Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Reason, logic, and what we assume

muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 4:18:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Here's the thread Mr. burrito. Feel free to jump in and justify your claims whenever you like.

For anyone else who happens upon here, what do you assume, and why do you assume it?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Disquisition
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 4:28:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 4:18:05 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Here's the thread Mr. burrito. Feel free to jump in and justify your claims whenever you like.

For anyone else who happens upon here, what do you assume, and why do you assume it?

I assume most things empirically and some things by faith, it just depends on the situation.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 4:30:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 4:28:06 PM, Disquisition wrote:
At 8/25/2013 4:18:05 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Here's the thread Mr. burrito. Feel free to jump in and justify your claims whenever you like.

For anyone else who happens upon here, what do you assume, and why do you assume it?

I assume most things empirically and some things by faith, it just depends on the situation.

So you hold empiricism axiomatically as your epistemology?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 4:36:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 4:30:35 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 4:28:06 PM, Disquisition wrote:
At 8/25/2013 4:18:05 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Here's the thread Mr. burrito. Feel free to jump in and justify your claims whenever you like.

For anyone else who happens upon here, what do you assume, and why do you assume it?

I assume most things empirically and some things by faith, it just depends on the situation.

So you hold empiricism axiomatically as your epistemology?

Everyone does. I mean, what else is there? That said, however, empiricism doesn't necessarily deal only with the material, or the "natural," if you will.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 4:40:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Innomen, for example, in his being religious, has concluded that there is something more powerful than he and that'd be a logical conclusion in his mind whether you agree with it or not. What I mean is, belief in God doesn't come from nowhere, though perhaps just loneliness and fear but who knows. It's all to do with the here and now - everything.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 4:42:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 4:36:05 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 8/25/2013 4:30:35 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 4:28:06 PM, Disquisition wrote:
At 8/25/2013 4:18:05 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Here's the thread Mr. burrito. Feel free to jump in and justify your claims whenever you like.

For anyone else who happens upon here, what do you assume, and why do you assume it?

I assume most things empirically and some things by faith, it just depends on the situation.

So you hold empiricism axiomatically as your epistemology?

Everyone does. I mean, what else is there?

Idealism and rationalism. Albeit they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

That said, however, empiricism doesn't necessarily deal only with the material, or the "natural," if you will.

Clearly. For instance, we can use empiricism in math, geometry, and theoretical physics, to discern abstract concepts.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 4:43:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 4:42:09 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 4:36:05 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 8/25/2013 4:30:35 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 4:28:06 PM, Disquisition wrote:
At 8/25/2013 4:18:05 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Here's the thread Mr. burrito. Feel free to jump in and justify your claims whenever you like.

For anyone else who happens upon here, what do you assume, and why do you assume it?

I assume most things empirically and some things by faith, it just depends on the situation.

So you hold empiricism axiomatically as your epistemology?

Everyone does. I mean, what else is there?

Idealism and rationalism. Albeit they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Both are to do with feeling which is something very real - empirical, say.

That said, however, empiricism doesn't necessarily deal only with the material, or the "natural," if you will.

Clearly. For instance, we can use empiricism in math, geometry, and theoretical physics, to discern abstract concepts.

Not what I'm talking about, dude.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 4:53:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 4:40:49 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Innomen, for example, in his being religious, has concluded that there is something more powerful than he and that'd be a logical conclusion in his mind whether you agree with it or not. What I mean is, belief in God doesn't come from nowhere, though perhaps just loneliness and fear but who knows. It's all to do with the here and now - everything.

Ah, I see, you felt I was about to go after his statement of faith. I was indeed going to ask him how he reconciled empiricism with his faith.

On the topic of how a belief in god develops; evolutionary psychology appears to have made a statement in that area.

Imagine you're a boar in your natural habitat. You're surrounded by bushes. You hear a rustling and a twig snap.

Now, in one situation you do nothing, and you live.

In another you assume its a predator, though it isn't. You run, and you live.

In yet another you do nothing and you die because the noises were caused by a predator.

In the final situation you assume it's a predator, and it is. You run, and you live.

So, in 2 out of 2 situations where you do something, you survive. In 1 out of 2 situations where you do nothing, you die. Therefore, it is better, evolutionarily speaking, to assume agency even where there is none.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 4:57:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 4:43:59 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 8/25/2013 4:42:09 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 4:36:05 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 8/25/2013 4:30:35 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 4:28:06 PM, Disquisition wrote:
At 8/25/2013 4:18:05 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Here's the thread Mr. burrito. Feel free to jump in and justify your claims whenever you like.

