Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abstract vs. Concrete

perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 7:38:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Is it logical to expect ones abstract personal interpretation of the definition of God that resonates with them to be understood objectively?

Conversely, is it logical to expect ones empirical experience when dealing with concrete evidence for claims about something that is objectively understood to be the same for everyone.
like saying: lets meet at such and such place at such and such time
or, i really love big boobs...granted "big" is a subjective understanding, but that's not really the point...you knew exactly what I meant when i said boobs...

so with all that said, is it then logical to expect ones abstract personal interpretation of the definition of God that resonates with them to be understood objectively?
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 7:53:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't know what you mean by "understood objectively" or "abstract personal interpretation."
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 7:59:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 7:53:46 PM, philochristos wrote:
I don't know what you mean by "understood objectively" or "abstract personal interpretation."

i gave you some examples...
we understand when we say lets meet at such and such place at such and such time...
both the abstract concepts of place and time are understood objectively...
not so with god....as the idea of god is an abstract personal interpretation of what that world means...some call god powerful, love, mean, capricious, hateful, vengeful, vindictive, compassionate....all these interpretations come form where?
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 8:04:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I am perplexed.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 8:15:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 7:38:00 PM, perplexed wrote:
Is it logical to expect ones abstract personal interpretation of the definition of God that resonates with them to be understood objectively?

Conversely, is it logical to expect ones empirical experience when dealing with concrete evidence for claims about something that is objectively understood to be the same for everyone.
like saying: lets meet at such and such place at such and such time
or, i really love big boobs...granted "big" is a subjective understanding, but that's not really the point...you knew exactly what I meant when i said boobs...

so with all that said, is it then logical to expect ones abstract personal interpretation of the definition of God that resonates with them to be understood objectively?

A very good question, actually. I've always said that if there are a million believers then that equals a million personal relationships, no two of which will ever be alike. I doubt if any of the people who know me see or describe me in the same fashion.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 8:16:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 8:04:50 PM, philochristos wrote:
I am perplexed.

i'm sorry
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 8:31:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 8:15:15 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 7:38:00 PM, perplexed wrote:
Is it logical to expect ones abstract personal interpretation of the definition of God that resonates with them to be understood objectively?

Conversely, is it logical to expect ones empirical experience when dealing with concrete evidence for claims about something that is objectively understood to be the same for everyone.
like saying: lets meet at such and such place at such and such time
or, i really love big boobs...granted "big" is a subjective understanding, but that's not really the point...you knew exactly what I meant when i said boobs...

so with all that said, is it then logical to expect ones abstract personal interpretation of the definition of God that resonates with them to be understood objectively?

A very good question, actually. I've always said that if there are a million believers then that equals a million personal relationships, no two of which will ever be alike. I doubt if any of the people who know me see or describe me in the same fashion.

with regards to your attributes?
do they know you as a man, single, married
do they know you as a father, do they know what you do for a living
do they know where you live, your hobbies, your opinions about obama, health care
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 8:42:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 8:31:00 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:15:15 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 7:38:00 PM, perplexed wrote:
Is it logical to expect ones abstract personal interpretation of the definition of God that resonates with them to be understood objectively?

Conversely, is it logical to expect ones empirical experience when dealing with concrete evidence for claims about something that is objectively understood to be the same for everyone.
like saying: lets meet at such and such place at such and such time
or, i really love big boobs...granted "big" is a subjective understanding, but that's not really the point...you knew exactly what I meant when i said boobs...

so with all that said, is it then logical to expect ones abstract personal interpretation of the definition of God that resonates with them to be understood objectively?

A very good question, actually. I've always said that if there are a million believers then that equals a million personal relationships, no two of which will ever be alike. I doubt if any of the people who know me see or describe me in the same fashion.

with regards to your attributes?
do they know you as a man, single, married
do they know you as a father, do they know what you do for a living
do they know where you live, your hobbies, your opinions about obama, health care

They each know certain of my characteristics, some of which stand-out more than others in their own minds. Some know me better than others. Some know where I live, some don't. Each knows a few of my hobbies, no one knows them all. You would be very hard-stretched to find anyone who knows my true feelings about Obama. I'm not much of a fan of the Bible, but it's funny that even it it God tells Moses that "I am that I am." He openly states that Moses can't really know him. And yet people try, because it's the nature of people to be curious. The real wonder would be if they came-up with the same characteristics.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 9:02:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 8:42:42 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:31:00 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:15:15 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 7:38:00 PM, perplexed wrote:
Is it logical to expect ones abstract personal interpretation of the definition of God that resonates with them to be understood objectively?

Conversely, is it logical to expect ones empirical experience when dealing with concrete evidence for claims about something that is objectively understood to be the same for everyone.
like saying: lets meet at such and such place at such and such time
or, i really love big boobs...granted "big" is a subjective understanding, but that's not really the point...you knew exactly what I meant when i said boobs...

so with all that said, is it then logical to expect ones abstract personal interpretation of the definition of God that resonates with them to be understood objectively?

A very good question, actually. I've always said that if there are a million believers then that equals a million personal relationships, no two of which will ever be alike. I doubt if any of the people who know me see or describe me in the same fashion.

with regards to your attributes?
do they know you as a man, single, married
do they know you as a father, do they know what you do for a living
do they know where you live, your hobbies, your opinions about obama, health care

: They each know certain of my characteristics, some of which stand-out more than others in their own minds. Some know me better than others. Some know where I live, some don't. Each knows a few of my hobbies, no one knows them all. You would be very hard-stretched to find anyone who knows my true feelings about Obama.

because they empirically experienced you...the same cannot be said about the abstract
notions of ones opinion of what god is, or rather what they think god should be.

The real wonder would be if they came-up with the same characteristics.

now that would be something...something that has yet to happen
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 9:09:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 8:16:54 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:04:50 PM, philochristos wrote:
I am perplexed.

i'm sorry

Well, if I'm perplexed, and you're sorry, then who is philochristos?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 9:20:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 9:09:27 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:16:54 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:04:50 PM, philochristos wrote:
I am perplexed.

i'm sorry

Well, if I'm perplexed, and you're sorry, then who is philochristos?

lost.
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 9:21:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 9:02:15 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:42:42 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:31:00 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:15:15 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 7:38:00 PM, perplexed wrote:
Is it logical to expect ones abstract personal interpretation of the definition of God that resonates with them to be understood objectively?

Conversely, is it logical to expect ones empirical experience when dealing with concrete evidence for claims about something that is objectively understood to be the same for everyone.
like saying: lets meet at such and such place at such and such time
or, i really love big boobs...granted "big" is a subjective understanding, but that's not really the point...you knew exactly what I meant when i said boobs...

so with all that said, is it then logical to expect ones abstract personal interpretation of the definition of God that resonates with them to be understood objectively?

A very good question, actually. I've always said that if there are a million believers then that equals a million personal relationships, no two of which will ever be alike. I doubt if any of the people who know me see or describe me in the same fashion.

with regards to your attributes?
do they know you as a man, single, married
do they know you as a father, do they know what you do for a living
do they know where you live, your hobbies, your opinions about obama, health care

: They each know certain of my characteristics, some of which stand-out more than others in their own minds. Some know me better than others. Some know where I live, some don't. Each knows a few of my hobbies, no one knows them all. You would be very hard-stretched to find anyone who knows my true feelings about Obama.

because they empirically experienced you...the same cannot be said about the abstract
notions of ones opinion of what god is, or rather what they think god should be.

The real wonder would be if they came-up with the same characteristics.

now that would be something...something that has yet to happen

Yes, it can. I have empirically experienced every single thing which leads me to believe in a higher intelligence. I can make inferences about this being based on what he/she has created, along with my own personal experiences and insights.

No, it hasn't been done yet. Does that mean that I don't exist? Are you writing to a ghost?
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 9:29:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 9:21:32 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 9:02:15 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:42:42 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:31:00 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:15:15 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 7:38:00 PM, perplexed wrote:
Is it logical to expect ones abstract personal interpretation of the definition of God that resonates with them to be understood objectively?

Conversely, is it logical to expect ones empirical experience when dealing with concrete evidence for claims about something that is objectively understood to be the same for everyone.
like saying: lets meet at such and such place at such and such time
or, i really love big boobs...granted "big" is a subjective understanding, but that's not really the point...you knew exactly what I meant when i said boobs...

so with all that said, is it then logical to expect ones abstract personal interpretation of the definition of God that resonates with them to be understood objectively?

A very good question, actually. I've always said that if there are a million believers then that equals a million personal relationships, no two of which will ever be alike. I doubt if any of the people who know me see or describe me in the same fashion.

with regards to your attributes?
do they know you as a man, single, married
do they know you as a father, do they know what you do for a living
do they know where you live, your hobbies, your opinions about obama, health care

: They each know certain of my characteristics, some of which stand-out more than others in their own minds. Some know me better than others. Some know where I live, some don't. Each knows a few of my hobbies, no one knows them all. You would be very hard-stretched to find anyone who knows my true feelings about Obama.

because they empirically experienced you...the same cannot be said about the abstract
notions of ones opinion of what god is, or rather what they think god should be.

The real wonder would be if they came-up with the same characteristics.

now that would be something...something that has yet to happen

Yes, it can. I have empirically experienced every single thing which leads me to believe in a higher intelligence. I can make inferences about this being based on what he/she has created, along with my own personal experiences and insights.

No, it hasn't been done yet. Does that mean that I don't exist? Are you writing to a ghost?

nope...you see what you think is meaningful "I have empirically experienced every single thing which leads me to believe in a higher intelligence" in the abstract doesn't give meaning to me which doesn't make it empirical, it makes it subjective...and to expect that i give it the same meaning presents it's problems for obvious reasons..BECAUSE it isn't an empirical experience....in other words what you observe, doesn't mean what i observe was the same thing

but that's IF we agree on the definition of empirical:
"verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic"
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 9:43:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 9:29:32 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 9:21:32 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 9:02:15 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:42:42 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:31:00 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:15:15 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 7:38:00 PM, perplexed wrote:
Is it logical to expect ones abstract personal interpretation of the definition of God that resonates with them to be understood objectively?

Conversely, is it logical to expect ones empirical experience when dealing with concrete evidence for claims about something that is objectively understood to be the same for everyone.
like saying: lets meet at such and such place at such and such time
or, i really love big boobs...granted "big" is a subjective understanding, but that's not really the point...you knew exactly what I meant when i said boobs...

so with all that said, is it then logical to expect ones abstract personal interpretation of the definition of God that resonates with them to be understood objectively?

A very good question, actually. I've always said that if there are a million believers then that equals a million personal relationships, no two of which will ever be alike. I doubt if any of the people who know me see or describe me in the same fashion.

with regards to your attributes?
do they know you as a man, single, married
do they know you as a father, do they know what you do for a living
do they know where you live, your hobbies, your opinions about obama, health care

: They each know certain of my characteristics, some of which stand-out more than others in their own minds. Some know me better than others. Some know where I live, some don't. Each knows a few of my hobbies, no one knows them all. You would be very hard-stretched to find anyone who knows my true feelings about Obama.

because they empirically experienced you...the same cannot be said about the abstract
notions of ones opinion of what god is, or rather what they think god should be.

The real wonder would be if they came-up with the same characteristics.

now that would be something...something that has yet to happen

Yes, it can. I have empirically experienced every single thing which leads me to believe in a higher intelligence. I can make inferences about this being based on what he/she has created, along with my own personal experiences and insights.

No, it hasn't been done yet. Does that mean that I don't exist? Are you writing to a ghost?

nope...you see what you think is meaningful "I have empirically experienced every single thing which leads me to believe in a higher intelligence" in the abstract doesn't give meaning to me which doesn't make it empirical, it makes it subjective...and to expect that i give it the same meaning presents it's problems for obvious reasons..BECAUSE it isn't an empirical experience....in other words what you observe, doesn't mean what i observe was the same thing

Every number is an abstract thing, and yet you do not hesitate to accept scientific theories based entirely on mathematical models. In every interaction between a person and thing, although the thing may be objective, the person remains subjective. It is very obvious what we both observe are necessarily different things. I've said this from the very beginning.

but that's IF we agree on the definition of empirical:
"verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic"

I think that is a good definition. Certainly my beliefs are based upon what I have seen and experienced in this lifetime, as are the true beliefs of everyone. You don't see it, do you? I'm not attempting to push my beliefs upon you - it is you who is trying to push your own interpretations upon me. I am perfectly happy to discuss our differences. In the end my relationship with the world is mine, and mine alone. I neither expect anyone else to accept anything based solely on my words or to believe anything which they don't reach by their own thoughts and perceptions. All I ever ask of anyone is equal conversation.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 10:18:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 9:43:30 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 9:29:32 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 9:21:32 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 9:02:15 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:42:42 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:31:00 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:15:15 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 7:38:00 PM, perplexed wrote:
Is it logical to expect ones abstract personal interpretation of the definition of God that resonates with them to be understood objectively?

Conversely, is it logical to expect ones empirical experience when dealing with concrete evidence for claims about something that is objectively understood to be the same for everyone.
like saying: lets meet at such and such place at such and such time
or, i really love big boobs...granted "big" is a subjective understanding, but that's not really the point...you knew exactly what I meant when i said boobs...

so with all that said, is it then logical to expect ones abstract personal interpretation of the definition of God that resonates with them to be understood objectively?

A very good question, actually. I've always said that if there are a million believers then that equals a million personal relationships, no two of which will ever be alike. I doubt if any of the people who know me see or describe me in the same fashion.

with regards to your attributes?
do they know you as a man, single, married
do they know you as a father, do they know what you do for a living
do they know where you live, your hobbies, your opinions about obama, health care

: They each know certain of my characteristics, some of which stand-out more than others in their own minds. Some know me better than others. Some know where I live, some don't. Each knows a few of my hobbies, no one knows them all. You would be very hard-stretched to find anyone who knows my true feelings about Obama.

because they empirically experienced you...the same cannot be said about the abstract
notions of ones opinion of what god is, or rather what they think god should be.

