. Making group decisions on emotion and feelings has historically been not such a good idea. Understatement.

Like who to choose to spend time with during leisure-hours. I'm not saying such decisions "must be" based on feelings and "must be" important... but it should be easy to see how they "can be" based on feelings and "can be" important.

As far as it goes, yes, but you have already pre-decided in a very fact-based decision-making way, who and what and where are important to you. You don't get friends because you emoted one up. You get them by long term building of agreeable and pleasant interactions (facts) between you. Then you can drink beer together. Or wine. A nice chardonnay.

The same with the place and time when planned right. All the facts of past interactions manifested as feelings of "yeah, this is right."

However, they are two different things.
The decision-based-on-factual-evidence is always the same - for everyone.
The decision-based-on-feelings is (possibly) different for each person.

Uhh, no. For personal decisions the facts differ for each person in each situation. For larger more important decisions, especially those exposing great harm, the facts must be ascertained and separated from the feelings. Just the facts, Ma'am.

Is there a scientific reason for the man-in-the-cell to open the door based on his scientifically-derived-feeling-of-boredom?
No, there is not.

But it does provide him a fact (his boredom) to enter into his decision. How bored? Enough to walk out the door? No? That is a determination of fact. Now add in curiosity. How much of that is he feeling. Another fact.

Bring it all in, Stile.

He knows there is something there. Is he curious to see what? Is he bored stiff and wants to go do something? Is there anything important keeping him here? Not airline fare but the food's not bad so there is that.

He has no choice. He has no option. His brain, capable of curiosity and/or boredom, has a mental facility to think about what he knows and what he feels.

In this analogy both will enter his decision making. It is personal. It affects no one else and is of no consequence whether he comes or goes. Yet, still, all our poor monk has to go on are a miserly collection of facts clouded by emotion.

As you have said it is not the decision that is important here but the method used. I submit poor monk has little option, if contemplating walking, cautiously, out the door but to assess the facts including his own personal emotional headspace. Taking ALL the facts in evidence.

Is there a scientific reason for the man-in-the-cell to open the door based on his scientifically-derived-feeling-of-boredom?
No, there is not.

Yeah, there is. The fact of his boredom. That's all it takes to open a door.

2. How is the man to know, scientifically, that opening the door will release his boredom?
It's just as likely that the door leads to a boredom-inducing-wall as it is that the door leads to a paradise of wonders.

He doesn't know. That's where curiosity and the hermit "I like my food" instinct come in. Additional facts to add to the decision tree.

Yes, it would appear as if Brother Monk was deciding based solely on his emotions, his feelings. but in going through his factual analysis he finds that his curiosity is the most compelling reason to open the door.

And I will disagree that curiosity is an emotion or feeling. It is mental attribute of humans, like boredom, not an emotional feeling but a characteristic human trait.

Is there a scientific reason for me to have those feelings?
Of course there is.
But there's no scientific reason for me to choose to make my decision based on those scientifically-derived feelings rather than going with the scientific decision.

This idea is muddy when talking about my wife - but clear when talking about the man-in-the-cell.

Because it's a muddy concept all around. When we decide we decide based on the data with all the emotion built in. For personal innocuous decisions that is fine. For anything more, anything involving others or harm to others requires clearer (read unencumbered by personal emotions) adult level responsible thinking.

I'm not done with your wife. I like your wife.

If she is pleasant to be around, why is that so? It is because of the demonstrable fact that she responds to you and you to her, you both finding the interaction pleasant. The interactions are real, physical and emotional. Those are your facts in evidence.

No, you did not fall in love just because love was in the air and you had some emotional feeling. Like every other interface between humans your feelings are but the end product of a large stream of observations and interactions. You fall in love, Stile, because of the thousands of little reinforcing acts each adding up over time to manifest as togetherness, intimacy, love. These may be emotions but they did not arise from the aether. They arose from the facts.

You may think you fell in love because, well, love exists somewhere out there and you were lucky enough to have some of it sprinkle into your eyes, when in fact you fell in love because of a gazillion little factoids your subconscious mind has been tallying up like the Banana Boat song.

I disagree totally. You made a fact-based decision when you bent your knee to that girl. Congratulations.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : How many typos do I gotta get? Why can't I just not see them?

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : ende. Kapoot.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Stile, posted 02-24-2021 3:40 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Stile, posted 02-25-2021 9:08 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6083
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 111 of 382 (884596)
02-25-2021 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Stile
02-25-2021 9:08 AM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
Therefore - your entire post is something I agree with.

Then you agree as I have stated, that simple personal decisions of no consequence to others can be decided by any means. Achieving some nice warm and fuzzy feelings seems the favored means in this thread giving Gwyneth higher hopes for future sales.

You then also agree, as I have also said, that all decisions made by or for groups, especially those decisions that may cause harm, should be more responsibly decided than the after affects of a scented candle as I contemplate in my happy place. The facts should be the only deciders in these cases.

You are right, Stile. There are, for this thread, just the two decision methods: fact-based and feelings-based. You established that some time ago and I never objected. Where I object is when some seek to confuse the two methods as somehow being of equal scope and decision-making power.

