Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: ippy on January 30, 2018, 12:50:39 PM
-
I am being my usual self and passing on this link without any bias on my part:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/athiests-religious-people-intelligence-smarter-study-imperial-college-london-a8183131.html
Regards to all, ippy
-
I am being my usual self and passing on this link without any bias on my part:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/athiests-religious-people-intelligence-smarter-study-imperial-college-london-a8183131.html
Regards to all, ippy
We did this one last year. I have nothing further to add except well done Prof D for managing to inject some sense into what was an otherwise silly and partisan debate.
-
Very intelligent people can be religious, but I suspect they compartmentalise their brain so logic doesn't impinge on their faith. I can think of one particular poster on this forum whom I would place in that category.
-
the researchers say that religious people's lower IQ test results may be a result of bad performance on tasks only where intuition and logic come into conflict.
It seems the article is saying that the entire difference may just be due to religious people trusting intuition too much.
-
It seems the article is saying that the entire difference may just be due to religious people trusting intuition too much.
I've had a similar view that atheists put too much trust and emphasis on human psychological incompetence. How often have we heard evidence of psychological incompetence E.g. The fact that when you look at a picture of two adjacent wineglasses some get fooled into thinking it's two faces so that puts the kybosh on religion..........and I suppose that's reinforced by the fact that when you look at a picture of two faces some people are fooled into thinking it's two wineglasses!......
Other simple illusions which can be presented to show that religion is an illusion are available..
-
Very intelligent people can be religious, but I suspect they compartmentalise their brain so logic doesn't impinge on their faith. I can think of one particular poster on this forum whom I would place in that category.
Ah so now a logical, break-free, chain leading directly to atheism can be presented or cited.....Go ahead Floo.
-
I am being my usual self and passing on this link without any bias on my part:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/athiests-religious-people-intelligence-smarter-study-imperial-college-london-a8183131.html
Regards to all, ippy
So if it is true that atheists are more intelligent then does that mean that atheism makes you more intelligent? or as more of the population becomes atheist the lower the average atheist IQ will be?
-
So if it is true that atheists are more intelligent then does that mean that atheism makes you more intelligent? or as more of the population becomes atheist the lower the average atheist IQ will be?
How can not believing in something, for which there is no verifiable evidence, lower the IQ?
-
So if it is true that atheists are more intelligent then does that mean that atheism makes you more intelligent?
Or that more intelligent people are atheists.
or as more of the population becomes atheist the lower the average atheist IQ will be?
That would be inconsistent with it being the atheists that are more intelligent - that is unless you think, for some bizarre reason, that the presence of atheists reduces the IQ of theists...
-
Or that more intelligent people are atheists.
OK in which case h the level of atheism in a population will remain broadly the same.
Do you think the statistics say, from census, bear that out?
-
Or that more intelligent people are atheists.
That would be inconsistent with it being the atheists that are more intelligent - that is unless you think, for some bizarre reason, that the presence of atheists reduces the IQ of theists...
No....what I was thinking was that the more people become atheists the greater the number of people with average or lower intelligence will be atheists thus reducing the average IQ of atheists.
If Atheism equals intelligence then the the average IQ level in atheism either increases as the number in a population becoming atheists increases because atheism increases your IQ level or it is impossible for people of average or lower intelligence to be atheist.
-
No....what I was thinking was that the more people become atheists the greater the number of people with average or lower intelligence will be atheists thus reducing the average IQ of atheists.
It means that the standard deviation of atheist IQ will reduce as more people will be closer to the national mean IQ.
-
It means that the standard deviation of atheist IQ will reduce as more people will be closer to the national mean IQ.
Yes.
-
OK in which case h the level of atheism in a population will remain broadly the same.
Do you think the statistics say, from census, bear that out?
Okay, I should have said more intelligent people are more likely to be atheists. There is no strict rule and, in any case, the population is increasing.
No....what I was thinking was that the more people become atheists the greater the number of people with average or lower intelligence will be atheists thus reducing the average IQ of atheists.
You're absolutely right, Vlad (assuming all else remains equal). I misread your post - apologies.
If Atheism equals intelligence...
I don't think anybody is suggesting and equality. We are talking about statistics.
The conclusion seems to be (as has been pointed out) that religious people tend to go with intuition, when there is a conflict with logic.
-
Okay, I should have said more intelligent people are more likely to be atheists. There is no strict rule and, in any case, the population is increasing.
You're absolutely right, Vlad (assuming all else remains equal). I misread your post - apologies.
I don't think anybody is suggesting and equality. We are talking about statistics.
The conclusion seems to be (as has been pointed out) that religious people tend to go with intuition, when there is a conflict with logic.
Another issue with this is the definition of atheist.
If it is ''merely the lack of belief in God or gods'' then technically, Apes, primates, amoeba and carrots are atheist.
-
Another issue with this is the definition of atheist.
If it is ''merely the lack of belief in God or gods'' then technically, Apes, primates, amoeba and carrots are atheist.
And your evidence for that statement is? ::)
-
Very intelligent people can be religious, but I suspect they compartmentalise their brain so logic doesn't impinge on their faith. I can think of one particular poster on this forum whom I would place in that category.
How does logic impinge on faith?
-
And your evidence for that statement is? ::)
They lack belief in God. If youre using a dating agency make sure you fill in more than the religion section.
-
They lack belief in God. If youre using a dating agency make sure you fill in more than the religion section.
You don't know that for a fact, you don't know how their minds work. I am married and have no need of a dating agency, what the heck has that to do with the topic? You make things up as you go along, how sad! ::)
-
You don't know that for a fact, you don't know how their minds work. I am married and have no need of a dating agency, what the heck has that to do with the topic? You make things up as you go along, how sad! ::)
Neuroscientists who work on the brain should find analysing a carrot a cinch Floo. As far as I know amoeba don't have minds because isn't it a given that minds are really brains? If so then they lack a belief in gods. Since atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods then a brick is an atheist.
Are you saying that Carrots might be protestant? Would this be because they are orange?
-
Neuroscientists who work on the brain should find analysing a carrot a cinch Floo. As far as I know amoeba don't have minds because isn't it a given that minds are really brains? If so then they lack a belief in gods. Since atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods then a brick is an atheist.
Are you saying that Carrots might be protestant? Would this be because they are orange?
Never mind dear, just take some more water with it. ;D
-
Neuroscientists who work on the brain should find analysing a carrot a cinch Floo. As far as I know amoeba don't have minds because isn't it a given that minds are really brains? If so then they lack a belief in gods. Since atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods then a brick is an atheist.
Are you saying that Carrots might be protestant? Would this be because they are orange?
I think you need the capacity to evaluate a proposition.
But, as you say, atheism is the default position.
