maadmax 0
Recommended Posts
kallend 2,028
Quote
We don't have to prove negatives. Your beliefs are totally devoid of all objective, testable evidence.
As are yours, when it comes to the issues that really matter.
_________________________________
If you rely on semantic twists to make your point, you really don't have one.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
I think we're talking at cross purposes here.QuoteQuoteSprirituality is just as real.
No it isn't.
What you are talking about is emotion and consciousness, created by the biological structures of our brains.
Yes, and you could map out every neurochemical pathway for every emotion or thought.
That isn't the point.
When I say "spirituality" I'm not talking about something mystical.
I'm talking about the subjective, internal experience.
There's two parts of reality, and as you pointed out, they are interdependent. One is objective, external, quantifiable reality. The other is internal, subjective.
The spirituality I'm talking about is the internal sense of self. You use different parameters for dealing with these things than you use when describing external quantifiable reality.
For example, if you tell a woman you love her, you hold her hand and look in her eyes and tell her, you do not hand her a printout from an EKG.
And when you listen to the music of say, Pink Floyd , you might get one feeling.
And when you listen to the music of Britney Spears you might get a very different feeling.
With enough knowledge of the brain you could map out the different neural pathways of those two different feelings. But having that data written out and actually, PERSONALLY EXPERIENCING those feelings are two different things. the one is quantifiable and scientifically provable. the other is not proven, it is simply lived.
(don't tell me again that the feelings are controlled by biological events, I already know that.
)
can you prove mathematically or objectively that the music of Pink Floyd is better than the music of Britney Spears?
(Oh, by the way, I am a scientist myself. I'm isolating a plasmid right now.)
Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
beowulf 1
You just described feelings.
What does that have to do with spirituality?
spir·it·u·al·ism Audio Help /ˈspɪrɪtʃuəˌlɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[spir-i-choo-uh-liz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the belief or doctrine that the spirits of the dead, surviving after the mortal life, can and do communicate with the living, esp. through a person (a medium) particularly susceptible to their influence.
2. the practices or phenomena associated with this belief.
3. the belief that all reality is spiritual.
4. Metaphysics. any of various doctrines maintaining that the ultimate reality is spirit or mind.
5. spiritual quality or tendency.
6. insistence on the spiritual side of things, as in philosophy or religion.
What does that have to do with spirituality?
spir·it·u·al·ism Audio Help /ˈspɪrɪtʃuəˌlɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[spir-i-choo-uh-liz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the belief or doctrine that the spirits of the dead, surviving after the mortal life, can and do communicate with the living, esp. through a person (a medium) particularly susceptible to their influence.
2. the practices or phenomena associated with this belief.
3. the belief that all reality is spiritual.
4. Metaphysics. any of various doctrines maintaining that the ultimate reality is spirit or mind.
5. spiritual quality or tendency.
6. insistence on the spiritual side of things, as in philosophy or religion.
rehmwa 2
QuoteFor example, if you tell a woman you love her, you hold her hand and look in her eyes and tell her, you do not hand her a printout from an EKG.
It's true, that's the reason for about 90% of my relationships crashing and burning in college.
EKG: BAD
Eye Contact: GOOD
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
there we go!Quote6. insistence on the spiritual side of things, as in philosophy or religion.
Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
beowulf 1
That doesn't equate to feelings
whatever.
point is : you use science when you need to discuss quantifiable reality and you use other parameters to discuss & explore feelings, art, personal relationship issues etc. etc.
and religion deals with things in the second category, not in the first.
so to say religion is bullshit because it doesn't explain nuclear fusion, is really missing the point of religion. that said, you can believe or not believe in religion yourself, just don't judge it by a yardstick that is irrelevant to the purpose of religion.
I've never gone into church and heard a sermon that was intended to explain physical phenomena. The priest would be talking about the need to forgive one another, for example. Such a discussion does not supplant, nor does it ATTEMPT to supplant, any Scientific theory. He wasn't attempting to dicuss science in the first place.
When a curator in an art museum is discussing a painting by Renoir, he might talk about the feelings it invokes in the viewer, but he's not going to just list the wavelengths of the light bouncing off the paint. He's not here to deal with scientifically-describable phenomena, he is here to discuss art.
And just because what he says isn't about numbers doesn't mean it's bullshit.
Gotta go resuspend my plasmid now.
point is : you use science when you need to discuss quantifiable reality and you use other parameters to discuss & explore feelings, art, personal relationship issues etc. etc.
and religion deals with things in the second category, not in the first.
so to say religion is bullshit because it doesn't explain nuclear fusion, is really missing the point of religion. that said, you can believe or not believe in religion yourself, just don't judge it by a yardstick that is irrelevant to the purpose of religion.
I've never gone into church and heard a sermon that was intended to explain physical phenomena. The priest would be talking about the need to forgive one another, for example. Such a discussion does not supplant, nor does it ATTEMPT to supplant, any Scientific theory. He wasn't attempting to dicuss science in the first place.
When a curator in an art museum is discussing a painting by Renoir, he might talk about the feelings it invokes in the viewer, but he's not going to just list the wavelengths of the light bouncing off the paint. He's not here to deal with scientifically-describable phenomena, he is here to discuss art.
And just because what he says isn't about numbers doesn't mean it's bullshit.
Gotta go resuspend my plasmid now.
Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
beowulf 1
What do you mean "whatever"??! In your previous post you equated emotions to spirituality. Then I asked how do you equate those and you reply with "whatever"!
You don't make a convincing argument for spirituality or existence of any deity. What you describe and all religions describe is more like mysticism.