You profess an appreciation for touchy-feely decision making. It has its place, as I have said. You seem to go beyond that limitation to countenance its use in cases it hasn't the power to resolve with any efficacy. Cases like who am I going to marry, or what school should I attend next.

Surface emotions may seem important in deciding who to marry but it is the facts that will determine if that choice is any good for your wealth, health and future which should be more important than whether I like her hair. Of course you like her hair. You're in love, lunkhead.

Yes, they certainly do invoke a lot of emotion, and that is a component that needs to be examined. But that examination of feelings is not just one of how it impacts the decision but also one of whether the feeling is actually valid. Is it applicable or is it distraction?

Yes, yes, sure, we can decide to use feelings to decide anything our patchouli wax melt allows our musically enhanced imaginations to wander into. (say what?) We can select which stocks to buy or select which stores to rob.

But the facts are vital before the emotions on anything but the most trivial of questions. It might be nice to know the fact that one of the stores on your list is Ft. Knox and that you really don't want to try that no matter how good your emotions feel at the idea ... of getting shot ... and imprisioned ... or getting dead.

Fact-based decision making is not a panacea, of course. Chasing reality can lead to some really screwed up assumptions and decisions. It can be way wrong depending on the depth of the question so buyer beware. But its history, side-by-side with touchy-feely, is stellar in comparison. Yes, a personal judgement.

When it comes to decisions for groups of people, be it a small group, a community, a nation or a globe, being right goes a long way to making happy. And that is supposed to be the goal, yes?

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Stile, posted 02-25-2021 9:08 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Stile, posted 02-26-2021 8:27 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6083
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 114 of 382 (884607)
02-26-2021 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Stile
02-26-2021 8:27 AM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
But you haven't shown this, and you're wrong.

How is "should be more important" wrong?

The emotion is already there, established. The act of marriage does not alter that. Marriage is not just a statement of love but is, and should be seen as more importantly, a sign of the couple's legally binding social contract for the future.

Seems to me that the important decision elements in marriage are how you two plan to negotiate the future path of life together and that involves finances, homes, personalities and dozens of other factors that reach far beyond the foundational fact that you have emotional feelings for each other.

The love is there. The emotional feeling is a fact already known and accounted for. Now an analysis of the facts of each others other assets and attributes is prudent to determining if the legal state of matrimony is conducive to what you want for your future together.

Of course it's not wrong. You may decide to ignore the reality about to impact all aspects of your life but it is not wrong that there are facts and realities in such decisions that impact far more significantly than your view of your emotions.

And I submit it is prudent and necessary for a thinking man to consider those aspects of such life-changing choices outside the mere emotion of the situation. This has nothing to do with chasing money or cheating on your spouse. That is just a useless diversion of the topic.

Still the point is that important decisions, those that impact others or are life changing, SHOULD require a full fact-based decision method. The wishy-washy feelings-based method open to changing emotions as a function of body chemistry SHOULD be relegated solely to the mundane, the unimportant.

addendum

In fact-based methods no one is saying you ignore the emotions in the same way your wishy-washy feelings-based method says ignore the facts. Again, emotions are facts to be considered in the analysis. That’s why I went on that tirade about facts are this and facts are that. Everything pertinent to the issue, ALL the facts, which includes emotion, is considered (or at least should be considered). And no, you don’t have to sit down with a slide rule and a copy of Atlas Shrugged to figure it out. The brain, when trained to so, can process through a bevy of facts in mere fractions of a second.

On the other side, your feelings-based method can also arrive at a quick decision since emotions are ever-present and require no hard thinking to assess. It’s famous in all of human society throughout all of history. We call it “knee jerk”. It ignores the pertinent facts. If it didn’t it would be fact-based decision making not feelings-based.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : too much thinking


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Stile, posted 02-26-2021 8:27 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by Stile, posted 04-28-2021 1:06 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6083
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 120 of 382 (884686)
03-03-2021 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by ringo
03-02-2021 11:42 AM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
I'm not saying that ALL beliefs about God are necessarily juvenile and simplistic.

Ohhh! Ohhh! Me!

Can I say that for you? Please?


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by ringo, posted 03-02-2021 11:42 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6083
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 127 of 382 (884731)
03-05-2021 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Phat
03-05-2021 3:53 PM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
ringo writes:
The Apostle Paul was certainly wrong about a lot of things.

Prove it. Name 4 of them.

Moe, Larry, Curley ...

people dont simply choose cultural objects and local icons to believe in. And if they do, they are more likely to choose idols and demons than they are to choose the real deal.

Is that why Islamabad so over run with evangelical Christian churches? Can’t find a decent mosque anywhere anymore.

Moral relativism is a convenient copout. It has limited value.

We’re talking this universe, right? This universe where absolutely nothing is absolute? Even zero?

Below Absolute Zero: Negative Temperatures Explained

So tell me what is so limiting about this moral relativism feature of the universe. Seems way more flexible and way less limiting than a strict rigid absolute.

The more we look at it we find this universe is relative everywhere in every way. So why not in our subjective emotional moral responses. Especially since this universe seems to so abhor absolutes. Relative morality is all reality seems to allow.

What god said those had to be absolute? Bring him here. Have him explain himself.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Phat, posted 03-05-2021 3:53 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Phat, posted 03-06-2021 9:52 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021