-
Neuroscientists who work on the brain should find analysing a carrot a cinch Floo. As far as I know amoeba don't have minds because isn't it a given that minds are really brains? If so then they lack a belief in gods. Since atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods then a brick is an atheist.
Are you saying that Carrots might be protestant? Would this be because they are orange?
Don't worry too much Vlad, it's not an area that'll be a bother to you.
Regards ippy
-
I think you need the capacity to evaluate a proposition.
But, as you say, atheism is the default position.
If as you say atheism is an evaluation of a proposition, and a carrot cannot evaluate a proposition then explain how a carrot can be atheist or demonstrate that atheism is the default position.
-
If as you say atheism is an evaluation of a proposition, and a carrot cannot evaluate a proposition then explain how a carrot can be atheist or demonstrate that atheism is the default position.
This isn't a difficult concept, Vlad. Atheism is the lack of belief (or disbelief) in god(s) but to apply it to something that lacks the ability to form that sort of belief is redundant and rather silly.
Which is probably why Oxford Dictionaries defines atheist (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheist) as "A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods." [my emphasis]
-
This isn't a difficult concept, Vlad. Atheism is the lack of belief (or disbelief) in god(s) but to apply it to something that lacks the ability to form that sort of belief is redundant and rather silly.
But I 'm not following your argument
Atheism is the lack of belief in God or gods
A carrot lacks belief in gods
But it is not an atheist
because it lacks the ability to form that sort of belief? What sort of belief?
In other words what is the human atheist doing that the carrot isn't?
Atheism is not the mere passive lack of belief it seems.
-
But I 'm not following your argument
Then try using your brain. A carrot is an atheist (because it has no belief in gods) in very much the same way as a rock is vegetarian (because it never eats meat).
-
I remember interminable arguments about whether babies are atheists. You can argue both ways, but as with carrots, babies tend not to form beliefs, well, such complicated ones. So to say that you lack something, which you can't possess, is odd.
-
Then try using your brain. A carrot is an atheist (because it has no belief in gods) in very much the same way as a rock is vegetarian (because it never eats meat).
A carrot is a living thing, a rock is not (unless you want to argue that rocks reproduce by splitting themselves).
-
A carrot is a living thing, a rock is not (unless you want to argue that rocks reproduce by splitting themselves).
Even so neither has the capacity to have beliefs, which is the point.
-
A carrot is a living thing, a rock is not (unless you want to argue that rocks reproduce by splitting themselves).
Which has bugger all to do with the facts that carrots have no belief in gods and rocks never eat meat.
Applying to term atheist to a carrot is no less silly than applying the term vegetarian to a rock. Which (again) is probably why the dictionary definitions of both terms refer to people: vegetarian (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/vegetarian), atheist (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheist).
-
So if it is true that atheists are more intelligent then does that mean that atheism makes you more intelligent?
Nobody is claiming that. People would probably claim that the more intelligent you are, the less likely you are to get hoodwinked by religion.
-
Then try using your brain. A carrot is an atheist (because it has no belief in gods) in very much the same way as a rock is vegetarian (because it never eats meat).
Try using yours.
A carrot is an atheist because it lacks belief in God's
So human atheism has to be more than just a lack of belief in God's
Therefore the person who says atheism is merely the lack of belief in God's is wrong.
So stranger if there is more to atheism......what is it?
-
Try using yours.
A carrot is an atheist because it lacks belief in God's
So human atheism has to be more than just a lack of belief in God's
Therefore the person who says atheism is merely the lack of belief in God's is wrong.
So stranger if there is more to atheism......what is it?
You do realise that people and carrots are, dare I say it, different.
Funniest attempt at deduction this century though (so far): have a carrot.
-
A carrot is an atheist because it lacks belief in God's
So human atheism has to be more than just a lack of belief in God's
Therefore the person who says atheism is merely the lack of belief in God's is wrong.
So stranger if there is more to atheism......what is it?
Nothing - your 'argument' is nonsense.
Atheism is not having belief in any gods. A carrot has no belief in gods, it also has no belief in ghosts, doesn't trust the scientific method, can't use logic, and is illiterate and innumerate.
So what? It doesn't change the meaning of the other terms when applied to humans - neither does it make it sensible to apply any of them to a carrot.
-
You do realise that people and carrots are, dare I say it, different.
Funniest attempt at deduction this century though (so far): have a carrot.
Not really because it is an example of atheists turning to incorrect propositions
vis atheists stating in argument that atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods. Just google that line to see how often it crops up. We must rejoice that such smart aleckness can no longer be used.
Secondly, Ippy puts great store in the conclusion of this so called survey. It is important that the terms are forensically gone through for the test to be scientific.
So then Gordon now that we have blown the myth that atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods.......What is it?
-
Not really because it is an example of atheists turning to incorrect propositions
vis atheists stating in argument that atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods. Just google that line to see how often it crops up. We must rejoice that such smart aleckness can no longer be used.
Secondly, Ippy puts great store in the conclusion of this so called survey. It is important that the terms are forensically gone through for the test to be scientific.
So then Gordon now that we have blown the myth that atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods.......What is it?
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god.
-
Nothing - your 'argument' is nonsense.
Atheism is not having belief in any gods. A carrot has no belief in gods, it also has no belief in ghosts, doesn't trust the scientific method, can't use logic, and is illiterate and innumerate.
So what? It doesn't change the meaning of the other terms when applied to humans - neither does it make it sensible to apply any of them to a carrot.
So it isn't sensible to say a carrot lacks a belief in gods? Is it incorrect though?
-
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god.
So carrots who lack belief in any god are atheist.
-
Which has bugger all to do with the facts that carrots have no belief in gods and rocks never eat meat.
Applying to term atheist to a carrot is no less silly than applying the term vegetarian to a rock.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Appeal to ridicule and statements that it isn't sensible to.
As it happens a rock does not eat vegetables and therefore cannot be vegetarians.
Thus we find you guilty of talking intellectual wank.
-
Not really because it is an example of atheists turning to incorrect propositions
vis atheists stating in argument that atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods. Just google that line to see how often it crops up. We must rejoice that such smart aleckness can no longer be used.
Secondly, Ippy puts great store in the conclusion of this so called survey. It is important that the terms are forensically gone through for the test to be scientific.
So then Gordon now that we have blown the myth that atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods.......What is it?
Don't be silly, Vlad, you've had this explained to you before.
-
You do realise that people and carrots are, dare I say it, different.
Funniest attempt at deduction this century though (so far): have a carrot.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Horselaugh fallacy
-
As it happens a rock does not eat vegetables and therefore cannot be vegetarians.
vegetarianism (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/vegetarianism)- The practice of not eating meat or fish...
So it isn't sensible to say a carrot lacks a belief in gods? Is it incorrect though?
FFS Vlad, there really isn't a difficult concept here - it's very, very simple. Even you should be able to get it.
Yes, it's correct - just as it's correct that that a rock doesn't eat meat or fish and your friend the carrot can't read, write or do arithmetic.
So if you really want to make an arse of yourself, you can call a carrot illiterate, innumerate, and atheist and a rock a vegetarian - in the narrowest and most pedantic of senses, they are all correct - just, very, very silly.
-
Don't be silly, Vlad, you've had this explained to you before.
Gordon that's just your wee ploy isnt it?......and we will find that you are unable to either repeat why if atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods it cannot apply to a carrot.....or reference where you did.
Oh and Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Appeal to ridicule.
-
So then Gordon now that we have blown the myth that atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods.......What is it?
It is a position that there are no good reasons to think that there are Gods, often (as in my case) as the result of concluding that the various arguments offered in support of there being Gods all fail due to being either fallacious or incoherent (or both).
Therefore, atheists tend to have an absence of belief in Gods: which is not the same thing as actively believing there are no Gods.
Do you get it now?
-
................they are all correct - just, very, very silly.
Bzzzzz appeal to ridicule.
So I am right. Thanks.
-
Bzzzzz appeal to ridicule.
No, an appeal to ridicule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule) involves ...comparing a nuanced circumstance or argument to a laughably commonplace occurrence or to some other irrelevancy on the basis of comedic timing, wordplay, or making an opponent and their argument the object of a joke.
I'm not making your argument the object of a joke, your argument is a joke, from the get-go and all by itself, I'm just providing a commentary.
-
So carrots who lack belief in any god are atheist.
I think that's fair comment. In a trivial sense, carrots are atheist. However, the survey we are talking about was only of humans who had an understanding of the concept of gods.
I also would surprised if there was not an exchange on this forum back in the mists of time where some atheist pointed out we are all born atheist and you argued the opposite based on the premise that you couldn't be an atheist without having some concept of God.
-
I actually met a Catholic carrot the other day. I was about to slice it up, when I heard it squeak something about transubstantiation, so I paused, to give it a chance, and then it said that it meant consubstantiation, so I thought that was Lutheran nonsense, so I chopped it up, and put it in the casserole. Do you think that it's gone to hell?
-
It is a position that there are no good reasons to think that there are Gods, often (as in my case) as the result of concluding that the various arguments offered in support of there being Gods all fail due to being either fallacious or incoherent (or both).
Therefore, atheists tend to have an absence of belief in Gods: which is not the same thing as actively believing there are no Gods.
Do you get it now?
It is a position that there are no good reasons to think that there are Gods, often (as in my case) as the result of concluding that the various arguments offered in support of there being Gods all fail due to being either fallacious or incoherent (or both).
Well we will leave your grasp of fallacies out of it but what you are describing is a bit more than the mere lack of belief in gods. Without prejudice to your capabilities I accept there was a process by which you arrived at the position of being an atheist but what about atheists who just don't think they have to bother or think about what you claim to have reviewed?
Several years ago I did a year's further training and knew several atheists I cannot recall any exchange with them that is as nasty as on here. Mind you I knew them to be intellectual and academic and they weren't afraid of presenting their working out and to be honest enjoyed their company better than many agnostics or apatheists, what's happened to you guys? I digress.
-
I actually met a Catholic carrot the other day. I was about to slice it up, when I heard it squeak something about transubstantiation, so I paused, to give it a chance, and then it said that it meant consubstantiation, so I thought that was Lutheran nonsense, so I chopped it up, and put it in the casserole. Do you think that it's gone to hell?
No but it sounds as though you're speaking from a dark place.
-
Vlad:
Several years ago I did a year's further training and knew several atheists I cannot recall any exchange with them that is as nasty as on here. Mind you I knew them to be intellectual and academic and they weren't afraid of presenting their working out and to be honest enjoyed their company better than many agnostics or apatheists, what's happened to you guys?
Could irony be any more biting or surreal? I like it.
-
I think that's fair comment. In a trivial sense, carrots are atheist. However, the survey we are talking about was only of humans who had an understanding of the concept of gods.
I also would surprised if there was not an exchange on this forum back in the mists of time where some atheist pointed out we are all born atheist and you argued the opposite based on the premise that you couldn't be an atheist without having some concept of God.
At last someone with a bit of a grip.
Sounds like that was an interesting argument.
I think I've largely tried to avoid using the term atheism in favour of New atheism and antitheism but acknowledge that I've failed on occasions
-
It looks like the subject of the O P had something.
Regards ippy
-
Well we will leave your grasp of fallacies out of it but what you are describing is a bit more than the mere lack of belief in gods. Without prejudice to your capabilities I accept there was a process by which you arrived at the position of being an atheist but what about atheists who just don't think they have to bother or think about what you claim to have reviewed?
No idea: you'll have to ask someone who fits your description of an atheist. Have to say though I've yet to encounter an atheist who does.
Several years ago I did a year's further training and knew several atheists I cannot recall any exchange with them that is as nasty as on here. Mind you I knew them to be intellectual and academic and they weren't afraid of presenting their working out and to be honest enjoyed their company better than many agnostics or apatheists, what's happened to you guys? I digress.
Depends on what you mean by 'nasty'.
-
It looks like the subject of the O P had something.
Regards ippy
Ah Ippy, would you agree that, unlike what Gordon describes as a wading through of all philosophies and having a thorough thorough academic grounding in fallacy, atheism needs no such investigation or skill because it's obvious to anybody?
-
Ah Ippy, would you agree that, unlike what Gordon describes as a wading through of all philosophies and having a thorough thorough academic grounding in fallacy, atheism needs no such investigation or skill because it's obvious to anybody?
You're right Vlad, it would be obvious to most.
Regards ippy
-
You're right Vlad, it would be obvious to most.
Regards ippy
Most where? In the world, no, atheists of your cut are in the minority.
In the UK? Maybe, however the UK is not the world. So it seems that atheism is not obvious to most. Unless you have recruited the atheist carrots.
Have a nice day.
-
Most where? In the world, no, atheists of your cut are in the minority.
In the UK? Maybe, however the UK is not the world. So it seems that atheism is not obvious to most. Unless you have recruited the atheist carrots.
Have a nice day.
Not sure what it is you're actually saying Vlad, but since there is not one shred of viable evidence to support these religious ideas of yours, it makes me wonder why you insist on hanging on to them, especially when they even have all of the appearances of man made as well, why do you bother your head with any of it?
You've had so many comprehensive drubbings on this forum isn't it about time you put up your hands and become our first convert before they change the forum's title to 'The Atheism and Ethic Forum'?
Then you can join us atheists by helping others that used to believe the nonsense you used to believe in.
