Originally posted by A-Unit
Your response is well written, but what prompted me to re-write was the combative stance I noticed, essentially trying to blow what you could deem I "believe" in live. Problem is Believe is only created by the world Belie, which is a pack of lies. So belief isn't what it is...it's KNOWING.
"Believe" is not "belie," regardless of the word's epistimology. To believe an idea means to accept it as the truth. This is accomplished by
deduction, starting with the idea and validating it by recognizing that is has valid premises, then validating those premises, etc, and working your way down the ladder until the premises that you have are facts which you know are valid, because they have been observed as they exist in reality.
Originally posted by A-Unit
It's know the world. Your purport to view reality only as we see it, but that's a very minimalistic view. Anyone can make/create reality as they see fit, it's the mind giving meaning to reality.
The problem is, we cannot validate any reality that we cannot see. The only truth we know is the truth which we can observe and form conclusions from. This doesn't mean that there cannot be truths which we do not see.
It's only minimalistic to the extent that our knowledge of the nature of reality is limited.
Originally posted by A-Unit
Venturing the mind takes the venture of the creative.
Sure, sometimes it can take quite a bit of creativity to come up with
theories. But you can't just stop at that point when you come up with a creative idea. How many religions are based on how a supernatural power
could exist? They all state their beliefs as if they were proven in a scientific lab. There is the missing component of how the theists go from conjecture to fact.
Originally posted by A-Unit
Dealing in reality, what logical/rational explanation exists for what we know as space and what CREATED that? Who said..."let there be motion or THESE things that predate the universe and served to create the universe.
Why must we have an explanation for everything, especially if that explanation is poorly founded? There is no finite limit to the amount of knowledge to be had from the universe, so there is clearly no way we will ever have an explanation for everything. There is nothing wrong with considering what
could be true, but to say that it is true, just because there are no better alternatives at hand, is a mistake.
Originally posted by A-Unit
The mind considers IRRATIONAL what it cannot comprehend logically. HOWEVER, the mind is very foolish. We raise the intellect to superhuman powers, but fail to realize it can be the source of pain for many. Simply because it appears IRRATIONAL to one person, does not make it uniformly IRRATIONAL.
"Perspective is subjective."
The mind does not consider irrational what it cannot logically comprehend. It considers irrational whatever occurs or exists with false premises. The mind can only reach a certain level of abstraction, but that does not mean that whatever is beyond that level is irrational. It just means that it cannot be comprehended. Unless you are referring to the general population, which if you are, then their minds are at fault in that sense.
Perspective is subjective only to the extent of how facts are interpreted. Two people cannot see a stone, one thinking, "that is a stone," and the other thinking, "that is a tree," and both of them be correct in their thinking. The only way that could be true is if the definitions of stone and tree were not precisely defined (this does happen a lot in real life).
Originally posted by A-Unit
Early explorers would have thought crossing the Atlantic to be IRRATIONAL based on KNOWN beliefs at that time. Yet, a few corporations later, some investments from the crown, and brave explorers we sit here with the freedom to debate something considered SHEER lunacy and perhaps MORE than just deemed IRRATIONAL.
ALL pieces of society WERE once IRRATIONAL forms of thinking of the mind. However, people brave enough placed thinking piece of thought into material form. And walla! The world before us.
For those explorers, it would indeed have been irrational to cross the Atlantic, based on the known "facts". Why? Because the facts were not truly facts, they were wrong and assimilated themselves into science without anyone questioning them. They became understood to be factual when they were not. When you act on false premises, you are acting irrationally. It was irrational to think that the earth was flat (which I don't believe they actually did), because they didn't have a good reason to believe that it was true. The theory was accepted but never validated (and it turned out to be wrong). The explorers who actually crossed the Atlantic were not irrational in doing so because, based on science and logical conclusions, they had a good reason for thinking that the earth was not flat.
All of the pieces of society that you say were irrational forms of thinking were irrational because they were based on false premises. Then the scientific revolution came along and people started validating their theories. Science is no longer ruled by religion as it once was.
Originally posted by A-Unit You act as if LOGIC is the only tool by which we work. No, it isn't. Animals aren't necessarily led by EMOTION or FEELINGS, they're INSTINCTS, GENETIC programming, reactors to their social environment. Animals can't fathom that which surrounds them. A dog hears a noise, he barks, even if it's a car horn or a dog on TV. A little dog chases little animals like squirrels, even if it's stupid to do since that talent is long outmoded. They can't change their environment or observe.
And without logic, we would be the same way. Instead of instinct, our actions are determined by making choices based on conclusions from making logical evaluations. Without logic, we couldn't form those conclusions, and we would be forced to rely on our genetic programming and instincts.
Originally posted by A-Unit It's a nice quote, but we all know man isn't and wasn't a beast. Nor will he ever be. Giving into our more gluttonous habits doesn't make us, though we engage in habits akin to animals. Perhaps you have me or anyone mistake with a domineering Super Power? To believe we're dust and bones is to believe we're mere physical animals, only a few rungs up the evolutionary ladder.
Man will not be a beast as long as he uses logic in some capacity. To be without logic in one facet of life does not mean you cannot use it in others. I can roll around in the mud for no reason at all and be without logic in that segment of life, but then use it to determine that one species of berries is non-poisonous so it would be logical to eat them if I am hungry. I would still be human. My statement about beasts was a little exaggerated, but my point remains. To live without logic is to live as a non-human.
Originally posted by A-Unit
Belief in a higher being, totally obliterates the theory of evolution, which is why religious, higher power, and mystical topics are always in the NETHER realms and can be written off.
While I don't think this is necessarily true, as any theist could arbitrarily say that evolution is simply part of how the world the higher power has created functions, if evolution is a proven theory, and if it negates a religious idea, then why shouldn't the idea be written off if it has been proven to be incorrect? Two things cannot contradict eachother and both be true at the same time.
Originally posted by A-Unit
I've never tried to SWAY a logic, I just like to raise questions, actual LOGICAL questions that take me down deep, dark pathways, that remain unanswerable, and it's THOSE questions to which reality has no answers that leads me to a TEMPORARILY irrational system of belief. Only temporary, because I've opened my thinking up, nothing is outside of rational, because I consider the thought.
Nice reponse though, but refute the evidence, not the speaker.
A-Unit
It's one thing to explore an alternative philosophy or paradigm, it's when one accepts it as true without first validating it, that a mistake is being made. Nothing wrong with having an open mind.
I'm not aware of how I attempted to refute anything but the evidence which I referred to. Am I missing something?
)