The real wonder would be if they came-up with the same characteristics.

now that would be something...something that has yet to happen

Yes, it can. I have empirically experienced every single thing which leads me to believe in a higher intelligence. I can make inferences about this being based on what he/she has created, along with my own personal experiences and insights.

No, it hasn't been done yet. Does that mean that I don't exist? Are you writing to a ghost?

nope...you see what you think is meaningful "I have empirically experienced every single thing which leads me to believe in a higher intelligence" in the abstract doesn't give meaning to me which doesn't make it empirical, it makes it subjective...and to expect that i give it the same meaning presents it's problems for obvious reasons..BECAUSE it isn't an empirical experience....in other words what you observe, doesn't mean what i observe was the same thing

Every number is an abstract thing, and yet you do not hesitate to accept scientific theories based entirely on mathematical models. In every interaction between a person and thing, although the thing may be objective, the person remains subjective. It is very obvious what we both observe are necessarily different things. I've said this from the very beginning.

but that's IF we agree on the definition of empirical:
"verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic"

I think that is a good definition. Certainly my beliefs are based upon what I have seen and experienced in this lifetime, as are the true beliefs of everyone. You don't see it, do you?
no i don't see what you see in your subjective experience, why would you think i could?

I'm not attempting to push my beliefs upon you - it is you who is trying to push your own interpretations upon me.
not at all...i am explaining why i don't see what you see.

I am perfectly happy to discuss our differences. In the end my relationship with the world is mine, and mine alone. I neither expect anyone else to accept anything based solely on my words or to believe anything which they don't reach by their own thoughts and perceptions. All I ever ask of anyone is equal conversation.

so why do you expect me to see what you see?
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 1:15:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 9:29:32 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 9:21:32 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 9:02:15 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:42:42 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:31:00 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:15:15 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 7:38:00 PM, perplexed wrote:
Is it logical to expect ones abstract personal interpretation of the definition of God that resonates with them to be understood objectively?

Conversely, is it logical to expect ones empirical experience when dealing with concrete evidence for claims about something that is objectively understood to be the same for everyone.
like saying: lets meet at such and such place at such and such time
or, i really love big boobs...granted "big" is a subjective understanding, but that's not really the point...you knew exactly what I meant when i said boobs...

so with all that said, is it then logical to expect ones abstract personal interpretation of the definition of God that resonates with them to be understood objectively?

A very good question, actually. I've always said that if there are a million believers then that equals a million personal relationships, no two of which will ever be alike. I doubt if any of the people who know me see or describe me in the same fashion.

with regards to your attributes?
do they know you as a man, single, married
do they know you as a father, do they know what you do for a living
do they know where you live, your hobbies, your opinions about obama, health care

: They each know certain of my characteristics, some of which stand-out more than others in their own minds. Some know me better than others. Some know where I live, some don't. Each knows a few of my hobbies, no one knows them all. You would be very hard-stretched to find anyone who knows my true feelings about Obama.

because they empirically experienced you...the same cannot be said about the abstract
notions of ones opinion of what god is, or rather what they think god should be.

The real wonder would be if they came-up with the same characteristics.

now that would be something...something that has yet to happen

Yes, it can. I have empirically experienced every single thing which leads me to believe in a higher intelligence. I can make inferences about this being based on what he/she has created, along with my own personal experiences and insights.

No, it hasn't been done yet. Does that mean that I don't exist? Are you writing to a ghost?

nope...you see what you think is meaningful "I have empirically experienced every single thing which leads me to believe in a higher intelligence" in the abstract doesn't give meaning to me which doesn't make it empirical, it makes it subjective...and to expect that i give it the same meaning presents it's problems for obvious reasons..BECAUSE it isn't an empirical experience....in other words what you observe, doesn't mean what i observe was the same thing

but that's IF we agree on the definition of empirical:
"verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic"

Again . . . the point here being that it's MY life, and I decide how to define my own experiences and observations in it. I made quite clear that I wasn't attempting to alter YOUR beliefs, so you have no right to object to how I decide the criteria, just as I have no right to object to your interpretations. It's not my job to tell you how to live your life, and it's not your job to tell me how to live mine. We all decide many times a day how we will interpreted data and events with more than one possible interpretation. Have you never seen two people argue over the color of water, or just a wall - whether it's bluish-green or greenish-blue? As I've said many times before, I see evidence of some type of design in most things around me. If you don't see it then live your life accordingly.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 1:21:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 10:18:35 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 9:43:30 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 9:29:32 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 9:21:32 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 9:02:15 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:42:42 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:31:00 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:15:15 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 7:38:00 PM, perplexed wrote:
Is it logical to expect ones abstract personal interpretation of the definition of God that resonates with them to be understood objectively?

Conversely, is it logical to expect ones empirical experience when dealing with concrete evidence for claims about something that is objectively understood to be the same for everyone.
like saying: lets meet at such and such place at such and such time
or, i really love big boobs...granted "big" is a subjective understanding, but that's not really the point...you knew exactly what I meant when i said boobs...

so with all that said, is it then logical to expect ones abstract personal interpretation of the definition of God that resonates with them to be understood objectively?

A very good question, actually. I've always said that if there are a million believers then that equals a million personal relationships, no two of which will ever be alike. I doubt if any of the people who know me see or describe me in the same fashion.

with regards to your attributes?
do they know you as a man, single, married
do they know you as a father, do they know what you do for a living
do they know where you live, your hobbies, your opinions about obama, health care

: They each know certain of my characteristics, some of which stand-out more than others in their own minds. Some know me better than others. Some know where I live, some don't. Each knows a few of my hobbies, no one knows them all. You would be very hard-stretched to find anyone who knows my true feelings about Obama.

because they empirically experienced you...the same cannot be said about the abstract
notions of ones opinion of what god is, or rather what they think god should be.

The real wonder would be if they came-up with the same characteristics.

now that would be something...something that has yet to happen

Yes, it can. I have empirically experienced every single thing which leads me to believe in a higher intelligence. I can make inferences about this being based on what he/she has created, along with my own personal experiences and insights.

No, it hasn't been done yet. Does that mean that I don't exist? Are you writing to a ghost?

nope...you see what you think is meaningful "I have empirically experienced every single thing which leads me to believe in a higher intelligence" in the abstract doesn't give meaning to me which doesn't make it empirical, it makes it subjective...and to expect that i give it the same meaning presents it's problems for obvious reasons..BECAUSE it isn't an empirical experience....in other words what you observe, doesn't mean what i observe was the same thing

Every number is an abstract thing, and yet you do not hesitate to accept scientific theories based entirely on mathematical models. In every interaction between a person and thing, although the thing may be objective, the person remains subjective. It is very obvious what we both observe are necessarily different things. I've said this from the very beginning.

but that's IF we agree on the definition of empirical:
"verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic"

I think that is a good definition. Certainly my beliefs are based upon what I have seen and experienced in this lifetime, as are the true beliefs of everyone. You don't see it, do you?
no i don't see what you see in your subjective experience, why would you think i could?


I'm not attempting to push my beliefs upon you - it is you who is trying to push your own interpretations upon me.
not at all...i am explaining why i don't see what you see.

I am perfectly happy to discuss our differences. In the end my relationship with the world is mine, and mine alone. I neither expect anyone else to accept anything based solely on my words or to believe anything which they don't reach by their own thoughts and perceptions. All I ever ask of anyone is equal conversation.

so why do you expect me to see what you see?

Now we're talking! Two people should be able to discuss their views of the world without it becoming argumentative. I've had a million experiences that you have lacked, and vice-versa. How could we possibly be the same? What I would like to do is to talk about the real reasoning that goes behind the decision to believe in God or not, thus hopefully dispelling at least the more commonly childish claims that "each side" makes. I want to understand the debate itself, not win it.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 8:09:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 1:21:48 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 10:18:35 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 9:43:30 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 9:29:32 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 9:21:32 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 9:02:15 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:42:42 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:31:00 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:15:15 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 7:38:00 PM, perplexed wrote:
Is it logical to expect ones abstract personal interpretation of the definition of God that resonates with them to be understood objectively?

Conversely, is it logical to expect ones empirical experience when dealing with concrete evidence for claims about something that is objectively understood to be the same for everyone.
like saying: lets meet at such and such place at such and such time
or, i really love big boobs...granted "big" is a subjective understanding, but that's not really the point...you knew exactly what I meant when i said boobs...

so with all that said, is it then logical to expect ones abstract personal interpretation of the definition of God that resonates with them to be understood objectively?

A very good question, actually. I've always said that if there are a million believers then that equals a million personal relationships, no two of which will ever be alike. I doubt if any of the people who know me see or describe me in the same fashion.

with regards to your attributes?
do they know you as a man, single, married
do they know you as a father, do they know what you do for a living
do they know where you live, your hobbies, your opinions about obama, health care

: They each know certain of my characteristics, some of which stand-out more than others in their own minds. Some know me better than others. Some know where I live, some don't. Each knows a few of my hobbies, no one knows them all. You would be very hard-stretched to find anyone who knows my true feelings about Obama.

because they empirically experienced you...the same cannot be said about the abstract
notions of ones opinion of what god is, or rather what they think god should be.

The real wonder would be if they came-up with the same characteristics.

now that would be something...something that has yet to happen

Yes, it can. I have empirically experienced every single thing which leads me to believe in a higher intelligence. I can make inferences about this being based on what he/she has created, along with my own personal experiences and insights.

No, it hasn't been done yet. Does that mean that I don't exist? Are you writing to a ghost?

nope...you see what you think is meaningful "I have empirically experienced every single thing which leads me to believe in a higher intelligence" in the abstract doesn't give meaning to me which doesn't make it empirical, it makes it subjective...and to expect that i give it the same meaning presents it's problems for obvious reasons..BECAUSE it isn't an empirical experience....in other words what you observe, doesn't mean what i observe was the same thing

Every number is an abstract thing, and yet you do not hesitate to accept scientific theories based entirely on mathematical models. In every interaction between a person and thing, although the thing may be objective, the person remains subjective. It is very obvious what we both observe are necessarily different things. I've said this from the very beginning.

but that's IF we agree on the definition of empirical:
"verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic"

I think that is a good definition. Certainly my beliefs are based upon what I have seen and experienced in this lifetime, as are the true beliefs of everyone. You don't see it, do you?
no i don't see what you see in your subjective experience, why would you think i could?


I'm not attempting to push my beliefs upon you - it is you who is trying to push your own interpretations upon me.
not at all...i am explaining why i don't see what you see.

I am perfectly happy to discuss our differences. In the end my relationship with the world is mine, and mine alone. I neither expect anyone else to accept anything based solely on my words or to believe anything which they don't reach by their own thoughts and perceptions. All I ever ask of anyone is equal conversation.

so why do you expect me to see what you see?

Now we're talking! Two people should be able to discuss their views of the world without it becoming argumentative. I've had a million experiences that you have lacked, and vice-versa. How could we possibly be the same? What I would like to do is to talk about the real reasoning that goes behind the decision to believe in God or not, thus hopefully dispelling at least the more commonly childish claims that "each side" makes. I want to understand the debate itself, not win it.

ok...
The fear of death maybe one reason, it is a certainty. In other words there is certainty in our uncertainty, we are not very secure knowing for certain death will eventually be something to experience. Some accept the uncertainty and others don't
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 8:33:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 1:15:23 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 9:29:32 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 9:21:32 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 9:02:15 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:42:42 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:31:00 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/3/2014 8:15:15 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/3/2014 7:38:00 PM, perplexed wrote:
Is it logical to expect ones abstract personal interpretation of the definition of God that resonates with them to be understood objectively?

Conversely, is it logical to expect ones empirical experience when dealing with concrete evidence for claims about something that is objectively understood to be the same for everyone.
like saying: lets meet at such and such place at such and such time
or, i really love big boobs...granted "big" is a subjective understanding, but that's not really the point...you knew exactly what I meant when i said boobs...

so with all that said, is it then logical to expect ones abstract personal interpretation of the definition of God that resonates with them to be understood objectively?

A very good question, actually. I've always said that if there are a million believers then that equals a million personal relationships, no two of which will ever be alike. I doubt if any of the people who know me see or describe me in the same fashion.

with regards to your attributes?
do they know you as a man, single, married
do they know you as a father, do they know what you do for a living
do they know where you live, your hobbies, your opinions about obama, health care

: They each know certain of my characteristics, some of which stand-out more than others in their own minds. Some know me better than others. Some know where I live, some don't. Each knows a few of my hobbies, no one knows them all. You would be very hard-stretched to find anyone who knows my true feelings about Obama.

because they empirically experienced you...the same cannot be said about the abstract
notions of ones opinion of what god is, or rather what they think god should be.

The real wonder would be if they came-up with the same characteristics.

now that would be something...something that has yet to happen

Yes, it can. I have empirically experienced every single thing which leads me to believe in a higher intelligence. I can make inferences about this being based on what he/she has created, along with my own personal experiences and insights.

No, it hasn't been done yet. Does that mean that I don't exist? Are you writing to a ghost?

nope...you see what you think is meaningful "I have empirically experienced every single thing which leads me to believe in a higher intelligence" in the abstract doesn't give meaning to me which doesn't make it empirical, it makes it subjective...and to expect that i give it the same meaning presents it's problems for obvious reasons..BECAUSE it isn't an empirical experience....in other words what you observe, doesn't mean what i observe was the same thing

but that's IF we agree on the definition of empirical:
"verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic"

Again . . . the point here being that it's MY life, and I decide how to define my own experiences and observations in it.

i don't see how you could if it were an empirical experience.

I made quite clear that I wasn't attempting to alter YOUR beliefs, so you have no right to object to how I decide the criteria, just as I have no right to object to your interpretations.
yes i do.
i'll put it like this, you have every right to question me why I won't call a cat a cat...
a cat fulfills the criteria of what makes a cat a cat and we HAVE to agree it is a cat in order to communicate about the cat. that is the problem; communication. we are able to communicate on a level that has to do with empirical experiences we cannot communicate on a level of subjective understanding of our surroundings.
we can communicate on an emotional level, an empirical experience
but in the abstract, subjective understanding, ideas that hold true are ideas that are empirically understood. which is a reason the appeal to popularity is often used as an argument to justify ones belief in god...but one thing that we need to consider when using that appeal, indoctrination.

It's not my job to tell you how to live your life, and it's not your job to tell me how to live mine.
i'm not telling you how to live you life, i am merely questioning why you expect for me to believe as you do when it comes to the abstract that us understood subjectively.

We all decide many times a day how we will interpreted data and events with more than one possible interpretation.
that isn't necessarily true. if i say lets meet at such and such time at such in such place...we each understand the space and time that was agreed upon because theses things were experienced empirically.

Have you never seen two people argue over the color of water,
that would be a perfect example of what god is.

As I've said many times before, I see evidence of some type of design in most things around me. If you don't see it then live your life accordingly.
you see, i see a big problem with that.
your evidence isn't empirically understood. and we both know inside this backpack of notions about god would include the notion one KNOWS or is REPRESENTING this encompassing authority which would justify unwarranted bigotry...and it would appear to be terribly convenient for the one who carries that backpack to claim their bigotry is justified.
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 7:00:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 7:38:00 PM, perplexed wrote:
Is it logical to expect ones abstract personal interpretation of the definition of God that resonates with them to be understood objectively?

Sure, why not? What is so hard about being objective when someone explains a personal experience whether it be with God, their mother or father, a sibling or a friend. It is merely a personal interpretation.


Conversely, is it logical to expect ones empirical experience when dealing with concrete evidence for claims about something that is objectively understood to be the same for everyone.

Logical, Concrete evidence, empirical experiences if that is even a possible unit of measurement... Why would you want to do this? Since when, in the history of man kind can one's experience be scientific measured and observed. Science does not dwell in the consciousness of an individual. It never has and it likely never will.

like saying: lets meet at such and such place at such and such time
or, i really love big boobs...granted "big" is a subjective understanding, but that's not really the point...you knew exactly what I meant when i said boobs...

so with all that said, is it then logical to expect ones abstract personal interpretation of the definition of God that resonates with them to be understood objectively?

Yes, your understanding will be an objective one or a subjective one. Is there another option? I could go into a whole diatribe about this but will simply conclude my response by saying this. God is not something you can measure with a yardstick, it is not something you can weigh with a scale or observe in a microscope to gain any meaning full understanding. This is what science is for. I do not encourage you to invest your time in looking for a scientific, logical understanding of God. These tools are used to define the nature and laws of the universe. They will not help you understand the events and reasons for the universe. Just as physics will explain how a jet engine works, not why it exists and what it is used for.

Having a true understanding of God should not be driven by ego or pride. Nor should your understanding of God be driven by culture or society. It needs to be driven by the emotional understanding of your conscious awareness of your environment, the individual's nature and the harmony this individual has within a society of people. Science will never give you these answers, nor does the scientific community hardly even concern themselves with the issue professionally.

I do enjoy reading your threads :) You seem to be in search of something you have not yet found. Good luck in your journey.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 7:54:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 7:00:29 PM, SemperVI wrote:
At 4/3/2014 7:38:00 PM, perplexed wrote:
Is it logical to expect ones abstract personal interpretation of the definition of God that resonates with them to be understood objectively?

Sure, why not? What is so hard about being objective when someone explains a personal experience whether it be with God, their mother or father, a sibling or a friend. It is merely a personal interpretation.


Conversely, is it logical to expect ones empirical experience when dealing with concrete evidence for claims about something that is objectively understood to be the same for everyone.

Logical, Concrete evidence, empirical experiences if that is even a possible unit of measurement... Why would you want to do this? Since when, in the history of man kind can one's experience be scientific measured and observed. Science does not dwell in the consciousness of an individual. It never has and it likely never will.

like saying: lets meet at such and such place at such and such time
or, i really love big boobs...granted "big" is a subjective understanding, but that's not really the point...you knew exactly what I meant when i said boobs...

so with all that said, is it then logical to expect ones abstract personal interpretation of the definition of God that resonates with them to be understood objectively?

: Yes, your understanding will be an objective one or a subjective one. Is there another option? I could go into a whole diatribe about this but will simply conclude my response by saying this. God is not something you can measure with a yardstick, it is not something you can weigh with a scale or observe in a microscope to gain any meaning full understanding.

precisely...i just wonder why the idea of god is meaningful in anyway, since it's pretty much as meaningful as ones musical taste...there is no standard to measure anything like that as well

This is what science is for. I do not encourage you to invest your time in looking for a scientific, logical understanding of God. These tools are used to define the nature and laws of the universe. They will not help you understand the events and reasons for the universe. Just as physics will explain how a jet engine works, not why it exists and what it is used for.

but why the appeal to god in the first place?

Having a true understanding of God should not be driven by ego or pride

says who, since you don't have a standard to measure god with, how did you arrive to this conclusion?

. Nor should your understanding of God be driven by culture or society.

agreed

It needs to be driven by the emotional understanding of your conscious awareness of your environment, the individual's nature and the harmony this individual has within a society of people.

i don't know about that...
that is exactly what the middle east is doing...
and consider people like fred phelps, pat robertson and all those shady characters here in the states? they are being driven by their emotional understanding (justifying their unwarranted bigotry which is supposedly endorsed by their god), thusly i think that is a dangerous thing, for obvious reasons.

Science will never give you these answers, nor does the scientific community hardly even concern themselves with the issue professionally.
right, science looks for empirical answers...

I do enjoy reading your threads :) You seem to be in search of something you have not yet found. Good luck in your journey.

thank you....good luck in your journey to find whatever it is you are looking for too.
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 9:20:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Now we're talking! Two people should be able to discuss their views of the world without it becoming argumentative. I've had a million experiences that you have lacked, and vice-versa. How could we possibly be the same? What I would like to do is to talk about the real reasoning that goes behind the decision to believe in God or not, thus hopefully dispelling at least the more commonly childish claims that "each side" makes. I want to understand the debate itself, not win it.

ok...
The fear of death maybe one reason, it is a certainty. In other words there is certainty in our uncertainty, we are not very secure knowing for certain death will eventually be something to experience. Some accept the uncertainty and others don't

That's actually one of the better points of disagreement, and I used to wonder a lot about it myself, but then when one really bothers to check it out we find that pretty-much everyone is equally afraid of death - atheist, theist or whatever. In fact, many atheists have their brains, heads or entire bodies frozen at huge cost in the hope that science can resuscitate them someday. If you've done much research on the technological singularity then you know it's pretty-much science's version of the rapture. They promise to provide immortality, a heavenly existence, etc. I've never seen anything which clearly showed how a person's religious beliefs equates to bravery or heroism. Heroes and cowards abound everywhere.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 9:44:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Again . . . the point here being that it's MY life, and I decide how to define my own experiences and observations in it.

i don't see how you could if it were an empirical experience.

Empirical: "Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation and experience rather than theory or pure logic." ~ Concise Oxford-American Dictionary. That's how our experiences and observations can empirically effect the nature of our beliefs.

I made quite clear that I wasn't attempting to alter YOUR beliefs, so you have no right to object to how I decide the criteria, just as I have no right to object to your interpretations.
yes i do.
i'll put it like this, you have every right to question me why I won't call a cat a cat...
a cat fulfills the criteria of what makes a cat a cat and we HAVE to agree it is a cat in order to communicate about the cat. that is the problem; communication. we are able to communicate on a level that has to do with empirical experiences we cannot communicate on a level of subjective understanding of our surroundings.
we can communicate on an emotional level, an empirical experience
but in the abstract, subjective understanding, ideas that hold true are ideas that are empirically understood. which is a reason the appeal to popularity is often used as an argument to justify ones belief in god...but one thing that we need to consider when using that appeal, indoctrination.

Agreed; we must agree a cat is a cat. What other adjectives or nouns are we confused about? There had to be original groups of people who came-up with the idea that the world was created (without being indoctrinated themselves), and history shows us that this happened pretty-much everywhere. It's not wise to underestimate the insights of other people just because you believe that your intelligence is superior.

It's not my job to tell you how to live your life, and it's not your job to tell me how to live mine.
i'm not telling you how to live you life, i am merely questioning why you expect for me to believe as you do when it comes to the abstract that us understood subjectively.

We all decide many times a day how we will interpreted data and events with more than one possible interpretation.
that isn't necessarily true. if i say lets meet at such and such time at such in such place...we each understand the space and time that was agreed upon because theses things were experienced empirically.

Have you never seen two people argue over the color of water,
that would be a perfect example of what god is.

As I've said many times before, I see evidence of some type of design in most things around me. If you don't see it then live your life accordingly.
you see, i see a big problem with that.
your evidence isn't empirically understood. and we both know inside this backpack of notions about god would include the notion one KNOWS or is REPRESENTING this encompassing authority which would justify unwarranted bigotry...and it would appear to be terribly convenient for the one who carries that backpack to claim their bigotry is justified.

I'm not really sure what you mean by this. It still appears to me that you are attacking religion, which I will not defend. But religion and a belief in a higher existence are two different things, just as abiogenesis and evolution are two different things.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 10:49:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 9:44:54 PM, Idealist wrote:
Again . . . the point here being that it's MY life, and I decide how to define my own experiences and observations in it.

i don't see how you could if it were an empirical experience.

Empirical: "Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation and experience rather than theory or pure logic." ~ Concise Oxford-American Dictionary. That's how our experiences and observations can empirically effect the nature of our beliefs.
thusly you don't get to define it if you call it an empirical experience...cause empirical would imply i am experiencing too through observation...are you capable of understanding that concept?
but then if i don't see what you see, then i am of course in denial, right...what a convenient position you hold not to mention presumptuous...IF that is what you believe


I made quite clear that I wasn't attempting to alter YOUR beliefs, so you have no right to object to how I decide the criteria, just as I have no right to object to your interpretations.
yes i do.
i'll put it like this, you have every right to question me why I won't call a cat a cat...
a cat fulfills the criteria of what makes a cat a cat and we HAVE to agree it is a cat in order to communicate about the cat. that is the problem; communication. we are able to communicate on a level that has to do with empirical experiences we cannot communicate on a level of subjective understanding of our surroundings.
we can communicate on an emotional level, an empirical experience
but in the abstract, subjective understanding, ideas that hold true are ideas that are empirically understood. which is a reason the appeal to popularity is often used as an argument to justify ones belief in god...but one thing that we need to consider when using that appeal, indoctrination.

Agreed; we must agree a cat is a cat. What other adjectives or nouns are we confused about?
god...if you are to claim your understanding of god is empirically understood as we understand a cat...we don't, didn't you know?

There had to be original groups of people who came-up with the idea that the world was created (without being indoctrinated themselves),
yea, they were ignorant of the world around them, didn't you know?

and history shows us that this happened pretty-much everywhere. It's not wise to underestimate the insights of other people just because you believe that your intelligence is superior.
oh come come now, there is a difference between being ignorant and being unintelligent, didn't you know?


It's not my job to tell you how to live your life, and it's not your job to tell me how to live mine.
i'm not telling you how to live you life, i am merely questioning why you expect for me to believe as you do when it comes to the abstract that us understood subjectively.

We all decide many times a day how we will interpreted data and events with more than one possible interpretation.
that isn't necessarily true. if i say lets meet at such and such time at such in such place...we each understand the space and time that was agreed upon because theses things were experienced empirically.

Have you never seen two people argue over the color of water,
that would be a perfect example of what god is.

As I've said many times before, I see evidence of some type of design in most things around me. If you don't see it then live your life accordingly.
you see, i see a big problem with that.
your evidence isn't empirically understood. and we both know inside this backpack of notions about god would include the notion one KNOWS or is REPRESENTING this encompassing authority which would justify unwarranted bigotry...and it would appear to be terribly convenient for the one who carries that backpack to claim their bigotry is justified.

I'm not really sure what you mean by this. It still appears to me that you are attacking religion,
damn straight i am

which I will not defend.
certainly seems that you are

But religion and a belief in a higher existence are two different things, just as abiogenesis and evolution are two different things.
well i suppose if you are only looking for subjective truth religion is meaningful...not interested in subjective truth, thats like being interested in wishful thinking...nothing special about that.
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 11:00:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 10:49:19 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/4/2014 9:44:54 PM, Idealist wrote:
Again . . . the point here being that it's MY life, and I decide how to define my own experiences and observations in it.

i don't see how you could if it were an empirical experience.

Empirical: "Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation and experience rather than theory or pure logic." ~ Concise Oxford-American Dictionary. That's how our experiences and observations can empirically effect the nature of our beliefs.
thusly you don't get to define it if you call it an empirical experience...cause empirical would imply i am experiencing too through observation...are you capable of understanding that concept?
but then if i don't see what you see, then i am of course in denial, right...what a convenient position you hold not to mention presumptuous...IF that is what you believe

Yes, I am capable of understanding that concept, and of course you are not in denial if your empirical experience differs from mine. A person may have a hundred friends, and each may have their own experience of that person, giving them each their own reality of who and and what he/she is, but it doesn't change the person's self. Then again, it is no better for you to make such a claim than it would be for me to. You would be just as presumptuous. The point is that humans are ALL subjective beings, so any observation made by them is necessarily partially subjective, no matter how objective the subject of study may be. We are all unique in what we believe no matter what we profess those beliefs to be, and every belief is beyond our ability to truly grasp, leaving us all to rely to some extent on the amount of faith we have in our personal observations.

I made quite clear that I wasn't attempting to alter YOUR beliefs, so you have no right to object to how I decide the criteria, just as I have no right to object to your interpretations.
yes i do.
i'll put it like this, you have every right to question me why I won't call a cat a cat...
a cat fulfills the criteria of what makes a cat a cat and we HAVE to agree it is a cat in order to communicate about the cat. that is the problem; communication. we are able to communicate on a level that has to do with empirical experiences we cannot communicate on a level of subjective understanding of our surroundings.
we can communicate on an emotional level, an empirical experience
but in the abstract, subjective understanding, ideas that hold true are ideas that are empirically understood. which is a reason the appeal to popularity is often used as an argument to justify ones belief in god...but one thing that we need to consider when using that appeal, indoctrination.

Agreed; we must agree a cat is a cat. What other adjectives or nouns are we confused about?
god...if you are to claim your understanding of god is empirically understood as we understand a cat...we don't, didn't you know?

There had to be original groups of people who came-up with the idea that the world was created (without being indoctrinated themselves),
yea, they were ignorant of the world around them, didn't you know?

and history shows us that this happened pretty-much everywhere. It's not wise to underestimate the insights of other people just because you believe that your intelligence is superior.
oh come come now, there is a difference between being ignorant and being unintelligent, didn't you know?


It's not my job to tell you how to live your life, and it's not your job to tell me how to live mine.
i'm not telling you how to live you life, i am merely questioning why you expect for me to believe as you do when it comes to the abstract that us understood subjectively.

We all decide many times a day how we will interpreted data and events with more than one possible interpretation.
that isn't necessarily true. if i say lets meet at such and such time at such in such place...we each understand the space and time that was agreed upon because theses things were experienced empirically.

Have you never seen two people argue over the color of water,
that would be a perfect example of what god is.

As I've said many times before, I see evidence of some type of design in most things around me. If you don't see it then live your life accordingly.
you see, i see a big problem with that.
your evidence isn't empirically understood. and we both know inside this backpack of notions about god would include the notion one KNOWS or is REPRESENTING this encompassing authority which would justify unwarranted bigotry...and it would appear to be terribly convenient for the one who carries that backpack to claim their bigotry is justified.

I'm not really sure what you mean by this. It still appears to me that you are attacking religion,
damn straight i am

which I will not defend.
certainly seems that you are

But religion and a belief in a higher existence are two different things, just as abiogenesis and evolution are two different things.
well i suppose if you are only looking for subjective truth religion is meaningful...not interested in subjective truth, thats like being interested in wishful thinking...nothing special about that.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 11:13:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 9:20:35 PM, Idealist wrote:
Now we're talking! Two people should be able to discuss their views of the world without it becoming argumentative. I've had a million experiences that you have lacked, and vice-versa. How could we possibly be the same? What I would like to do is to talk about the real reasoning that goes behind the decision to believe in God or not, thus hopefully dispelling at least the more commonly childish claims that "each side" makes. I want to understand the debate itself, not win it.

ok...
The fear of death maybe one reason, it is a certainty. In other words there is certainty in our uncertainty, we are not very secure knowing for certain death will eventually be something to experience. Some accept the uncertainty and others don't

That's actually one of the better points of disagreement, and I used to wonder a lot about it myself, but then when one really bothers to check it out we find that pretty-much everyone is equally afraid of death - atheist, theist or whatever.
of course...some accept that fear, others don't.
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 11:16:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 11:00:38 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/4/2014 10:49:19 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/4/2014 9:44:54 PM, Idealist wrote:
Again . . . the point here being that it's MY life, and I decide how to define my own experiences and observations in it.

i don't see how you could if it were an empirical experience.

Empirical: "Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation and experience rather than theory or pure logic." ~ Concise Oxford-American Dictionary. That's how our experiences and observations can empirically effect the nature of our beliefs.
thusly you don't get to define it if you call it an empirical experience...cause empirical would imply i am experiencing too through observation...are you capable of understanding that concept?
but then if i don't see what you see, then i am of course in denial, right...what a convenient position you hold not to mention presumptuous...IF that is what you believe

Yes, I am capable of understanding that concept, and of course you are not in denial if your empirical experience differs from mine. A person may have a hundred friends, and each may have their own experience of that person, giving them each their own reality of who and and what he/she is, but it doesn't change the person's self. Then again, it is no better for you to make such a claim than it would be for me to. You would be just as presumptuous. The point is that humans are ALL subjective beings, so any observation made by them is necessarily partially subjective, no matter how objective the subject of study may be. We are all unique in what we believe no matter what we profess those beliefs to be, and every belief is beyond our ability to truly grasp, leaving us all to rely to some extent on the amount of faith we have in our personal observations.

i'm not making any claims though...i'm only stating i am not experiencing your experience thusly IT ISN'T EMPIRICAL
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 1:33:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 11:16:02 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/4/2014 11:00:38 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/4/2014 10:49:19 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/4/2014 9:44:54 PM, Idealist wrote:
Again . . . the point here being that it's MY life, and I decide how to define my own experiences and observations in it.

i don't see how you could if it were an empirical experience.

Empirical: "Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation and experience rather than theory or pure logic." ~ Concise Oxford-American Dictionary. That's how our experiences and observations can empirically effect the nature of our beliefs.
thusly you don't get to define it if you call it an empirical experience...cause empirical would imply i am experiencing too through observation...are you capable of understanding that concept?
but then if i don't see what you see, then i am of course in denial, right...what a convenient position you hold not to mention presumptuous...IF that is what you believe

Yes, I am capable of understanding that concept, and of course you are not in denial if your empirical experience differs from mine. A person may have a hundred friends, and each may have their own experience of that person, giving them each their own reality of who and and what he/she is, but it doesn't change the person's self. Then again, it is no better for you to make such a claim than it would be for me to. You would be just as presumptuous. The point is that humans are ALL subjective beings, so any observation made by them is necessarily partially subjective, no matter how objective the subject of study may be. We are all unique in what we believe no matter what we profess those beliefs to be, and every belief is beyond our ability to truly grasp, leaving us all to rely to some extent on the amount of faith we have in our personal observations.

i'm not making any claims though...i'm only stating i am not experiencing your experience thusly IT ISN'T EMPIRICAL

I wouldn't expect you to. A blind person can never experience a sunset, and there are a lot of blind people in the world (no offense intended). That doesn't mean that sunsets aren't evident through empirical evidence. It doesn't have to be "observed" or "experienced" by everyone in order to be classified as empirical. I've never observed the Earth as a sphere, but I accept that others have. A lot of people have had experiences of their own which (to them) were just as real as your fingers are to you. They experienced and observed these things. But this is just getting back to arguing the inarguable argument, which no one ever wins. Why is it so hard to talk with someone about their own personal realities without having an argument about them? Would you argue with your best friend if he/she wanted to talk to you about something which meant a lot to them but was meaningless to you? I want to understand WHY people think what they do, not just badger them about what they think.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 9:15:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 1:33:42 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/4/2014 11:16:02 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/4/2014 11:00:38 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/4/2014 10:49:19 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/4/2014 9:44:54 PM, Idealist wrote:
Again . . . the point here being that it's MY life, and I decide how to define my own experiences and observations in it.

i don't see how you could if it were an empirical experience.

Empirical: "Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation and experience rather than theory or pure logic." ~ Concise Oxford-American Dictionary. That's how our experiences and observations can empirically effect the nature of our beliefs.
thusly you don't get to define it if you call it an empirical experience...cause empirical would imply i am experiencing too through observation...are you capable of understanding that concept?
but then if i don't see what you see, then i am of course in denial, right...what a convenient position you hold not to mention presumptuous...IF that is what you believe

Yes, I am capable of understanding that concept, and of course you are not in denial if your empirical experience differs from mine. A person may have a hundred friends, and each may have their own experience of that person, giving them each their own reality of who and and what he/she is, but it doesn't change the person's self. Then again, it is no better for you to make such a claim than it would be for me to. You would be just as presumptuous. The point is that humans are ALL subjective beings, so any observation made by them is necessarily partially subjective, no matter how objective the subject of study may be. We are all unique in what we believe no matter what we profess those beliefs to be, and every belief is beyond our ability to truly grasp, leaving us all to rely to some extent on the amount of faith we have in our personal observations.

i'm not making any claims though...i'm only stating i am not experiencing your experience thusly IT ISN'T EMPIRICAL

I wouldn't expect you to. A blind person can never experience a sunset, and there are a lot of blind people in the world (no offense intended). That doesn't mean that sunsets aren't evident through empirical evidence. It doesn't have to be "observed" or "experienced" by everyone in order to be classified as empirical. I've never observed the Earth as a sphere, but I accept that others have. A lot of people have had experiences of their own which (to them) were just as real as your fingers are to you. They experienced and observed these things. But this is just getting back to arguing the inarguable argument, which no one ever wins. Why is it so hard to talk with someone about their own personal realities without having an argument about them? Would you argue with your best friend if he/she wanted to talk to you about something which meant a lot to them but was meaningless to you? I want to understand WHY people think what they do, not just badger them about what they think.

that is because the sunset exists for those who have sight and can verify it objectively among those who have sight....your subjective idea of god is subjective...the proof is in the pudding with the many many different interpretations of god...BECAUSE it isn't EMPIRICAL for ALL humans..aren't ALL humans supposedly subject to GOD, right?
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 1:16:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 9:15:28 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/5/2014 1:33:42 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/4/2014 11:16:02 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/4/2014 11:00:38 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/4/2014 10:49:19 PM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/4/2014 9:44:54 PM, Idealist wrote:
Again . . . the point here being that it's MY life, and I decide how to define my own experiences and observations in it.

i don't see how you could if it were an empirical experience.

Empirical: "Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation and experience rather than theory or pure logic." ~ Concise Oxford-American Dictionary. That's how our experiences and observations can empirically effect the nature of our beliefs.
thusly you don't get to define it if you call it an empirical experience...cause empirical would imply i am experiencing too through observation...are you capable of understanding that concept?
but then if i don't see what you see, then i am of course in denial, right...what a convenient position you hold not to mention presumptuous...IF that is what you believe

Yes, I am capable of understanding that concept, and of course you are not in denial if your empirical experience differs from mine. A person may have a hundred friends, and each may have their own experience of that person, giving them each their own reality of who and and what he/she is, but it doesn't change the person's self. Then again, it is no better for you to make such a claim than it would be for me to. You would be just as presumptuous. The point is that humans are ALL subjective beings, so any observation made by them is necessarily partially subjective, no matter how objective the subject of study may be. We are all unique in what we believe no matter what we profess those beliefs to be, and every belief is beyond our ability to truly grasp, leaving us all to rely to some extent on the amount of faith we have in our personal observations.

i'm not making any claims though...i'm only stating i am not experiencing your experience thusly IT ISN'T EMPIRICAL

I wouldn't expect you to. A blind person can never experience a sunset, and there are a lot of blind people in the world (no offense intended). That doesn't mean that sunsets aren't evident through empirical evidence. It doesn't have to be "observed" or "experienced" by everyone in order to be classified as empirical. I've never observed the Earth as a sphere, but I accept that others have. A lot of people have had experiences of their own which (to them) were just as real as your fingers are to you. They experienced and observed these things. But this is just getting back to arguing the inarguable argument, which no one ever wins. Why is it so hard to talk with someone about their own personal realities without having an argument about them? Would you argue with your best friend if he/she wanted to talk to you about something which meant a lot to them but was meaningless to you? I want to understand WHY people think what they do, not just badger them about what they think.

that is because the sunset exists for those who have sight and can verify it objectively among those who have sight....your subjective idea of god is subjective...the proof is in the pudding with the many many different interpretations of god...BECAUSE it isn't EMPIRICAL for ALL humans..aren't ALL humans supposedly subject to GOD, right?

Just because you haven't experienced a thing doesn't make it impossible to experience. Perhaps I should have used outer space for an example. I will never experience it myself, but I'm not gonna argue about what it's like with those who have. Maybe I believe them and maybe I don't, but I certainly don't have the experience to say they are wrong. When at the age of 20 I returned from a two-year stationing in Germany my father refused to listen to my descriptions of all my experiences there. He thought that he knew enough about the world and the military to actually discredit my personal experiences. That's what it feels like when someone tries to deny a thing simply because they haven't experienced any cause to accept it. How about if I tried to tell you that you don't really know what it's like to be a girl (I assume you are)? It's been agreed many times on here that no honest person chooses what to believe. They follow where their experiences lead. So when you make absolute claims about their beliefs, you are in all practicality giving them the choice to be either ignorant or a liar, and you wonder why they react unkindly? I've never put an atheist down for believing what they believe, despite the fact that at the present time I believe they are wrong. Professor Antony Flew was a legendary proponent and debater for atheism for decades, stating that the "onus of proof [of God] must lie upon the theist." Now Professor Flew states that "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," and he has forsaken atheism. It didn't change the way I thought about him or atheism either way. A person isn't the sum of their spiritual beliefs.

And no, all humans aren't supposed to be subject to God. They have the free will to accept or reject him as they please. In five years you might be a believer and I might be an atheist, if we are both honest people. You are not qualified to debate a point unless you are capable of changing your mind.

The sad part for me is here we are again, still arguing the subject of whether or not God exists rather than trying to understand how we each came to our separate conclusions.