Regards ippy
-
Not sure what it is you're actually saying Vlad, but since there is not one shred of viable evidence to support these religious ideas of yours, it makes me wonder why you insist on hanging on to them, especially when they even have all of the appearances of man made as well, why do you bother your head with any of it?
You've had so many comprehensive drubbings on this forum isn't it about time you put up your hands and become our first convert before they change the forum's title to 'The Atheism and Ethic Forum'?
Then you can join us atheists by helping others that used to believe the nonsense you used to believe in.
Regards ippy
Drubbings? I disagree since I never argue scientific facts only philosophies..........and since you have dispensed with the need to debate philosophically you have no warrant for declaring I've been drubbed.
I in turn think you have been hoodwinked by the menagerie of mind gamers, turdpolishers and top hatted linguistic limbo dancers who frequent this forum.
-
Drubbings? I disagree since I never argue scientific facts only philosophies..........and since you have dispensed with the need to debate philosophically you have no warrant for declaring I've been drubbed.
I in turn think you have been hoodwinked by the menagerie of mind gamers, turdpolishers and top hatted linguistic limbo dancers who frequent this forum.
Why would I want to discuss the philosophy of something that is only a belief that incidentally, has no viable evidence base in reality?
Regards ippy
-
Why would I want to discuss the philosophy of something that is only a belief that incidentally, has no viable evidence base in reality?
what do you mean by reality? And what is the viable evidence that its true?
-
what do you mean by reality? And what is the viable evidence that its true?
I keep on forgetting Vlad, obviously English isn't your first language and thats why you dont understand some posts that are quite straight forward, like that last one of mine to you that you mistakenly think you're responding to.
Re-read the post I'm referring to and perhaps try to ask me something, anything that's relevent to that particular post.
Regards ippy
-
I keep on forgetting Vlad, obviously English isn't your first language and thats why you dont understand some posts that are quite straight forward, like that last one of mine to you that you mistakenly think you're responding to.
Re-read the post I'm referring to and perhaps try to ask me something, anything that's relevent to that particular post.
Regards ippy
I understand every post Ippy.........except this one.
-
I understand every post Ippy.........except this one.
I'll try but I'm not that hopeful this was the post I was referring to as follows:
Not sure what it is you're actually saying Vlad, but since there is not one shred of viable evidence to support these religious ideas of yours, it makes me wonder why you insist on hanging on to them, especially when they even have all of the appearances of man made as well, why do you bother your head with any of it?
You've had so many comprehensive drubbings on this forum isn't it about time you put up your hands and become our first convert before they change the forum's title to 'The Atheism and Ethic Forum'?
Then you can join us atheists by helping others that used to believe the nonsense you used to believe in.
You then wrote: 'And what is the viable evidence that its true'?
Just have a look at my writings above I'd like to think for your sake all you did was misread my post and reality would be almost anything not conjured up by anything magical mystical, or any supernatural based ideas.
Read carefully and you might see where your reply was more of a reaction than a reply, if that's not the case, what would be the point continuing this line of post any more? (The point being your misreading of my posts, just in case you get it wrong again).
Regards ippy
-
I actually met a Catholic carrot the other day. I was about to slice it up, when I heard it squeak something about transubstantiation, so I paused, to give it a chance, and then it said that it meant consubstantiation, so I thought that was Lutheran nonsense, so I chopped it up, and put it in the casserole. Do you think that it's gone to hell?
For lying?
-
You then wrote: 'And what is the viable evidence that its true'?
Then wrote? Then wrote? You failed to write the first part of what I actually wrote ,
Here is the entirety of the sentence
what do you mean by reality? And what is the viable evidence that its true?
So what do you mean by reality or are you just using the ploy of assuming you've got the right one.
All I see from you is argument by ridicule and that my friend is a fallacy.
-
Then wrote? Then wrote? You failed to write the first part of what I actually wrote ,
Here is the entirety of the sentence
what do you mean by reality? And what is the viable evidence that its true?
So what do you mean by reality or are you just using the ploy of assuming you've got the right one.
All I see from you is argument by ridicule and that my friend is a fallacy.
Now Vlad doesn't want to answer, I know says Vlad to himself, I'll do another me no understandie.
Regards ippy
-
Now Vlad doesn't want to answer, I know says Vlad to himself, I'll do another me no understandie.
Regards ippy
I am not a mind reader so cannot see inside the antitheist psyche to get a picture of what they consider reality to be but I do have, thanks to neuroscience, a machine that can.
The scan can be found here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEhS9Y9HYjU
-
Drubbings? I disagree since I never argue scientific facts only philosophies..........and since you have dispensed with the need to debate philosophically you have no warrant for declaring I've been drubbed.
I in turn think you have been hoodwinked by the menagerie of mind gamers, turdpolishers and top hatted linguistic limbo dancers who frequent this forum.
Ippy is not known for his ability to participate in philosophical discussions. He usually ducks out of drubbings by pleading the "semantics are a waste of his time" excuse. He's not exactly a persuasive advert for the "intelligent atheism" spin.
The article in the OP seems to be stating that the theists tested seem to be more influenced by their instinct rather than conscious reasoning. That's not exactly surprising - a faith position about the supernatural is likely to be based on instinct, given there is no method to test for the supernatural to produce a demonstrable reasoned conclusion.
This idea by the way was explored in “The Faith Instinct” a book about the evolution of religious behaviour by Nicholas Wade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Faith_Instinct
I haven't read it but the idea sounds interesting - I too think religion serves some purpose, but can of course have a negative influence.
-
I really don’t think faith is based on reason, but experience. If someone experiences god as real then intelligence has nothing to do with whether they believe or not. It’s only when someone tries to use logic or science to prove god that things start to look a bit daft, or dishonest, or both. Personally I find a pretence to intellectual superiority on the part of atheists rather tedious.
-
Yes - I'm inclined to agree. I think I can reason my way to a possibility of a supernatural as I can't rule it out. From there it comes down to instinct and preference that leads me to connect with a particular religion.
For example the idea of unconditional love regardless of a person's behaviour has little appeal for me so the "God loves you" message especially together with the "sacrificed his only begotten son" message leaves me slightly nauseous, whereas the "God thinks you are a twat a lot of the time" message is more palatable. My God and I are in agreement.
-
Yes, there has to be a possibility of some kind of supernatural. I think the Christian god and yours probably agree on the twattishness, unconditional love doesn’t mean salvation. Anyway, I think I needed a god of love when I was younger. These days I get the appeal of pagan deities who fight, shag and party without really giving a toss about humanity one way it the other, but do I ‘believe in’ them? No.
I can’t quite claim atheism but only because I experience something, an energy if you like, that animates everything that means I label myself a pantheist, but it isn’t personal, it doesn’t have a mind or preferences and some may feel that it’s so dilute that it isn’t really theism at all. Well, whatever.
-
Yes, there has to be a possibility of some kind of supernatural. I think the Christian god and yours probably agree on the twattishness, unconditional love doesn’t mean salvation. Anyway, I think I needed a god of love when I was younger. These days I get the appeal of pagan deities who fight, shag and party without really giving a toss about humanity one way it the other, but do I ‘believe in’ them? No.
I can’t quite claim atheism but only because I experience something, an energy if you like, that animates everything that means I label myself a pantheist, but it isn’t personal, it doesn’t have a mind or preferences and some may feel that it’s so dilute that it isn’t really theism at all. Well, whatever.
I agree with most of this. I think your comment about 'I needed a god of love when I was younger' is spot on, I was the same. These days I find most of it boring, not sure what that says about me. But then doing Zen took me back to nature, so I am happy not to worry about the supernatural.
-
I agree with most of this. I think your comment about 'I needed a god of love when I was younger' is spot on, I was the same. These days I find most of it boring, not sure what that says about me. But then doing Zen took me back to nature, so I am happy not to worry about the supernatural.
Anything that I experience that people may call ‘supernatural’ feels completely natural to me. I don’t even think about it. Things just are.
-
Just goes to show how religions seem largely seem to meet emotional or instinctual impulses. I could never figure out why unconditional love is something worth having - if the love isn’t discerning it seems not worth very much and would make me feel pretty worthless to be the object of another’s unconditional love. But then again the concept of love is hard to define - it means different things to different people.
I am not sure I can experience a supernatural - any subjective experience seems to exhibit natural outputs. I can conceptualise a supernatural.
-
Just goes to show how religions seem largely seem to meet emotional or instinctual impulses. I could never figure out why unconditional love is something worth having - if the love isn’t discerning it seems not worth very much and would make me feel pretty worthless to be the object of another’s unconditional love. But then again the concept of love is hard to define - it means different things to different people.
I am not sure I can experience a supernatural - any subjective experience seems to exhibit natural outputs. I can conceptualise a supernatural.
To me love is liking someone a lot, I could never love anyone unconditionally.
-
To me love is liking someone a lot, I could never love anyone unconditionally.
Not even your kids and grandkids?
-
To me love is liking someone a lot,
I like my work colleague a lot - in fact several of them. I am not in love with them. As a description of love that sounds terribly mundane.
I think this is more like it!
This time we go sublime
Lovers entwine-divine divine
Love is danger, love is pleasure
Love is pure-the only treasure
I'm so in love with you
Purge the soul
Make love your goal
The power of love
A force from above
Cleaning my soul
The power of love
A force from above
A sky-scraping dove
Flame on burn desire
Love with tongues of fire
Purge the soul
Make love your goal
Maybe it's just me??
-
Not even your kids and grandkids?
I openly acknowledge an instinct to sacrifice my life for my kids without hesitation and to kill someone who would hurt them - it’s not reasoned. But I hope if my kids or grandkids were real toe rags - if they had really hurt or killed an innocent person or were planning to and I had no way of stopping them except for them to be killed, I’d just walk away and leave them to their fate - i’m Guessing that doesn’t fall within the definition of unconditional love?
ETA- the question is would I kill my children or grandchildren myself if I had to in order to protect innocent people from harm.
Is there a concept of a higher duty orcresponsibility to something other than those whom you love?
-
Not even your kids and grandkids?
No.
-
I openly acknowledge an instinct to sacrifice my life for my kids without hesitation and to kill someone who would hurt them - it’s not reasoned. But I hope if my kids or grandkids were real toe rags - if they had really hurt or killed an innocent person or were planning to and I had no way of stopping them except for them to be killed, I’d just walk away and leave them to their fate - i’m Guessing that doesn’t fall within the definition of unconditional love?
ETA- the question is would I kill my children or grandchildren myself if I had to in order to protect innocent people from harm.
Is there a concept of a higher duty orcresponsibility to something other than those whom you love?
If any of my kids ended up doing something despicable, the kinds of things that you can't forgive, then I too would walk away, but I don't think that would mean I would stop loving them. I might not like them, I might hate what they did, I might never speak to them again. Can't imagine not loving them though.
I don't know if there is a 'higher duty' - can't see myself killing anyone except in the moment to end an immediate threat. I think I would do all that I could to prevent them from causing harm, including alerting the authorities who may then shoot to kill. I'm not someone who finds the concept of killing easy though.
-
No.
If that is the case, then please do not try to lecture the rest of us anymore about how to bring up our families.
-
If any of my kids ended up doing something despicable, the kinds of things that you can't forgive, then I too would walk away, but I don't think that would mean I would stop loving them. I might not like them, I might hate what they did, I might never speak to them again. Can't imagine not loving them though.
I don't know if there is a 'higher duty' - can't see myself killing anyone except in the moment to end an immediate threat. I think I would do all that I could to prevent them from causing harm, including alerting the authorities who may then shoot to kill. I'm not someone who finds the concept of killing easy though.
Yes it would have to be an immediate threat and no other option in any scenario to kill.
But I was part of the British Army while at university and while we had to be prepared to die and kill, not sure the situations we might have faced once fully trained would be as innocents caught up in a situation where we faced an immediate threat. So clearly we were people who weren’t totally averse to killing or dying though we assumed we’d just get a military qualification that looked good on our CVs and would get paid for training and go on our merry way.
ETA: I am not sure what my emotions would be if my kids did something really despicable or how I would identify a feeling of love out of the many emotions - I would feel grief and sadness that the person I thought I knew was a figment of my imagination- it would be like a death. I don’t know if that feeling could be labelled “love”.
-
Yes it would have to be an immediate threat and no other option in any scenario to kill.
But I was part of the British Army while at university and while we had to be prepared to die and kill, not sure the situations we might have faced once fully trained would be as innocents caught up in a situation where we faced an immediate threat. So clearly we were people who weren’t totally averse to killing or dying though we assumed we’d just get a military qualification that looked good on our CVs and would get paid for training and go on our merry way.
ETA: I am not sure what my emotions would be if my kids did something really despicable or how I would identify a feeling of love out of the many emotions - I would feel grief and sadness that the person I thought I knew was a figment of my imagination- it would be like a death. I don’t know if that feeling could be labelled “love”.
I get what you are saying - I think the sense of loss would be that the person I knew had effectively died - and of course all the loss for things that can never be in the future. IME it is possible for someone to change out of all recognition. Maybe what I would hang onto in the case of children/grandchildren would be the love that I had for them before the change, but maybe I would always see the boy/girl that they were and love them accordingly. Who knows?
-
To me love is liking someone a lot, I could never love anyone unconditionally.
Our babies are loved unconditionally, though, surely, babies really need that; we love our children unconditionally when they're older too (even if there are times when they aren't especially likeable :D).
I see that Rhiannon and Gabriella have said many sensible things about parental love.
-
I've always thought that babies are love sponges.
-
Just goes to show how religions seem largely seem to meet emotional or instinctual impulses. I could never figure out why unconditional love is something worth having - if the love isn’t discerning it seems not worth very much and would make me feel pretty worthless to be the object of another’s unconditional love. But then again the concept of love is hard to define - it means different things to different people.
I think that with parental love the 'unconditional' part means loving a child simply for existing - a baby doesn't have a defined personality that is loveable but they need to be loved and accepted in order to form secure attachments. That's possibly the difference between parental love and other kinds and why unconditional parental love is so important - that love (or absence of it) in the earliest days sets up patterns of behaviour and self worth for life.
-
I've always thought that babies are love sponges.
That is a lovely, totally appropriate description (made me come over all 'mumsy').
My parents always loved me and sis unconditionally, it was something we instinctively knew we could depend on; we weren't bad kids at all but there were times we were stroppy. We're the same with our children.
-
Surely, loving a baby or a child unconditionally is the most effective way that that baby/child can survive and reach responsible adulthood. It is something that we are programmed to do - it is in the best interests of the species.
-
Surely, loving a baby or a child unconditionally is the most effective way that that baby/child can survive and reach responsible adulthood. It is something that we are programmed to do - it is in the best interests of the species.
And I wonder if this is where the idea that the Christian God loves unconditionally comes from. I don’t think the unconditional love of god gets mentioned explicitly in the Bible, but liking God to a parent is - famously, Jesus uses the term ‘Abba’ - an affectionate term like ‘dad’. As we tend to make God in our image, so Christians who run with the idea of a loving God (rather than a jealous one) make God the Father’s love unconditional, as any parent’s isvudealky.
-
If that is the case, then please do not try to lecture the rest of us anymore about how to bring up our families.
When have I lectured anyone? I state my point of view as does everyone else on this forum, like yourself! ::)
-
And I wonder if this is where the idea that the Christian God loves unconditionally comes from. I don’t think the unconditional love of god gets mentioned explicitly in the Bible, but liking God to a parent is - famously, Jesus uses the term ‘Abba’ - an affectionate term like ‘dad’. As we tend to make God in our image, so Christians who run with the idea of a loving God (rather than a jealous one) make God the Father’s love unconditional, as any parent’s isvudealky.
It might come from Matt 5, part of which could be paraphrased like this: "Just as God causes the sun to shine and the rain to fall on all no matter whether considered good or bad, so should you express your love to enemies as well as friends so that those who curse you are blessed, those who hate you are loved and those who persecute you are commended to God so that you may be recognized as an expression of the Divine. Otherwise you are no better than a despised tax collector if you select to give only to those who give to you." I suspect that it means that 'love' in this case is a state of being which radiates indiscriminately but the self centred mind will tend to put limitations upon it e.g. family, friends, nation etc. which can result in discrimination and even hatred.
-
If any of my kids ended up doing something despicable, the kinds of things that you can't forgive, then I too would walk away, but I don't think that would mean I would stop loving them. I might not like them, I might hate what they did, I might never speak to them again. Can't imagine not loving them though.
I don't know if there is a 'higher duty' - can't see myself killing anyone except in the moment to end an immediate threat. I think I would do all that I could to prevent them from causing harm, including alerting the authorities who may then shoot to kill. I'm not someone who finds the concept of killing easy though.
We my wife and I have have two sons, not our own natural children and all of your posts on this thread coincide to the letter to how we feel about our two boys, it does make me wonder sometimes, why is it our feelings don't exactly conform to the selfish gene formula?
Regards ippy
-
Ippy is not known for his ability to participate in philosophical discussions. He usually ducks out of drubbings by pleading the "semantics are a waste of his time" excuse. He's not exactly a persuasive advert for the "intelligent atheism" spin.
The article in the OP seems to be stating that the theists tested seem to be more influenced by their instinct rather than conscious reasoning. That's not exactly surprising - a faith position about the supernatural is likely to be based on instinct, given there is no method to test for the supernatural to produce a demonstrable reasoned conclusion.
This idea by the way was explored in “The Faith Instinct” a book about the evolution of religious behaviour by Nicholas Wade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Faith_Instinct
I haven't read it but the idea sounds interesting - I too think religion serves some purpose, but can of course have a negative influence.
Gabriella, I suppose you could see it as a bit limiting if you were to have to address posters with as straight as is possible use of English in response to whomever you chose to address on this forum. (Now there's another few words for you to sort out or rearrange).
Regards ippy
-
Surely, loving a baby or a child unconditionally is the most effective way that that baby/child can survive and reach responsible adulthood. It is something that we are programmed to do - it is in the best interests of the species.
A little off topic perhaps...but what do you mean by 'programmed'? It is just a convenient word. Programmed by who, why, how? How can a tiny DNA strand contain such sophisticated and elaborate 'programs'?
What happens if children are not loved and the entire species dies out? So many species have died out. Why should we survive?
-
Gabriella, I suppose you could see it as a bit limiting if you were to have to address posters with as straight as is possible use of English in response to whomever you chose to address on this forum. (Now there's another few words for you to sort out or rearrange).
Regards ippy
Sure. In other words your massive ego likes to make pronouncements rather than engage in discussion or you're too thick to engage in discussion. Is that sufficiently rearranged for you?
Kindest of regards
Gabriella
-
A little off topic perhaps...but what do you mean by 'programmed'? It is just a convenient word. Programmed by who, why, how? How can a tiny DNA strand contain such sophisticated and elaborate 'programs'?
The instinct to care for young is hardly unique to humans. Your two questions are answered by a very well established scientific theory but sadly one that you've never been able to understand: evolution by natural selection.
What happens if children are not loved and the entire species dies out? So many species have died out. Why should we survive?
There is no particular reason why we should not die out - it's not like we've been around a long time (in evolutionary terms) but suddenly losing the instinct to care for our young doesn't seem like a very likely scenario, for rather obvious (to those of us who do understand evolution) reasons.
-
Sure. In other words your massive ego likes to make pronouncements rather than engage in discussion or you're too thick to engage in discussion. Is that sufficiently rearranged for you?
Kindest of regards
Gabriella
That was a straight enough response to my post Gabriellea, why not stick to the same way of responding all of the time?
Regards ippy
-
I think that with parental love the 'unconditional' part means loving a child simply for existing - a baby doesn't have a defined personality that is loveable but they need to be loved and accepted in order to form secure attachments. That's possibly the difference between parental love and other kinds and why unconditional parental love is so important - that love (or absence of it) in the earliest days sets up patterns of behaviour and self worth for life.
I think I understand and agree with your definition of the concept in relation to a baby. How are you defining love in relation to an older child who is an adult or at least at an age of criminal responsibility - in relation to your statement "If any of my kids ended up doing something despicable, the kinds of things that you can't forgive, then I too would walk away, but I don't think that would mean I would stop loving them. I might not like them, I might hate what they did, I might never speak to them again. Can't imagine not loving them though."?
What are the feelings you feel about them in that situation that you would label as love? Are you saying that you would feel an intense attachment to them that you could not display because you disliked them and never spoke to them again?
-
That was a straight enough response to my post Gabriellea, why not stick to the same way of responding all of the time?
Regards ippy
Because I tend to find discussions more interesting. Different people enjoy different experiences. Hence we have theists and atheists as an example of different people enjoying different experiences. Isn't diversity grand.
-
It might come from Matt 5, part of which could be paraphrased like this: "Just as God causes the sun to shine and the rain to fall on all no matter whether considered good or bad, so should you express your love to enemies as well as friends so that those who curse you are blessed, those who hate you are loved and those who persecute you are commended to God so that you may be recognized as an expression of the Divine. Otherwise you are no better than a despised tax collector if you select to give only to those who give to you." I suspect that it means that 'love' in this case is a state of being which radiates indiscriminately but the self centred mind will tend to put limitations upon it e.g. family, friends, nation etc. which can result in discrimination and even hatred.
Not sure about that. If I despised rather than loved Bashar al-Assad, it would be for what he was doing to other humans - regardless of their religion, race, geography etc. The people he is hurting might not be connected to me in any way other than they are members of the human race. Not seeing what loving Assad will achieve. Not seeing how letting him kill people is an act of love to him or to the people he is killing.
"Love" in this context just seems like a word or concept that can't be defined - much like the concept of "God". It has different and often contradictory meanings to different people.
-
I think the ‘love’ that Ekim refers to is much more like compassion rather than love. But as you say, it can mean so many things.
-
Because I tend to find discussions more interesting. Different people enjoy different experiences. Hence we have theists and atheists as an example of different people enjoying different experiences. Isn't diversity grand.
You're right Gabriella, discussion about all sorts is a good thing, it's even more enjoyable when we're all speaking the same language rather than splitting hairs on the language used when the arguments don't go the way we would like them to go.
Regards ippy
-
Not sure about that. If I despised rather than loved Bashar al-Assad, it would be for what he was doing to other humans - regardless of their religion, race, geography etc. The people he is hurting might not be connected to me in any way other than they are members of the human race. Not seeing what loving Assad will achieve. Not seeing how letting him kill people is an act of love to him or to the people he is killing.
"Love" in this context just seems like a word or concept that can't be defined - much like the concept of "God". It has different and often contradictory meanings to different people.
Yes, 'Love' as a 'state of being' is probably impossible to define, just as 'God' is but it is said to be recognisable when you are in that state. From that 'state' comes the prospect of promoting the well being of others i.e. bringing them into the same 'state', so that they in turn act from that state rather than from the self centred state which drives the politics and religions of the world. The real jihad is the inner struggle within individuals to consciously remain in the 'love' state rather be taken over by self centred concerns. Those who fail at this blame others for it and enter into an external jihad. The initiators of a number of religions have attempted to promote methods to facilitate the transformation of the individual but the history of mankind shows how difficult the process is and how easy it is for self centredness to reassert itself.
-
You're right Gabriella, discussion about all sorts is a good thing, it's even more enjoyable when we're all speaking the same language rather than splitting hairs on the language used when the arguments don't go the way we would like them to go.
Regards ippy
That's your interpretation of what is happening on here. My interpretation is that someone disagrees with or challenges generalisations in your pronouncements as they do with other posters, and your response is to claim they are "splitting hairs on the language". I can see why that technique works for you - it means you don't need to spend time or effort defending your opinions or change your mind to form a more nuanced opinion.
I did English A'Level, got an A - we were taught to find the discussion more interesting and enjoyable when people dig deeper into language - not everyone wants to have discussions at the basic level you prefer.
-
That's your interpretation of what is happening on here. My interpretation is that someone disagrees with or challenges generalisations in your pronouncements as they do with other posters, and your response is to claim they are "splitting hairs on the language". I can see why that technique works for you - it means you don't need to spend time or effort defending your opinions or change your mind to form a more nuanced opinion.
I did English A'Level, got an A - we were taught to find the discussion more interesting and enjoyable when people dig deeper into language - not everyone wants to have discussions at the basic level you prefer.
I suppose it would look like that to you, I note the aggression is still holding there.
Regards ippy
-
I suppose it would look like that to you, I note the aggression is still holding there.
Regards ippy
Ok. I doubt either of us will change our opinions on what constitutes enjoyable discussion on here.
I note your beliefs about aggression in my posts are still holding. It’s fine that you have not defined “aggression” or presented any evidence for your beliefs.
-
I think the ‘love’ that Ekim refers to is much more like compassion rather than love. But as you say, it can mean so many things.
Love is the most misused word in English. It can mean anything from God Himself (Love is God)...to Compassion (I love my patients) ....to Attachment (I love my mom, my child)....to Attraction (I love my girlfriend)....to Sex ( Love making)...to simple desires (I love ice cream). In no other language that I know of, does one word mean so many, quite opposing, things.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/05/28/love/
-
Love is the most misused word in English. It can mean anything from God Himself (Love is God)...to Compassion (I love my patients) ....to Attachment (I love my mom, my child)....to Attraction (I love my girlfriend)....to Sex ( Love making)...to simple desires (I love ice cream). In no other language that I know of, does one word mean so many, quite opposing, things.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/05/28/love/
I love the rational, logical and love to see any of the revered irrational knocked down off of its pedestal to where it belongs.
Regards ippy
-
I love the rational, logical and love to see any of the revered irrational knocked down off of its pedestal to where it belongs.
Regards ippy
I love the irrational like love, beauty, joy and to see the rational and logical kept in balance with the irrational.
-
I love the irrational like love, beauty, joy and to see the rational and logical kept in balance with the irrational.
I love the irrational like love, beauty, joy and to see the rational and logical kept in balance with the irrational.
Not your usually rational self ekim, what happened?
Regards ippy
-
I love the irrational like love, beauty, joy and to see the rational and logical kept in balance with the irrational.
Not your usually rational self ekim, what happened?
Regards ippy
Reads like a very typical and rather wonderful post from ekim. I suspect you are thinking of enki, a different and also much loved poster with a more obvious leaning to 'rationality'
-
the rational and logical kept in balance with the irrational.
Why on Earth does there need to be a balance? How can there possibly be too much rationality and logic. It's like saying "we can't have too much comfortable living, we need to balance it out with some grinding poverty".
-
I love the irrational like love, beauty, joy and to see the rational and logical kept in balance with the irrational.
I agree. The alternative sounds boring and insipid.
But I also think it is logical and rational to make decisions in line with your internal values and goals, which may well be different from someone else's values and goals.
-
I agree. The alternative sounds boring and insipid.
But I also think it is logical and rational to make decisions in line with your internal values and goals, which may well be different from someone else's values and goals.
Surely you think it is logical and rational to do that because it is your internal value that it is logical and rational to do that and so on...
-
Why on Earth does there need to be a balance? How can there possibly be too much rationality and logic. It's like saying "we can't have too much comfortable living, we need to balance it out with some grinding poverty".
1st question: I didn't say there needs to be a balance, I said I love to see the rational and logical kept in balance with the irrational 'like love, beauty, joy'. What others love is up to them. If they prefer the life of an android that's up to them. 2nd question: I didn't say that there could be too much rationality and logic just as I did not say there could be too much love, beauty and joy and it's nothing like saying "we can't have too much comfortable living, we need to balance it out with some grinding poverty". Comfortable living and grinding poverty are more associated with physical existence whereas balancing the rational and irrational are more associated with the mind and it is not a case of swinging from one extreme to another as your analogy suggests but harmonising both. In terms of the physical, you could say achieving a harmony between the left hemisphere and right hemisphere of the brain and seeing the value of both.
-
Surely you think it is logical and rational to do that because it is your internal value that it is logical and rational to do that and so on...
Yes that presumably is why I think that. Confirmation bias? :)
Where do our personal values come from?
-
Rationality is like a computer program...sequential and linear. Life is hardly like that.
The Unconscious Mind is said to make decisions like a parallel processor....and we know that most of out decisions are made by our Unconscious Mind.
There are too many parameters in life to make purely rational decisions. Can a computer make all decisions for us?
-
Why on Earth does there need to be a balance? How can there possibly be too much rationality and logic. It's like saying "we can't have too much comfortable living, we need to balance it out with some grinding poverty".
Because all wants and desires and motivations are essentially arational. Thinking that rationality is anything more than part of our make up is exceptionally naïve.
-
Yes that presumably is why I think that. Confirmation bias? :)
Where do our personal values come from?
I also think that we dress our decisions in cloak of rationality not understanding quite how irrational we are.
The values seem to be mainly some combination of nature and nurture, but I again think that most if what we consciously think of as our values is a set of massive retrospective justifications to create a coherent narrative.
-
1st question: I didn't say there needs to be a balance, I said I love to see the rational and logical kept in balance with the irrational 'like love, beauty, joy'. What others love is up to them. If they prefer the life of an android that's up to them. 2nd question: I didn't say that there could be too much rationality and logic just as I did not say there could be too much love, beauty and joy and it's nothing like saying "we can't have too much comfortable living, we need to balance it out with some grinding poverty". Comfortable living and grinding poverty are more associated with physical existence whereas balancing the rational and irrational are more associated with the mind and it is not a case of swinging from one extreme to another as your analogy suggests but harmonising both. In terms of the physical, you could say achieving a harmony between the left hemisphere and right hemisphere of the brain and seeing the value of both.
I want to know why you think that love, beauty and joy are irrational. “Not fully understood” and “irrational” are not synonyms.
-
Rationality is like a computer program...sequential and linear. Life is hardly like that.
This fails on so many levels. Computer programs are not sequential and linear, for starters.
-
Because all wants and desires and motivations are essentially arational. Thinking that rationality is anything more than part of our make up is exceptionally naïve.
You give the game away by writing “arational”. That’s called moving the goal posts.
-
You give the game away by writing “arational”. That’s called moving the goal posts.
No, it's called saying what I think. Deal with the post rather than some mind reading about intentions.
-
I want to know why you think that love, beauty and joy are irrational. “Not fully understood” and “irrational” are not synonyms.
Can't answer for ekim but it would seem to me that from an internal viewpoint they aren't rational because they are subjective. If there are rational choices here it would need to be on an objective scale.
-
I want to know why you think that love, beauty and joy are irrational. “Not fully understood” and “irrational” are not synonyms.
See NS's reply above.
-
I want to know why you think that love, beauty and joy are irrational. “Not fully understood” and “irrational” are not synonyms.
I would be interested in knowing what you mean by fully understood and how you are defining love, beauty or joy.
For example, are we talking about maternal love that reduces a person's objectivity in most situations or romantic love when you become intensely attached to someone unstable and selfish or I love eating certain foods even though they are not good for me and sabotage my goal to reduce my percentage of body fat?
And by joy, do you mean for example the joy of putting yourself and your family's life and health at serious risk in order to get the adrenaline rush of doing a dangerous or reckless activity?
-
I want to know why you think that love, beauty and joy are irrational. “Not fully understood” and “irrational” are not synonyms.
Yes, I want to know that too!
Does anyone doubt that all the kinds of love we feel are generated by the grain? There is, therefore, no irrationality!
-
Yes, I want to know that too!
Does anyone doubt that all the kinds of love we feel are generated by the grain? There is, therefore, no irrationality!
So if someone thinks they are Napoleon today that is rational?
-
Yes, I want to know that too!
Does anyone doubt that all the kinds of love we feel are generated by the grain? There is, therefore, no irrationality!
Similarly my beliefs are generated in my brain, including my belief in a supernatural entity, therefore no irrationality?
-
Does anyone doubt that all the kinds of love we feel are generated by the grain?
Well I have heard tell that whisky makes you frisky, and brandy makes you randy, I'll stop at beer tho ;)
-
No, it's called saying what I think. Deal with the post rather than some mind reading about intentions.
I did deal with the post. I dismissed it because it was talking about arationality not irrationality.
-
I did deal with the post. I dismissed it because it was talking about arationality not irrationality.
No, you made an accusation rather than dealing with it. That isn't dealing with anything. I don't see how thinking that desires are not rational isn't a challenge to your idea that love and joy are rational
-
Similarly my beliefs are generated in my brain, including my belief in a supernatural entity, therefore no irrationality?
Sounds irrational to me, there is no reasoning involved, I've yet to see anything viable that would make looking for the supernatural something worth looking for in the first place, it's not exactly one of the most rational ideas to pursue.
Regards ippy
-
Sounds irrational to me, there is no reasoning involved, I've yet to see anything viable that would make looking for the supernatural something worth looking for in the first place, it's not exactly one of the most rational ideas to pursue.
Regards ippy
You do realise that Gabriella was using the logic in SusanDoris's post here to highlight that this would be a logical conclusion if SusanDoris was being consistent?