For anyone else who happens upon here, what do you assume, and why do you assume it?

I assume most things empirically and some things by faith, it just depends on the situation.

So you hold empiricism axiomatically as your epistemology?

Everyone does. I mean, what else is there?

Idealism and rationalism. Albeit they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Both are to do with feeling which is something very real - empirical, say.

Incorrect. Idealism is about instinctual knowledge. Knowledge that is innately held. Rationalism deals with knowledge derived though abstract thought. For instance, Pythagoras concept of perfect geometric shapes, or imaginary numbers in math.


That said, however, empiricism doesn't necessarily deal only with the material, or the "natural," if you will.

Clearly. For instance, we can use empiricism in math, geometry, and theoretical physics, to discern abstract concepts.

Not what I'm talking about, dude.

My apologies. Could you clarify then.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 5:06:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
muzebreak, all knowledge is self-referential. The world ends with you, pretty much. And that being, every belief is essentially held on faith, besides just being.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 5:09:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 5:06:10 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
muzebreak, all knowledge is self-referential. The world ends with you, pretty much. And that being, every belief is essentially held on faith, besides just being.

That depends how you define faith. Since I started with the word assume, and he switched to faith, I assumed he was referring to faith in the religious sense.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 5:12:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 5:09:03 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:06:10 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
muzebreak, all knowledge is self-referential. The world ends with you, pretty much. And that being, every belief is essentially held on faith, besides just being.

That depends how you define faith. Since I started with the word assume, and he switched to faith, I assumed he was referring to faith in the religious sense.

Innomen's faith is really no greater a leap than your assuming evolution actually does adequately explain your existence. Again, this could all just be a dream, but you're assuming otherwise for practicality's sake. Same with the religious - they all have their peeves about their existence; they're just going in a different direction to you; and it's all down to feeling, in the end.
Disquisition
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 5:15:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 4:30:35 PM, muzebreak wrote:
So you hold empiricism axiomatically as your epistemology?

I don't believe all knowledge derived from the senses is necessarily axiomatic, unless it has been proven to withstand multiple attempts to falsify it. (at least if this knowledge doesn't conflict with my Christian worldview). I also think human knowledge was given by God and limited to what God allows us to know.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 5:16:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 5:12:59 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:09:03 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:06:10 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
muzebreak, all knowledge is self-referential. The world ends with you, pretty much. And that being, every belief is essentially held on faith, besides just being.

That depends how you define faith. Since I started with the word assume, and he switched to faith, I assumed he was referring to faith in the religious sense.

Innomen's faith is really no greater a leap than your assuming evolution actually does adequately explain your existence. Again, this could all just be a dream, but you're assuming otherwise for practicality's sake. Same with the religious - they all have their peeves about their existence; they're just going in a different direction to you; and it's all down to feeling, in the end.

I don't assume evolution explains anything. As I showed you a short time ago, evolution can actually explain my existence, and it's intricacies.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 5:16:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 5:15:53 PM, Disquisition wrote:
At 8/25/2013 4:30:35 PM, muzebreak wrote:
So you hold empiricism axiomatically as your epistemology?

I don't believe all knowledge derived from the senses is necessarily axiomatic, unless it has been proven to withstand multiple attempts to falsify it. (at least if this knowledge doesn't conflict with my Christian worldview). I also think human knowledge was given by God and limited to what God allows us to know.

Why do you believe this way?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 5:19:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 5:16:01 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:12:59 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:09:03 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:06:10 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
muzebreak, all knowledge is self-referential. The world ends with you, pretty much. And that being, every belief is essentially held on faith, besides just being.

That depends how you define faith. Since I started with the word assume, and he switched to faith, I assumed he was referring to faith in the religious sense.

Innomen's faith is really no greater a leap than your assuming evolution actually does adequately explain your existence. Again, this could all just be a dream, but you're assuming otherwise for practicality's sake. Same with the religious - they all have their peeves about their existence; they're just going in a different direction to you; and it's all down to feeling, in the end.

I don't assume evolution explains anything. As I showed you a short time ago, evolution can actually explain my existence, and it's intricacies.

Why isn't evolution just something you've dreamt up, though? The truest knowledge is feeling. You can read about fear, for example, to try to understand it better, but you'll never know it truer than in just feeling it. Logic just necessarily defies you a firm grasp on it.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 5:22:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Of course I'm not saying one should cast off practicality completely, just that one should be wary of it. The position of the logician is agnosticism after all, and that pertains to everything.
Disquisition
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 5:27:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 5:16:55 PM, muzebreak wrote:

Why do you believe this way?

Well honestly I'm not going to lie, I was born into it this belief and it has been strengthen by how faithful my mother is (being a Christian counselor)..

However I'm at a very defining point at my life attempting to understand why I believe in this deity. I haven't consider outright rejection, but it has been challenging to find my purpose in this world, whatever it may be.

Plus after recently reading Job it seems pointless to question why he does this or why he does that.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 5:30:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 5:19:48 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:16:01 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:12:59 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:09:03 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:06:10 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
muzebreak, all knowledge is self-referential. The world ends with you, pretty much. And that being, every belief is essentially held on faith, besides just being.

That depends how you define faith. Since I started with the word assume, and he switched to faith, I assumed he was referring to faith in the religious sense.

Innomen's faith is really no greater a leap than your assuming evolution actually does adequately explain your existence. Again, this could all just be a dream, but you're assuming otherwise for practicality's sake. Same with the religious - they all have their peeves about their existence; they're just going in a different direction to you; and it's all down to feeling, in the end.

I don't assume evolution explains anything. As I showed you a short time ago, evolution can actually explain my existence, and it's intricacies.

Why isn't evolution just something you've dreamt up, though?

Are you speaking in a solipsistic sense? If you are, then maybe I did. But why should I care, because I can't tell the difference either way. If not, then it's because it was first conceived, in what is essentially its current state, by Charles Darwin.

The truest knowledge is feeling.

I disagree. Abstract concepts are just as, if not more so, true. For instance, how is the feeling of happiness any more true than the fact that a square has 4 corners. Or that the square who's side is the hypotenuse of a right angled triangle, is equal in area to the sum of the area of the squares of the 2 legs.

You can read about fear, for example, to try to understand it better, but you'll never know it truer than in just feeling it. Logic just necessarily defies you a firm grasp on it.

I disagree. It's not that logic necessarily defies you a firm grasp, it's simply that logic is unsuitable for doing so. It would be like explaining colors to a blind person. Some things you just have to experience for yours. That doesn't make them any more true than anything else.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 5:34:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 5:27:52 PM, Disquisition wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:16:55 PM, muzebreak wrote:

Why do you believe this way?

Well honestly I'm not going to lie, I was born into it this belief and it has been strengthen by how faithful my mother is (being a Christian counselor)..

I appreciate your honesty. A lot of people won't admit this.


However I'm at a very defining point at my life attempting to understand why I believe in this deity. I haven't consider outright rejection, but it has been challenging to find my purpose in this world, whatever it may be.

Why haven't you considered outright rejection?


Plus after recently reading Job it seems pointless to question why he does this or why he does that.

I disagree. Questioning is never pointless, because it always results in, at the very least, experience.

Just thought I'd say; I'm not trying to badger you. And I'm not trying to convince you that your ideas are wrong. I'm just interested in why you believe the way you do.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 5:39:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 5:30:13 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:19:48 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:16:01 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:12:59 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:09:03 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:06:10 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
muzebreak, all knowledge is self-referential. The world ends with you, pretty much. And that being, every belief is essentially held on faith, besides just being.

That depends how you define faith. Since I started with the word assume, and he switched to faith, I assumed he was referring to faith in the religious sense.

Innomen's faith is really no greater a leap than your assuming evolution actually does adequately explain your existence. Again, this could all just be a dream, but you're assuming otherwise for practicality's sake. Same with the religious - they all have their peeves about their existence; they're just going in a different direction to you; and it's all down to feeling, in the end.

I don't assume evolution explains anything. As I showed you a short time ago, evolution can actually explain my existence, and it's intricacies.

Why isn't evolution just something you've dreamt up, though?

Are you speaking in a solipsistic sense? If you are, then maybe I did. But why should I care, because I can't tell the difference either way. If not, then it's because it was first conceived, in what is essentially its current state, by Charles Darwin.

I am, and of course you did. And I personally think you should care because listen to the music video I posted.

The truest knowledge is feeling.

I disagree. Abstract concepts are just as, if not more so, true. For instance, how is the feeling of happiness any more true than the fact that a square has 4 corners. Or that the square who's side is the hypotenuse of a right angled triangle, is equal in area to the sum of the area of the squares of the 2 legs.

Where did you learn of squares, muzebreak? In your own mind, right? A square is no different to happiness; in fact, anything you read is no different to happiness; but it's all feeling.

You can read about fear, for example, to try to understand it better, but you'll never know it truer than in just feeling it. Logic just necessarily defies you a firm grasp on it.

I disagree. It's not that logic necessarily defies you a firm grasp, it's simply that logic is unsuitable for doing so. It would be like explaining colors to a blind person. Some things you just have to experience for yours. That doesn't make them any more true than anything else.

And in comes assumption as regards belief. There is only IS, besides.
Disquisition
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 5:52:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 5:34:09 PM, muzebreak wrote:

I appreciate your honesty. A lot of people won't admit this.

Yep

Why haven't you considered outright rejection?

I haven't gone that far because I'm waiting for God to show me what I should do for him in this world. If I ever (which I hope I don't reach the point )were I'm tried of waiting then maybe ill consider that. But who knows what great things people could of done if they would of just kept believing, kept hoping/expecting and kept enduring in their faith to see what God had in store for them.

I disagree. Questioning is never pointless, because it always results in, at the very least, experience.

Well yes your right but questioning/demanding a reason, at the very best results in a person who is faithless and won't ever be satisfied with the way God handles a certain situation. Thus leading to agnosticism or atheism in my opinion.

Just thought I'd say; I'm not trying to badger you. And I'm not trying to convince you that your ideas are wrong. I'm just interested in why you believe the way you do.

I didn't take your inquisitiveness the wrong way np.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 6:01:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 5:39:02 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:30:13 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:19:48 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:16:01 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:12:59 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:09:03 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:06:10 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
muzebreak, all knowledge is self-referential. The world ends with you, pretty much. And that being, every belief is essentially held on faith, besides just being.

That depends how you define faith. Since I started with the word assume, and he switched to faith, I assumed he was referring to faith in the religious sense.

Innomen's faith is really no greater a leap than your assuming evolution actually does adequately explain your existence. Again, this could all just be a dream, but you're assuming otherwise for practicality's sake. Same with the religious - they all have their peeves about their existence; they're just going in a different direction to you; and it's all down to feeling, in the end.

I don't assume evolution explains anything. As I showed you a short time ago, evolution can actually explain my existence, and it's intricacies.

Why isn't evolution just something you've dreamt up, though?

Are you speaking in a solipsistic sense? If you are, then maybe I did. But why should I care, because I can't tell the difference either way. If not, then it's because it was first conceived, in what is essentially its current state, by Charles Darwin.

I am, and of course you did.

Prove it.

And I personally think you should care because listen to the music video I posted.

It's a good song, but I don't get where your trying to go. Could you clarify?


The truest knowledge is feeling.

I disagree. Abstract concepts are just as, if not more so, true. For instance, how is the feeling of happiness any more true than the fact that a square has 4 corners. Or that the square who's side is the hypotenuse of a right angled triangle, is equal in area to the sum of the area of the squares of the 2 legs.

Where did you learn of squares, muzebreak? In your own mind, right?

Nope. I first learned about a square in reality. Or, atleast, what I assume is reality.

A square is no different to happiness; in fact, anything you read is no different to happiness; but it's all feeling.

So, you classify any thought as feeling. You do realise that you might as well throw out either the word thought or feeling, because their one and the same in your dictionary. Not everyone does so. I define a feeling as anything that is not perceived in the sense of words of thoughts. For instance, I feel my fingers hitting the keys, but I didn't feel about my fingers hitting the keys to make them do so. I thought about it.


You can read about fear, for example, to try to understand it better, but you'll never know it truer than in just feeling it. Logic just necessarily defies you a firm grasp on it.

I disagree. It's not that logic necessarily defies you a firm grasp, it's simply that logic is unsuitable for doing so. It would be like explaining colors to a blind person. Some things you just have to experience for yours. That doesn't make them any more true than anything else.

And in comes assumption as regards belief. There is only IS, besides.

I have no clue what you're saying here. Where does the assumption come in? And what does "there is only IS" mean?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 6:15:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 6:01:44 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:39:02 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:30:13 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:19:48 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:16:01 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:12:59 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:09:03 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:06:10 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
muzebreak, all knowledge is self-referential. The world ends with you, pretty much. And that being, every belief is essentially held on faith, besides just being.

That depends how you define faith. Since I started with the word assume, and he switched to faith, I assumed he was referring to faith in the religious sense.

Innomen's faith is really no greater a leap than your assuming evolution actually does adequately explain your existence. Again, this could all just be a dream, but you're assuming otherwise for practicality's sake. Same with the religious - they all have their peeves about their existence; they're just going in a different direction to you; and it's all down to feeling, in the end.

I don't assume evolution explains anything. As I showed you a short time ago, evolution can actually explain my existence, and it's intricacies.

Why isn't evolution just something you've dreamt up, though?

Are you speaking in a solipsistic sense? If you are, then maybe I did. But why should I care, because I can't tell the difference either way. If not, then it's because it was first conceived, in what is essentially its current state, by Charles Darwin.

I am, and of course you did.

Prove it.

Well you didn't come to your conclusion logically, did you? Oh wait, I'm just talking about your coming to conclusions and you're on about the dreaming bit. Yeah, maybe you dreamt up evolution.

And I personally think you should care because listen to the music video I posted.

It's a good song, but I don't get where your trying to go. Could you clarify?

How people feel is pretty much the be all and end all, and then some people feel like monsters which is definitely something someone should care about, looking at things morally.


The truest knowledge is feeling.

I disagree. Abstract concepts are just as, if not more so, true. For instance, how is the feeling of happiness any more true than the fact that a square has 4 corners. Or that the square who's side is the hypotenuse of a right angled triangle, is equal in area to the sum of the area of the squares of the 2 legs.

Where did you learn of squares, muzebreak? In your own mind, right?

Nope. I first learned about a square in reality. Or, atleast, what I assume is reality.

And your learned about happiness in reality or what you assume is reality.

A square is no different to happiness; in fact, anything you read is no different to happiness; but it's all feeling.

So, you classify any thought as feeling. You do realise that you might as well throw out either the word thought or feeling, because their one and the same in your dictionary. Not everyone does so. I define a feeling as anything that is not perceived in the sense of words of thoughts. For instance, I feel my fingers hitting the keys, but I didn't feel about my fingers hitting the keys to make them do so. I thought about it.

I do consider the words pretty much synonymous actually.


You can read about fear, for example, to try to understand it better, but you'll never know it truer than in just feeling it. Logic just necessarily defies you a firm grasp on it.

I disagree. It's not that logic necessarily defies you a firm grasp, it's simply that logic is unsuitable for doing so. It would be like explaining colors to a blind person. Some things you just have to experience for yours. That doesn't make them any more true than anything else.

And in comes assumption as regards belief. There is only IS, besides.

I have no clue what you're saying here. Where does the assumption come in? And what does "there is only IS" mean?

Because if you're not coming to your conclusions logically then how are you coming to them?
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 6:23:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 6:15:20 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 8/25/2013 6:01:44 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:39:02 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:30:13 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:19:48 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:16:01 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:12:59 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:09:03 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:06:10 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
muzebreak, all knowledge is self-referential. The world ends with you, pretty much. And that being, every belief is essentially held on faith, besides just being.

That depends how you define faith. Since I started with the word assume, and he switched to faith, I assumed he was referring to faith in the religious sense.

Innomen's faith is really no greater a leap than your assuming evolution actually does adequately explain your existence. Again, this could all just be a dream, but you're assuming otherwise for practicality's sake. Same with the religious - they all have their peeves about their existence; they're just going in a different direction to you; and it's all down to feeling, in the end.

I don't assume evolution explains anything. As I showed you a short time ago, evolution can actually explain my existence, and it's intricacies.

Why isn't evolution just something you've dreamt up, though?

Are you speaking in a solipsistic sense? If you are, then maybe I did. But why should I care, because I can't tell the difference either way. If not, then it's because it was first conceived, in what is essentially its current state, by Charles Darwin.

I am, and of course you did.

Prove it.

Well you didn't come to your conclusion logically, did you? Oh wait, I'm just talking about your coming to conclusions and you're on about the dreaming bit. Yeah, maybe you dreamt up evolution.

And I personally think you should care because listen to the music video I posted.

It's a good song, but I don't get where your trying to go. Could you clarify?

How people feel is pretty much the be all and end all, and then some people feel like monsters which is definitely something someone should care about, looking at things morally.

This seems to me to be circular. You're telling me to give a crap about it because I should have feelings about it. I could care less that my brain may be in a jar. I have no real feelings about it. I once found the idea interesting, but not so much anymore.



The truest knowledge is feeling.

I disagree. Abstract concepts are just as, if not more so, true. For instance, how is the feeling of happiness any more true than the fact that a square has 4 corners. Or that the square who's side is the hypotenuse of a right angled triangle, is equal in area to the sum of the area of the squares of the 2 legs.

Where did you learn of squares, muzebreak? In your own mind, right?

Nope. I first learned about a square in reality. Or, atleast, what I assume is reality.

And your learned about happiness in reality or what you assume is reality.

Ok, let me rephrase that; I learned about squares in school.


A square is no different to happiness; in fact, anything you read is no different to happiness; but it's all feeling.

So, you classify any thought as feeling. You do realise that you might as well throw out either the word thought or feeling, because their one and the same in your dictionary. Not everyone does so. I define a feeling as anything that is not perceived in the sense of words of thoughts. For instance, I feel my fingers hitting the keys, but I didn't feel about my fingers hitting the keys to make them do so. I thought about it.

I do consider the words pretty much synonymous actually.

And I don't.



You can read about fear, for example, to try to understand it better, but you'll never know it truer than in just feeling it. Logic just necessarily defies you a firm grasp on it.

I disagree. It's not that logic necessarily defies you a firm grasp, it's simply that logic is unsuitable for doing so. It would be like explaining colors to a blind person. Some things you just have to experience for yours. That doesn't make them any more true than anything else.

And in comes assumption as regards belief. There is only IS, besides.

I have no clue what you're saying here. Where does the assumption come in? And what does "there is only IS" mean?

Because if you're not coming to your conclusions logically then how are you coming to them?

That depends what conclusions you're talking about. Name me a conclusion I came to and I'll tell you whether I came to it logically or not. For instance, in coming to the conclusion that just because I can only know something by having a personal experience of it, does not make it more true than something that can be know without such an experience. I used logic.

On the other hand, when I came to the conclusion that reality is real, I assumed it. But I came to the conclusion that I should assume it, using logic.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 6:38:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 6:23:41 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 6:15:20 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 8/25/2013 6:01:44 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:39:02 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:30:13 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:19:48 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:16:01 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:12:59 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:09:03 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:06:10 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
muzebreak, all knowledge is self-referential. The world ends with you, pretty much. And that being, every belief is essentially held on faith, besides just being.

That depends how you define faith. Since I started with the word assume, and he switched to faith, I assumed he was referring to faith in the religious sense.

Innomen's faith is really no greater a leap than your assuming evolution actually does adequately explain your existence. Again, this could all just be a dream, but you're assuming otherwise for practicality's sake. Same with the religious - they all have their peeves about their existence; they're just going in a different direction to you; and it's all down to feeling, in the end.

I don't assume evolution explains anything. As I showed you a short time ago, evolution can actually explain my existence, and it's intricacies.

Why isn't evolution just something you've dreamt up, though?

Are you speaking in a solipsistic sense? If you are, then maybe I did. But why should I care, because I can't tell the difference either way. If not, then it's because it was first conceived, in what is essentially its current state, by Charles Darwin.

I am, and of course you did.

Prove it.

Well you didn't come to your conclusion logically, did you? Oh wait, I'm just talking about your coming to conclusions and you're on about the dreaming bit. Yeah, maybe you dreamt up evolution.

And I personally think you should care because listen to the music video I posted.

It's a good song, but I don't get where your trying to go. Could you clarify?

How people feel is pretty much the be all and end all, and then some people feel like monsters which is definitely something someone should care about, looking at things morally.

This seems to me to be circular. You're telling me to give a crap about it because I should have feelings about it. I could care less that my brain may be in a jar. I have no real feelings about it. I once found the idea interesting, but not so much anymore.

I don't care that my brain might be in a jar either dude. I'm just trying to get you to realize where people's ideas are coming from. All that matters to me is what matters to me, and part of that is how other people are. And, yeah, I make some intellectual bookish attempt to understand how they are, but it just comes straight back to feeling. People are how they are because of how they feel and this is an important realization to come to.



The truest knowledge is feeling.

I disagree. Abstract concepts are just as, if not more so, true. For instance, how is the feeling of happiness any more true than the fact that a square has 4 corners. Or that the square who's side is the hypotenuse of a right angled triangle, is equal in area to the sum of the area of the squares of the 2 legs.

Where did you learn of squares, muzebreak? In your own mind, right?

Nope. I first learned about a square in reality. Or, atleast, what I assume is reality.

And your learned about happiness in reality or what you assume is reality.

Ok, let me rephrase that; I learned about squares in school.

Your brain might reside ultimately in a jar.


A square is no different to happiness; in fact, anything you read is no different to happiness; but it's all feeling.

So, you classify any thought as feeling. You do realise that you might as well throw out either the word thought or feeling, because their one and the same in your dictionary. Not everyone does so. I define a feeling as anything that is not perceived in the sense of words of thoughts. For instance, I feel my fingers hitting the keys, but I didn't feel about my fingers hitting the keys to make them do so. I thought about it.

I do consider the words pretty much synonymous actually.

And I don't.



You can read about fear, for example, to try to understand it better, but you'll never know it truer than in just feeling it. Logic just necessarily defies you a firm grasp on it.

I disagree. It's not that logic necessarily defies you a firm grasp, it's simply that logic is unsuitable for doing so. It would be like explaining colors to a blind person. Some things you just have to experience for yours. That doesn't make them any more true than anything else.

And in comes assumption as regards belief. There is only IS, besides.

I have no clue what you're saying here. Where does the assumption come in? And what does "there is only IS" mean?

Because if you're not coming to your conclusions logically then how are you coming to them?

That depends what conclusions you're talking about. Name me a conclusion I came to and I'll tell you whether I came to it logically or not. For instance, in coming to the conclusion that just because I can only know something by having a personal experience of it, does not make it more true than something that can be know without such an experience. I used logic.

On the other hand, when I came to the conclusion that reality is real, I assumed it. But I came to the conclusion that I should assume it, using logic.

I, too, have assumed reality is real, though. What I'm getting at is the why. And then once you're there, that the why is important, you have foundations upon which to build as regards everyone else who's come to different conclusions than you have. You've reconciled yourself with those people, say, which is very important.

I mean, there is no doubt that quite a lot of people deny god, for example, just for the feeling of control they're generating for themselves in doing so. And then they're never going to convince someone that their beliefs are erroneous who believes in God because they feel they have some demon inside them that needs controlling.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 7:49:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 6:38:19 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 8/25/2013 6:23:41 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 6:15:20 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 8/25/2013 6:01:44 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:39:02 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:30:13 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:19:48 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:16:01 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:12:59 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:09:03 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 8/25/2013 5:06:10 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
muzebreak, all knowledge is self-referential. The world ends with you, pretty much. And that being, every belief is essentially held on faith, besides just being.

That depends how you define faith. Since I started with the word assume, and he switched to faith, I assumed he was referring to faith in the religious sense.

Innomen's faith is really no greater a leap than your assuming evolution actually does adequately explain your existence. Again, this could all just be a dream, but you're assuming otherwise for practicality's sake. Same with the religious - they all have their peeves about their existence; they're just going in a different direction to you; and it's all down to feeling, in the end.

I don't assume evolution explains anything. As I showed you a short time ago, evolution can actually explain my existence, and it's intricacies.

Why isn't evolution just something you've dreamt up, though?

Are you speaking in a solipsistic sense? If you are, then maybe I did. But why should I care, because I can't tell the difference either way. If not, then it's because it was first conceived, in what is essentially its current state, by Charles Darwin.

I am, and of course you did.

Prove it.

Well you didn't come to your conclusion logically, did you? Oh wait, I'm just talking about your coming to conclusions and you're on about the dreaming bit. Yeah, maybe you dreamt up evolution.

And I personally think you should care because listen to the music video I posted.

It's a good song, but I don't get where your trying to go. Could you clarify?

How people feel is pretty much the be all and end all, and then some people feel like monsters which is definitely something someone should care about, looking at things morally.

This seems to me to be circular. You're telling me to give a crap about it because I should have feelings about it. I could care less that my brain may be in a jar. I have no real feelings about it. I once found the idea interesting, but not so much anymore.

I don't care that my brain might be in a jar either dude. I'm just trying to get you to realize where people's ideas are coming from. All that matters to me is what matters to me, and part of that is how other people are. And, yeah, I make some intellectual bookish attempt to understand how they are, but it just comes straight back to feeling. People are how they are because of how they feel and this is an important realization to come to.

I completely agree. In fact, I Would go so far as to state that saying that is redundant, because the concept is self evident. It's a tautology. We are what we feel, and we feel what we are.




The truest knowledge is feeling.

I disagree. Abstract concepts are just as, if not more so, true. For instance, how is the feeling of happiness any more true than the fact that a square has 4 corners. Or that the square who's side is the hypotenuse of a right angled triangle, is equal in area to the sum of the area of the squares of the 2 legs.

Where did you learn of squares, muzebreak? In your own mind, right?

Nope. I first learned about a square in reality. Or, atleast, what I assume is reality.

And your learned about happiness in reality or what you assume is reality.

Ok, let me rephrase that; I learned about squares in school.

Your brain might reside ultimately in a jar.

Are you questioning the concept of a square? If not, then I'd appreciate a clarification.



A square is no different to happiness; in fact, anything you read is no different to happiness; but it's all feeling.

So, you classify any thought as feeling. You do realise that you might as well throw out either the word thought or feeling, because their one and the same in your dictionary. Not everyone does so. I define a feeling as anything that is not perceived in the sense of words of thoughts. For instance, I feel my fingers hitting the keys, but I didn't feel about my fingers hitting the keys to make them do so. I thought about it.

I do consider the words pretty much synonymous actually.

And I don't.



You can read about fear, for example, to try to understand it better, but you'll never know it truer than in just feeling it. Logic just necessarily defies you a firm grasp on it.

I disagree. It's not that logic necessarily defies you a firm grasp, it's simply that logic is unsuitable for doing so. It would be like explaining colors to a blind person. Some things you just have to experience for yours. That doesn't make them any more true than anything else.

And in comes assumption as regards belief. There is only IS, besides.

I have no clue what you're saying here. Where does the assumption come in? And what does "there is only IS" mean?

Because if you're not coming to your conclusions logically then how are you coming to them?

That depends what conclusions you're talking about. Name me a conclusion I came to and I'll tell you whether I came to it logically or not. For instance, in coming to the conclusion that just because I can only know something by having a personal experience of it, does not make it more true than something that can be know without such an experience. I used logic.

On the other hand, when I came to the conclusion that reality is real, I assumed it. But I came to the conclusion that I should assume it, using logic.

I, too, have assumed reality is real, though. What I'm getting at is the why. And then once you're there, that the why is important, you have foundations upon which to build as regards everyone else who's come to different conclusions than you have. You've reconciled yourself with those people, say, which is very important.

It appears to me as though you've made some syntactic errors. Could you clean that up please, because I currently only understand the first two sentences.


I mean, there is no doubt that quite a lot of people deny god, for example, just for the feeling of control they're generating for themselves in doing so.

There is a doubt. I see no good reason to believe that. It may very well be true, but there's no reason to believe it is.

And then they're never going to convince someone that their beliefs are erroneous who believes in God because they feel they have some demon inside them that needs controlling.

Again, syntactic errors. I'm really not trying to be a dick, but it wouldn't kill you to proof read.

I think you're saying that a person who doesn't believe in god, because they believe it gives them more control, would be unable to convince some who does believe in god, that their ideas are untrue. I disagree with that. It doesn't matter how you came to a conclusion, your ad hoc justifications for that conclusion
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 8:21:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Sorry, but this is getting messy :P

I completely agree. In fact, I Would go so far as to state that saying that is redundant, because the concept is self evident. It's a tautology. We are what we feel, and we feel what we are.

Yeah, we seem to be somewhat aligned all right.

Are you questioning the concept of a square? If not, then I'd appreciate a clarification.

No, just your conception of where you've perceived the square, and only to stress the importance of feeling.

It appears to me as though you've made some syntactic errors. Could you clean that up please, because I currently only understand the first two sentences.

There is a doubt. I see no good reason to believe that. It may very well be true, but there's no reason to believe it is.

I rather firmly believe it is true to be honest. I've created two threads about it, both under the title of "Atheism, A Personal Issue;" one in personal, one in religion, but I think there's a lot more to be learned as regards your qualm here in the one in personal and the references it makes.

I think you're saying that a person who doesn't believe in god, because they believe it gives them more control, would be unable to convince some who does believe in god, that their ideas are untrue. I disagree with that. It doesn't matter how you came to a conclusion, your ad hoc justifications for that conclusion

That is what I'm saying and then it comes back to your making assumptions and why it's important to realize you're making them. A person feels as if there is no god, whether you want to believe that or not - logic doesn't get you there. And then consider the feelings in either case, logic thrown aside and necessarily less important than feeling. They're not reconcilable.

I mean, if you've ever read an argument on evolution, many will just straight reject it because what does that leave humanity they cry. And then you have the evolutionist on the other side just spouting fossil records and such, never touching on that sentiment and thus never moving the person an inch. Most likely the debate will end in the evolutionist calling the theist a retard to feel as though he's in control, the theist perturbed by the whole experience and probably more ardently theist than before the debate.

I think stressing agnosticism is very important so as to establish a foundation that both might share and build upon during such debates. Appeal to practicality as the evolutionist, but not nothingness.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 12:29:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I assume wherever the assumption makes understanding the world simpler and not assuming has no apparent value.

For example, I assume that other people experience pretty much the same world that I do, with some minor differences because if they didn't there would be very little common ground on which to stand.

I assume that everything that matters is observable in some way, because assuming the contrary would lead me to ask questions that I can never answer.

I assume that my feelings are important, not because I am specially significant but because I don't have much else to go on.