Your equating spirituality to feelings invoked from paintings is bullshit. Spirituality is imagined and cannot be quntified. How a painting affects the viewer can be quantified.
You don't make a convincing argument for spirituality or existence of any deity. What you describe and all religions describe is more like mysticism.
Your equating spirituality to feelings invoked from paintings is bullshit. Spirituality is imagined and cannot be quntified. How a painting affects the viewer can be quantified.
jakee 1,500
QuoteI think we're talking at cross purposes here.
Only because you are trying to twist the definition of spirituality to create an artificial bridge between the existence of emotions and the relevance of religion.
QuoteWith enough knowledge of the brain you could map out the different neural pathways of those two different feelings. But having that data written out and actually, PERSONALLY EXPERIENCING those feelings are two different things. the one is quantifiable and scientifically provable. the other is not proven, it is simply lived.
Which has exactly what to do with the subject of the thread?
QuoteOh, by the way, I am a scientist myself. I'm isolating a plasmid right now.
I know. Well, about the scientist bit, not the plasmoid.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
jakee 1,500
Quotepoint is : you use science when you need to discuss quantifiable reality and you use other parameters to discuss & explore feelings, art, personal relationship issues etc. etc.
and religion deals with things in the second category, not in the first.
And there you prove my point. Feelings exist therefore religion is valid? No. Abso-fucking-lutely not. They are completely different subjects.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
I agree prove it scientifically, and i will follow you 100% but im not blindly following something all my life based off a book written over thousands of years that could turn out to be fiction.
Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,
Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,
Look, I'm not going to convince you whether or not religion is valid. The point is that the criteria you use to decide must be relevant.
You don't say a saw is a useless tool because it is no good for driving nails.
Religion was not intended to explore physical phenomena, it was intended to deal with humanistic issues.
The study of art doesn't boil down to numbers, that doesn't mean that art is bullshit.
That said, YES OF COURSE the dogma of religion could STILL be total bullshit! But not based on whether or not it describes, say, the physics behind nuclear fusion. That is simply the wrong criteria.
Speakers Corner. 
It's like talking to a fucking brick wall sometimes.
Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
jakee 1,500
It's like you haven't even read my post. You're objecting to something that, in this thread, I haven't even mentioned.
However, now that you bring it up (Religion was not intended to explore physical phenomena, it was intended to deal with humanistic issues.) I demolished that argument just yesterday. It's complete piffle.
However, now that you bring it up (Religion was not intended to explore physical phenomena, it was intended to deal with humanistic issues.) I demolished that argument just yesterday. It's complete piffle.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
maadmax 0
If you rely on semantic twists to make your point, you really don't have one.
I am not sure what semantic twist you are talking about, but coming from the master, I think I will take that as a compliment. 0h, and I really have a point.
_________________________________________
dannydan 5
This is not directed to anyone post in this thread, but rather the entire thread uP to this point...
I have read all of the arguements and cross, My "gut" as someone said in an earlier post is what I equate with my "Holy Spirit"/conscience!
I BELIEVE this as far as God or science goes (since I believe that God "created" science);
Better to believe in God and die and Him not be there at the SUPPOSED "pearly gates", than NOT to believe and die and God in fact is there at the pearly gates as you arrive asking you on judgement day, "but I gave you many signs that I am real and yet you choose to not believe in me"
I believe it is all about FAITH! Not hope, but FAITH!
While I am not a very good/faithful Christian, my beliefs in God, Jesus and the Holy spirit has not hurt anyone. And I suppose that non believers can say the same thing about how their non beliefs has also not anyone....
We shall see I suppose!
It is all about A DISCIPLINE of either belief! "Discipline is everything and everything is discipline"....
jakee 1,500
QuoteBetter to believe in God and die and Him not be there at the SUPPOSED "pearly gates", than NOT to believe and die and God in fact is there at the pearly gates as you arrive asking you on judgement day, "but I gave you many signs that I am real and yet you choose to not believe in me"
But what if you've chosen the wrong one? Every day you're just making him madder.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
I have a parallel theory for making payments to the Church (God)..... Every Sunday I go out into the garden and throw loads of money up into the air.... Every penny God catches, he can keep
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
Lindsey 0
What you are talking about is emotion and consciousness, created by the biological structures of our brains.
I'm not sure that you can completely explain these either as created by the biological structures of our brains. Personally, I don't think you can equate spirituality with emotion and consciousness because there's another piece or two in there. But even if we go with your assessment, your next statement's even a bigger leap. Sure, there are areas of the brain that regulate emotion and consciousness, but to try to fully explain either based on the "biological structure of the brain" is more difficult.
Either way, though, the individual experience is what it is. If you CAN explain what it is and where it comes from, then that's GREAT. To be able to explain human experience biologically doesn't make it more or less real.
I'm not sure that you can completely explain these either as created by the biological structures of our brains. Personally, I don't think you can equate spirituality with emotion and consciousness because there's another piece or two in there. But even if we go with your assessment, your next statement's even a bigger leap. Sure, there are areas of the brain that regulate emotion and consciousness, but to try to fully explain either based on the "biological structure of the brain" is more difficult.
Either way, though, the individual experience is what it is. If you CAN explain what it is and where it comes from, then that's GREAT. To be able to explain human experience biologically doesn't make it more or less real.
--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail
O really, and as you all love to say, " I suppose you have evidence to back that up?" And if what you say is true, liquid water and frozen water is still water. Consciousness according to your analogy will still be consciousness.
_____________________
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites