Simple question...What do YOU believe?

[J3K]

I was just wondering what everyone's beliefs around here are. Put simply, mine are that people should be able to believe what they want to believe, whatever the belief is. And that you should follow your heart in the decisons you make in your life. And also that you don't harm others physically(there are exceptions I know. but in general, there is nothing wrong with this) or mentally(through words and such. But this also has exceptions because constructive chritisism(spelling?) never hurt anybody, at least not a mature person.) So when it comes down to these exceptions, that is where following your heart would come in. Following your heart and being honest to yourself(not doing what your heart doesnt believe because you are going to go to "hell" when you die) will make your life a lot smoother.
This is just a simple question that if you are honest to yourself shouldn't be hard to answer.

[Franko]

Hey J3K

I was just wondering what everyone's beliefs around here are.

I am a Logical Deist myself.

Put simply, mine are that people should be able to believe what they want to believe, whatever the belief is. And that you should follow your heart in the decisons you make in your life.

It sounds like you believe in the sanctity of Individuality. So do I.

And also that you don't harm others physically(there are exceptions I know. but in general, there is nothing wrong with this) or mentally(through words and such. But this also has exceptions because constructive chritisism(spelling?) never hurt anybody, at least not a mature person.) So when it comes down to these exceptions, that is where following your heart would come in.

What you are stating is essentially the tenets of Karma.

If you cause harm to another (or conversely benefit another) eventually it will be reflected (return) back to you.

Following your heart and being honest to yourself(not doing what your heart doesnt believe because you are going to go to "hell" when you die.)

It’s a cold hard fact that there are negative consequences for negative thoughts and actions. Disbelieving that there are consequences for your actions isn’t going to change this Fact.

This is just a simple question that if you are honest to yourself shouldn't be hard to answer.

If you cannot be honest with yourself, then you won’t be able to be honest with anyone. And as a Graviton your worth can be directly measured by the degree to which you can be honest with yourself.

[J3K]

As for the Karma thing. I don't believe what you do will come back to you. Good or Bad. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
I never said your actions didn't have consequences, so what was your point of saying this? If it is just part of your belief, aight then. I just dont know if it was this or if you were responding to that quote of me, and if so, I never said you didnt have consequences for your actions, so you saying this makes no sense to me.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by J3K
As for the Karma thing. I don't believe what you do will come back to you. Good or Bad. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
I never said your actions didn't have consequences, so what was your point of saying this? If it is just part of your belief, aight then. I just dont know if it was this or if you were responding to that quote of me, and if so, I never said you didnt have consequences for your actions, so you saying this makes no sense to me.
Before you get too worked up over Franko, J3K, have a look at this list of things Franko believes (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=322384&highlight=morality+miscellaneous#post322384) (some of them have links). Franko has, shall we say, a history here.

[J3K]

lol. I wasnt getting worked up. I have read some posts about Franko. He just says things that are so off the wall and dont apply to what he applies them too. It's fun to ask him about some of his responses.

[Franko]

As for the Karma thing. I don't believe what you do will come back to you. Good or Bad. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

Try running every red light you come to. See how long you can do this for before your Karma catches up to you.

I never said your actions didn't have consequences, so what was your point of saying this? If it is just part of your belief, aight then. I just dont know if it was this or if you were responding to that quote of me, and if so, I never said you didnt have consequences for your actions, so you saying this makes no sense to me.

A-Theists do not believe in ultimate consequences for their actions. Entities who do not believe in consequences for their actions behave exactly as if they do not believe in consequences for their actions. This is why A-Theists are less moral than non-A-theists. (take a look at Trixy if you have any doubts.)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by J3K
lol. I wasnt getting worked up. I have read some posts about Franko. He just says things that are so off the wall and dont apply to what he applies them too. It's fun to ask him about some of his responses.
Well then, enjoy! He is fun to bait.:D

[Franko]

Here is a summary of Tricky and my 1 year+ discussion.

What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
Tricky, 30+ years dedicated to A-Theism: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
Trixy, 30+ years dedicated to A-Theism: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

--------------------------

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

[arcticpenguin]

I believe I'll go home and have dinner.

[The Raven]

I believe in showing politeness and consideration to others. To listen to each individual. To make your own mind up not do what the vast majority say you should.

I also believe many things cannot be explained.

I do not believe gossips or rumor mongers, I believe you should give the benefit of doubt to everybody regardless of what everybody else says.

I believe religion is up to each individual to believe in, and others should respect their choice not ridicule it.

I have a fascination for voodooism.;)


The Raven.

[J3K]

Just got done running 10 red lights. I did finally get caught, you are right Franko. But I only got caught for the 10th one, so what happened with the other 9? Like I said SOMETIMES things come back around, SOMETIMES they dont.
And being atheist doesn't mean I am less "moral" than a person who believes otherwise. Well actually, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Depends on whether the word moral being dicussed has religion connected to it, or is just how good one is and caring(which is how I like to think about it.)(that was also not a perfect definition of moral without religion acctached. I just hope you can use common sense to get the overall meaning for that simple definition.)
Man Franko, you are fun. But I am tired so I will go take a nap. Have fun making up nonsense responses to what I say. Just try to have a point and not dive off into something else. Like the consequence thing earlier. Although that did bring up a fun discussion.

[Underemployed]

I believe I think.

[Skeptical Greg]

Me too..

[Soubrette]

I know I think - I believe you do too :p

Sou

[Celtic Warrior]

I believe I'll have a drink. Some Jim Beam on the rocks to be more specific.

[fishbob]

I believe that I am damn lucky to be here. I believe that I have said this before. And when summer gets here, I believe that I will go fishing.

[whitefork]

I believe that COBOL should be structured as an interlocked series of Haiku.

Wait - didn't I say that on the other side of the record?

[HarryKeogh]

I drink, therefore I am.

[SortingItAllOut]

Originally posted by Franko


Try running every red light you come to. See how long you can do this for before your Karma catches up to you.


Hi Franko,

But is that Karma or just statistics at work? Doesn't the notion of Karma effectively say that you'll necessarily reap what you sow due to some cosmic reason? I don't really know anything about it, just what I've kind of heard in passing.

Is it Karma that eventually the police man will eventually be sitting there waiting for me or that I'll run into someone else or is this just probability in action?



A-Theists do not believe in ultimate consequences for their actions. Entities who do not believe in consequences for their actions behave exactly as if they do not believe in consequences for their actions. This is why A-Theists are less moral than non-A-theists. (take a look at Trixy if you have any doubts.)

I would disagree with you on principle here in that you are claiming some universe truth about atheists. I've met many folks who are atheists who are considerably better human beings than their theistic counterparts. I don't believe that consequences should be the test for whether or not one does or doesn't do something. There may be advantages or repercussions to some behavior or action, but I trust that many people are not motivated by the possibility of being "whacked by the cosmic paddle" for doing something. Personally, I try to evaluate whether it makes sense to do something, ask myself if I'd be hurting anyone by doing it, and then decide based on the answers I give to those questions.

Just my thoughts.

Take care,
Sort:)

[SortingItAllOut]

Oh yeah...

I think that there are more questions than answers, that we cannot be sure there is a god.

I think that the history of the Christian church and early Biblical writings are interesting and I want to understand why people hold the beliefs that they do.

I think that most anything is possible but many things are not probable.

I think there are some interesting individuals that inhabit this forum and I enjoy the discussions. Occasionally, I learn something.

Take care,
Sort
:)

Franko wrote:

----
A-Theists do not believe in ultimate consequences for their actions.
----


What exactly is an "ultimate consequence"?


Anywho, I am a skeptical relativist. I am skeptical, but realize that everything is relative to perspective. What we call good someone else calls bad. What we call bad, someone else calls good, and on and on and on. That is why I have the taiji (yin yang) symbol as my avatar.

[evildave]

I believe in parsimony.

All things appear to function the same whether you wedge a god into the considerations or not. A church operates exactly like a lot like a bunch of people doing the same work.

Whether or not there is a god, it doesn't seem to make a difference. Therefore, either one or more gods exist, and are indifferent, or they don't exist.

Either way, I don't see a reason to bother with any gods.

Where religion comes into the picture, it seems a sad state to me. When people fight over religious differences, it looks a lot like geeks killing each other over "Star Wars" versus "Star Trek" issues.

"Captain Kirk would SO blow up the Death Star!"

"Would not!"

(click) *BLAM*

"Would so! ... I win!"

I could just see them marching off to battle and claiming "Obi Wan is on our side! The Force is WITH US!"

Perhaps "We need more federal money spent on JEDI based community initiatives!"

Or a politician comming up to the podium and stating "I believe in the ultimate being, Q. It would be Un-American not to."

I believe religion mixed with politics to be a danger to the welfare of society as a whole. It's fine to have your little fantasies about being "Super-Special" to an omnipotent being somewhere, if it keeps you from smoking crack until your head caves in. When people mix this utter fantasy bunk with political power that could launch a nuclear attack, or cause highways to be poorly maintained and kill people with structural failures, or even (as James Watt said) consider that environmental issues are of no relevence because "the second comming is at hand", then religion becomes a terrible danger.

I deeply believe in separation of Church and State. It's the only way.

[fishbob]

I believe that evildave is right. Especially the last part.

Originally posted by fishbob
I believe that evildave is right. Especially the last part.


du du du
another atheist says "Me too!"
du du du
another atheist says "Me too!"
and another one does
another one does
another atheist says "Me too!"
Hey, he's gonna be predictible
another atheist says "Me too!"

[Yahzi]

If it requires belief, I don't.

[Gregor]

I believe that a woman should be placed on a pedestal - high enough . . . to look up her dress.

I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful and wonderful things . . . that money can buy.

I believe that George Bush can return this country to what it once was . . . a frozen wasteland covered with a 300 foot high glacier.

[a nod to Steve Martin]

[Plutarck]

I believe that at any given moment I believe whatever it is that I believe at that given moment, but only when I don't not believe what I think I believe, I believe.

[Q-Source]

I believe in human's altruism.

I believe in human's capacity to find answers where it seems impossible to find answers.

I believe that matter exists independently from the observer.

I believe in logical reasoning and critical thinking as the only possible ways to generate knowlegde.


What else do I need?

[Peach Jr.]

What do I believe? Hmm...
I believe that people should be treated with the same respect and dignity that we would like for ourselves.

I believe that _Monty Python and the Holy Grail_ is the best movie ever made (no really, it's true:D )

And I believe that God does not exist.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Franko


Try running every red light you come to. See how long you can do this for before your Karma catches up to you.



A-Theists do not believe in ultimate consequences for their actions. Entities who do not believe in consequences for their actions behave exactly as if they do not believe in consequences for their actions. This is why A-Theists are less moral than non-A-theists. (take a look at Trixy if you have any doubts.)
The problem here is that Karma is a woowoo-laden term for common cause-and-effect thinking. Of course things catch up to you, but things a person does operates on so many levels, not just the obvious ones. It's a fascinating look into sociology and psychology. Is someone who harms none and keeps his/her business private, yet is deviant, truly worse off karmically as someone who is "well-adjusted"? Karma says yes, but I am interested in how this comes to be, logically. It isn't magic.

So, the question is, are atheists less moral? At first, perhaps. But answering to a higher power is simply an early step on the road to self-actualization. I posit that higher levels of moral activity, as per Maslow's Pyramid, come from within, no matter what the initial cause.

Followers of a religion learn that to keep free from sin, one has to be the best person they can. Atheists, upon the initial engorging of freedom from a deity, find that they must find some way to motivate themselves in life after their main purpose (serve God) is gone. For them, self-actualization is a willed process inflicted upon themselves in order to optimize.

So yes, atheists may be less moral in the short run, but you must look at the big picture. How does an atheist mature from that point of perceived freedom? The reason I think that religious and non-religious people still better themselves in similar ways is because of the make-up of a human being. We're the same blood and guts. We tend to act alike.

[Celtic Warrior]

I believe Franko doesn't understand the difference between Karma and stupidity.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by evildave
I deeply believe in separation of Church and State. It's the only way.
Amen. In fact, we have similar beliefs.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Whodini
du du du
another atheist says "Me too!"
du du du
another atheist says "Me too!"
and another one does
another one does
another atheist says "Me too!"
Hey, he's gonna be predictible
another atheist says "Me too!"
Does the fact that your views are NOT shared by many on this board mean your views carry more weight? Do similar views automatically mean the person is a parrot and has a lack of skeptical thought? Is predictability not compatible with correctness?

I think the answers are: no, no, and no. If parroting and lazyness is prevalent on these boards, we must do our best to ferret them out through debate, not through lyric poetry.

[Dragonrock]

What I believe:

I believe in rainbows, and puppy dogs and fairy tales. And I believe in the family: Mom, and Dad, and Grandma, and Uncle Todd, who waves his penis.

And I believe in 8 of the Ten Commandments, and I believe in going to church every Sunday, unless there's a game on.

And I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome, and natural things that money can buy.

And I believe it's derogatory to refer to a woman's breasts as "boobs", "jugs", "winnebagos", or "golden bozos". And you should only refer to them as "hooters".

And I believe you should place a woman on a pedestal, high enough so you can look up her dress.

And I believe in equality, equality for everyone, no matter how stupid they are, or how much better I am than they are.

And people say I'm crazy for believing this, but I believe that robots are stealing my luggage.

And I believe I made a mistake when I bought a 30-story, one-bedroom apartment.

And I believe that the "Battle of the Network Stars" should be fought with guns.

And I believe that religion can make this country what it once was: an arctic region, covered with ice.

And I believe the United States should let all foreigners into this country, provided they can speak our native language: Apache.

And lastly, I believe that of all the evils on this earth, there is nothing worse than anthing Franko says.

(Blatantly stolen from Steve Martin and modified slightly)

[Flaherty]

I believe in the soul, the c*ck, the p*ssy, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, long replay, show tunes, and that the novels of Thomas Pynchon are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, I believe that there oughtta be a constitutional
amendment outlawing astro-turf and the designated hitter, I
believe in the "sweet spot", voting every election, soft core pornography, chocolate chip cookies, opening your presents on
Christmas morning rather than Christmas eve, and I believe in
long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last for 7 days.

[Franko]

I believe Franko doesn't understand the difference between Karma and stupidity.

Maybe you could explain the difference between stupidity and Bad Karma for me?

... or are you just another stupid A-Theist?

[Celtic Warrior]

Originally posted by Franko


Maybe you could explain the difference between stupidity and Bad Karma for me?

... or are you just another stupid A-Theist?
I may be new here. But, I have already determined from reading your posts that you are incapable of having a rational discussion. So, attempting to explain something to you would be a waste of my time.

[Frostbite]

Agnostic. I don't know, I don't care, I'm sick of it all.

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by Celtic Warrior

I may be new here. But, I have already determined from reading your posts that you are incapable of having a rational discussion. So, attempting to explain something to you would be a waste of my time.

About once a month someone new tries to debate Franko by being polite and carefully explaining their ideas or beliefs. It always ends the same. Franko drags out the same tired, repetitive, and illogical statements and ignores anything anyone else posts. Then he demands proof of "free-willy". I tried to talk to him, but I got lost in his sea of babbling so I swam to safety and put him on ignore. It's nice to see someone figuring out what I did without having to be blugeoned with silliness like I was.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally posted by J3K
And that you should follow your heart in the decisons you make in your life ... So when it comes down to these exceptions, that is where following your heart would come in. Following your heart and being honest to yourself(not doing what your heart doesnt believe because you are going to go to "hell" when you die) will make your life a lot smoother.
This is just a simple question that if you are honest to yourself shouldn't be hard to answer.

I have to disagree with your use of the word "heart" to describe instinct. Usually when "heart" is involved in your decisions, it means that emotions are also involved. While it is nearly impossible to exclude emotions from one's life decisions, a person should recognize when he or she is doing so.

My heart tells me I should believe in an afterlife because it would be nice to not fear death. My heart tells me I should believe in some cosmic buddy (God) who, when on my side, will give me some control over the uncontrollable.

My brain tells my heart to be careful, to not be deceived by the nice feelings these beliefs invoke.

I believe one's feelings should be cherished, but leave the decision making to the brain. People who do otherwise tend to be disappointed or susceptible to charlatans.

I admire the honesty of your post, however.

[Franko]

I may be new here. But, I have already determined from reading your posts that you are incapable of having a rational discussion. So, attempting to explain something to you would be a waste of my time.

Apparently you haven’t determined this or you would have keep your stupid mouth shut.

[Franko]

About once a month someone new tries to debate Franko by being polite and carefully explaining their ideas or beliefs.

Translation:

About twice a week some stupid, naïve, brainwashed A-theist stumbles in here and tries to TELL Franko (and everyone else) how their RELGION (A-Theism) is the “One true Faith” and is better and more true than ALL of the other Religions.

Of course none of these A-theists EVER has any evidence or logical reason for believing that their religion is superior. That just CLAIM it.

It always ends the same.

Yeah, An A-Theist insisting that the gods of all the other religions are FALSE (based on wishful thinking) while the A-Theists god (“free willy”) is to be believed based on no evidence.

Of course a lot of a-Theists want me to prove that there god doesn’t exist. That’s when I say:

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP!

Franko drags out the same tired, repetitive, and illogical statements and ignores anything anyone else posts.

You are the one ignoring logic you brainwashed religious moron!

Then he demands proof of "free-willy".

yeah, if you are claiming that your god exist (“free willy”), the burden of proof falls on YOU as the claimant to provide evidence for the belief. Maybe you should have taken the time to learn how Skepticism actually works before you started posting on a SKEPTICS web site?

What makes you think that Skeptics are not allowed to be Skeptical of Atheism? I guess it’s a lot easier to be a pretend Skeptic by only questioning other people’s Religions?

I tried to talk to him, but I got lost in his sea of babbling so I swam to safety and put him on ignore. It's nice to see someone figuring out what I did without having to be blugeoned with silliness like I was.

I’m happy that you and your Dogma are such good friends you credulous Religious fanatic.

[Celtic Warrior]

Originally posted by Franko


Apparently you haven’t determined this or you would have keep your stupid mouth shut.
You're quite funny. Really you are. Is your penis really that small?

[Franko]

Celtic Nitwit: (brainwashed A-Theist)
You're quite funny. Really you are. Is your penis really that small?

Why are you so interested in my penis size Gay-boy?

[Celtic Warrior]

Originally posted by Tiny Frank


Why are you so interested in my penis size Stud-boy?
I don't have anything against gays and all. But, you are wasting your time flirting with me. I'm a married man.

[Frostbite]

This is getting interesting, finally. Please continue.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Celtic Warrior

You're quite funny. Really you are. Is your penis really that small?



You mis-understood, CW. Franko never said his willy was small. He said that he has no willy at all. In fact, he says it a lot.... curious thing for a male to be proud of, but what can I say?



Thanks to Max for the original gag

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by tjwojo
My heart tells me I should believe in an afterlife because it would be nice to not fear death. My heart tells me I should believe in some cosmic buddy (God) who, when on my side, will give me some control over the uncontrollable.

I believe one's feelings should be cherished, but leave the decision making to the brain. People who do otherwise tend to be disappointed or susceptible to charlatans.

You touch upon an interesting point here. The belief in the paranormal is more of an emotional response than a logical one and on other threads posters have asked why there are more male skeptics than female skeptics. This has probably been brought up before, but is it possible that women seem to have a higher rate of belief in the paranormal because they are more likely to make decisions based on emotion?

Before Lisa, Girl 6, and the other skepchicks jump on me, I'm speaking of tendencies not absolutes, the are exceptions to every rule, including this one.

[Celtic Warrior]

Originally posted by Upchurch




You mis-understood, CW. Franko never said his willy was small. He said that he has no willy at all. In fact, he says it a lot.... curious thing for a male to be proud of, but what can I say?



Thanks to Max for the original gag
Oh! Ok! My bad.

Well NoFrank, if I was so inclined for some gay-loving, what good are you to me? Do you just want some rump-loving without giving anything in return?

[whitefork]

Originally posted by Upchurch


[cameo]



Up jump da funk, welcome back. Too bad we didn't start a clock for you - you'da won a prize.

[Franko]

All these A-Theists fascinated by what's in my pants ... :rolleyes:

I guess it's all they have left to talk about since they can't justify their absurd dogmatic religious claims.

[Yahzi]

Celtic Warrior
Muscleman and Interesting Ian will occupy your attention for about the same length of time.

[Celtic Warrior]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Celtic Warrior
Muscleman and Interesting Ian will occupy your attention for about the same length of time.
LOL. Was it that obvious that I was already bored with Franko?

[J3K]

tjwojo
I see what you are saying. I am sorry I didnt make this more clear in my post. When I use the word heart, I am refering to your gut instinct about things. But also use your brain of course(nobody please get technical with me over how using ure brain and gut instinct are actually the same thing. You know what I mean, at least I think so.) You just have to find a balance when it comes down to these things. Because if one only uses his brain, you can tend to over think things, and end up worring over useless stuff. And for the last 6 months I have stopped thinking and thinking and using my brain about things and started listening more to my heart(gut instinct) and my life has become a lot more easy. This doesn't mean problems dont come up now because I ignore them or something, so that's why my life is more easy. It means I am not creating the problems I was over thinking and worring so much. Like with my g/f. I have found the best damn relationship I have ever seen in my life(this is not just my opinion and my partners opinion, many others have said the same.) But when I had first met her, my heart and gut told me not to let rumors and what people say(that dont know her) effect me. Because she had a bad reputation. And I didnt listen to those rumors and I got something truely great. This gurl changed her life around for me and to make me and her last. She stopped all of the bad things she did, drinking, smoking, drugs in general. She stopped stealing. She stopped flirting with guys, period(you would be amazed how she was when she was going out with this other guy, and from what people that know her have told me, she was always like that.) The list goes on. But people that have known her even tell me that she has COMPLETELY done a 180 for the better. Not to mention how honest and open our relationship is. It's not some ******** where people "say" they are honest and open and tell each other everything. We do. If you beleive me on that or not, oh well, either way. If you know more you would agree. I'll just assume you will take my word on it because I dont want to write that damn long of a post. But anyway, the point is, I followed my heart(gut instinct) and found something truely great.
Sorry again that I didn't make things as clear. I meant you should follow your heart(gut instinct) but also use your head, along with common sense. I hope you get my points. Well I have to go. cya

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by whitefork


Up jump da funk, welcome back. Too bad we didn't start a clock for you - you'da won a prize.
Hey, thanks. I think I owe Q-Source some money though. Looks like I finally did lose the bet....

Regardless, what do I believe?

I believe that I and the universe around me is real. I believe that anything that is real is ultimately knowable and that anything that is truely unknowable is not real. I believe that it behaves in a certain manner that doesn't change over time. I believe that people are basically good when and because they choose to be. I believe that I am still growing as a person and that the above beliefs will probably change as a part of that growth.

[Keneke]

post removed

[Keneke]

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP!

{newbie}
Isn't that a category error called "fallacy of compostion"?
{/newbie}

[evildave]

(sigh)

Yeah, that's been pointed out before. It's really not worth the trouble. You may as well try to teach someone to program who can't figure out why the computer needs to be plugged into anything.

But I'm sure Franko will start pasting in his nonsense again with some lovely name-mangling and personal insults just to keep it fresh for himself.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Hey, thanks. I think I owe Q-Source some money though. Looks like I finally did lose the bet....



Oh, you liar :p

You ALWAYS Knew that you would come back. It was a matter of time.

However, you did not break Jedi's record... so good for you.

Q-S

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by tjwojo
[B]

I have to disagree with your use of the word "heart" to describe instinct. Usually when "heart" is involved in your decisions, it means that emotions are also involved. While it is nearly impossible to exclude emotions from one's life decisions, a person should recognize when he or she is doing so.



Emotions form an integral part of everyday decisions. What is wrong with that?



My heart tells me I should believe in an afterlife because it would be nice to not fear death.



The only way to be sure that nothing unpleasant happens after death is to reject life after death. BTW almost certainly the reason why you believe it is more rational not to believe in "life after death" is because you have been "brainwashed" into relatively unthinking acceptance of the modern common western metaphysic ie materialism.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Celtic Warrior
Muscleman and Interesting Ian will occupy your attention for about the same length of time.
To be fair, Double-I will at least have you reaching for your dictionary. You'll learn some vocabulary, if nothing else.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Upchurch


I believe that I and the universe around me is real.

What would it mean to say that you were unreal? More specifically, if a person came to the conclusion that she was "unreal", what exactly would she be asserting precisely?

What would it mean to say that the Universe were unreal?

That it has a material existence perhaps?

[CWL]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Hey, thanks. I think I owe Q-Source some money though. Looks like I finally did lose the bet....

Regardless, what do I believe?

I believe that I and the universe around me is real. I believe that anything that is real is ultimately knowable and that anything that is truely unknowable is not real. I believe that it behaves in a certain manner that doesn't change over time. I believe that people are basically good when and because they choose to be. I believe that I am still growing as a person and that the above beliefs will probably change as a part of that growth.

Greetings Upfunkalistico-Bombastico!

You have been missed.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dragonrock


You touch upon an interesting point here. The belief in the paranormal is more of an emotional response than a logical one and on other threads posters have asked why there are more male skeptics than female skeptics. This has probably been brought up before, but is it possible that women seem to have a higher rate of belief in the paranormal because they are more likely to make decisions based on emotion?

Before Lisa, Girl 6, and the other skepchicks jump on me, I'm speaking of tendencies not absolutes, the are exceptions to every rule, including this one.

Do you actually have any evidence that woman are more emotional than men? Seems from my experience that men get more enraged generally speaking than woman over comparatively trivial things (road rage etc etc). Possibly woman may cry more, but maybe men tend to cover it up?

Anyway, I don't know if woman have a greater propensity to believe in the paranormal, but if they do might it not be somehow connected to the fact that the left and right hemispheres of the brain in woman have more fibres connecting them allowing great information flow?

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Emotions form an integral part of everyday decisions. What is wrong with that?



I made a slight disclaimer in my previous post that said emotions could not be totally brushed aside. However, things usually turn out for the best when you realize whether the decisions you are making are based on emotions rather than rational thought.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

The only way to be sure that nothing unpleasant happens after death is to reject life after death. BTW almost certainly the reason why you believe it is more rational not to believe in "life after death" is because you have been "brainwashed" into relatively unthinking acceptance of the modern common western metaphysic ie materialism.

Why would it be more rational to believe in life after death? There is no evidence for it. I have believed for most of my life that there would be a place to go when I died, but I finally came to realize the whole idea seems pretty ridiculous. I do not want to delude myself with fantasies that make me unafraid of the inevitable, so I stopped believing.

Also, if any brainwashing is going on, it is through the perpetuation of centuries old myth as reality. Several religions have no concept of an afterlife. Do you think they are all brainwashed because they do not believe what you do? Don't you think that if something like an afterlife were real, then it would be self-evident across many cultures?

My conversion was based on rational analysis of the evidence, or lack thereof. I no longer felt the need to cling to the unreal in order to make myself feel more significant. I guess if I take brainwashing to mean "cleaning out the garbage from my brain", then you would be correct.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Do you actually have any evidence that woman are more emotional than men? Seems from my experience that men get more enraged generally speaking than woman over comparatively trivial things (road rage etc etc). Possibly woman may cry more, but maybe men tend to cover it up?


This is a good point. Men are conditioned by society to hide their emotions. This does not necessarily mean that they do not have them but are influenced by them.

Women, to all outward appearances, are more emotional. And anger is certainly not something men have a monopoly on. We tend to focus on masculine anger for two reasons : anger is the one powerful emotion that men are allowed to display without losing face, and men have the potential for more physical damage when anger takes control.

[Upchurch]

Q,

Do you take checks or only cash?

Ian,
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

What would it mean to say that you were unreal? More specifically, if a person came to the conclusion that she was "unreal", what exactly would she be asserting precisely?
Well, I never used the term "unreal". However, if I were to define "unreal", I'd say that it is something that is not real. Okay, so what do I mean by "real". Well, in my belief statement, I was speaking in terms of physical existance. I was counting anything that has physical existance as being "real". Therefore, anything that does not have physical existance is "unreal".

Of course, now that I think about it, this ignores the existance or reality of ideas and concepts, which I suppose I should have included. But that is a different kind of existance or "real". Conceptual reality is subjective, in my opinion. It is only as real as the conceiver chooses to make it. For example, the Christian God has as much reality as the Easter Bunny to me, but to a Christian, God is quite a bit more real than the Easter Bunny. It's subjective.

(I can already see the counter arguments being put together that some folks believe that physical reality is also subjective, but I'm talking about my beliefs. This is what I mean by "I believe the Universe is real". I believe that physical reality is objective reality.)

What would it mean to say that the Universe were unreal?

That it has a material existence perhaps?
This I don't quite follow. By my premise that physical existance is real, these contradict. If the Universe were 'unreal" it wouldn't have material existance. If it had material existance, it wouldn't be unreal.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Upchurch

II
What would it mean to say that the Universe were unreal?

That it has a material existence perhaps?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This I don't quite follow.


:rolleyes: It's ok, I was just being flippant ;)

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Do you actually have any evidence that woman are more emotional than men? Seems from my experience that men get more enraged generally speaking than woman over comparatively trivial things (road rage etc etc). Possibly woman may cry more, but maybe men tend to cover it up?

Anyway, I don't know if woman have a greater propensity to believe in the paranormal, but if they do might it not be somehow connected to the fact that the left and right hemispheres of the brain in woman have more fibres connecting them allowing great information flow?

I don't have any proof I can give you, it's in my psych textbook and I haven't looked for links. But, I think you accidentally made a statement that strengthens my point.

Yes, the hemispheres of a woman's brain are better connected. The highway between the hemispheres (corpus callosum) is larger and more fibrous in women. Because of this the different centers of a woman's brain communicate more than in a man. Woman make decisions based on a host of factors, including how something makes them feel. Men choose the factors that they feel are most important to the current situation. The tendency is that it is easier for men to make decision absent of emotion. On the down side is a difficulty for men to express what they feel because it's not easy to get info from the emotional center to the communications center.

The result of this is a greater tendency for women to make decisions based on emotional reasons and belief in an afterlife does serve to make some people feel better.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dragonrock
On the down side is a difficulty for men to express what they feel because it's not easy to get info from the emotional center to the communications center.

The result of this is a greater tendency for women to make decisions based on emotional reasons and belief in an afterlife does serve to make some people feel better. [/B]

I don't have any difficulty in expressing how I feel.

I recognised that the hemispheres having a better connection could be used to justify the belief that woman are more emotional. Depends what you mean by emotional. In my personnal experience woman aren't. Less emotional it seems to me.

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I don't have any difficulty in expressing how I feel.

I'm happy for you.

I'm speaking of tendencies. My belief is that in general, women express their emotions better than men do.

I recognised that the hemispheres having a better connection could be used to justify the belief that woman are more emotional. Depends what you mean by emotional. In my personnal experience woman aren't. Less emotional it seems to me.

My suggestion is not meant to encompass everyone, I'm speaking about on average a comparison between men and women. Let me give an example; In general men play better golf than women. The best male golfer is probably better than the best female golfer. However, the worst professional female golfer could still beat me without even trying. I'm speaking in general terms that are only really visible if you look at large populations.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Dragonrock

The result of this is a greater tendency for women to make decisions based on emotional reasons and belief in an afterlife does serve to make some people feel better.


However, have you noticed that in our world's history, the majority of religious leaders and their herarchies are just men?.

So, we have that some men build their whole belief systems in emotions and wishful thinking and then recruit women because they assume that women are more emotional and delusional than them.

Q

[J3K]

Q-Source

This could just be because men urge for power more and through history have been the majority of all leaders.

[Interesting Ian]

I'm far from happy with this conclusion that woman are more emotional. First of all you need to define precisely what is meant by "emotion". Certainly in some senses men are more emotional. For example I believe that this is why the best singers tend to be male.

If you want my honest opinion, and subject to the caveat that we have not precisely defined "emotion", I get the impression that the most emotional people are males, and also the least emotional people are males. In other words men cover a greater range in their capacity to feel emotions.

As a matter of interest I also think that this is also the case with intelligence and also the case with how nice people are. So the people who tend to have the highest intelligence tend to be men, but also the people with the lowest intelligence tend to be men. The same goes with how nice people are. Just my personnal impressions. I know of absolutely no research in this area whatsoever, and I've never heard anyone else express this view before.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by tjwojo


I made a slight disclaimer in my previous post that said emotions could not be totally brushed aside. However, things usually turn out for the best when you realize whether the decisions you are making are based on emotions rather than rational thought.



Oh absolutely. We should certainly be aware when decisions are based purely on emotions rather than rational thought. I wonder though why you think that emotions and a rational appraisal need be mutually exclusive?



Why would it be more rational to believe in life after death?


Well I could write many thousands of words on that!


There is no evidence for it.


You simply couldn't be more wrong. There is a huge collosal amount of evidence. The question of how consistent this evidence is, and how persausive it is, is of course an entirely different question. You also need to be aware that it's not simply a question of evidence either way. It is our underlying assumptions about reality which will heavily dictate our beliefs in this respect.

Anyway, for a very brief adumbration of the various types of evidence take a look here (http://www.noetic.org/IONS/archivelisting_frame.asp?ID=447)

Pertinent in this respect is where he states:


The evidence suggestive of life after death is considerable, daunting in its complexity and suggestiveness. Yet conclusive solutions elude us, and, as William James once said, nature seems determined in this department of knowledge to continually baffle us.


I have to say I absolutely concur whole heartedly with William James sentiments. Don't I just! I have the feeling that the more we delve into all the evidence the more perplexed and bewildered we shall become. It just reinforces my conviction that our lives and the Universe are wholly mysterious, and ultimately we know nothing at all. Maybe we're just not capable of doing so. Maybe we're just not intelligent enough. (BTW science ultimately just deals with predicting the course of our sensory experiences. Big deal!).

Anyway, later on the guy who wrote the article says:


When I look closely within myself, I feel pulled toward belief in probable extinction. This is due to what has been called the spell of the paradigm, the feeling that I do not inhabit the kind of universe where the leap into a new mode of existence after biological death is possible–or at any rate, probable. This has something to do with my educational experience. The model of reality that was in the air at Columbia University where I studied philosophy and classics in the 1960s was simply not congenial to belief in postmortem survival.


Absolutely! This is essentially what I was saying to you before. The reason why educated people do not believe, and even think the idea of survival is absurd, is largely due to the time and place they were born. We implicitly take on the beliefs of our prevailing culture. If you had been born in a different century on a different part of the globe, do you really sincerely belief you would have the same beliefs? No of course not! This idea that it is more rational not to believe in a "life after death" and paranormal phenomena is just a nonsense. To say the very least the emphasis on the rationality of humankind is greatly exaggerated! Nor, I believe, would it make much difference if we continually tried to be as rational as it is humanly possible to be. It is my opinion that reality is to baffling and intractable to be understood. Accept our limitations.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


You simply couldn't be more wrong. There is a huge collosal amount of evidence. The question of how consistent this evidence is, and how persausive it is, is of course an entirely different question.

Ian,

I think the question whether or not the evidence is relevant and persuasive is ENTIRELy relevant to the matter of what you mentioned.

This is precisely why they are not taken seriously by the scientific community.


You also need to be aware that it's not simply a question of evidence either way. It is our underlying assumptions about reality which will heavily dictate our beliefs in this respect.

No, you are wrong. Assumptions do not determine or influence the outcome of our results.

If something is true, no matter which frame of reference you apply, the results will ALWAYS be consistent with reality.



Absolutely! This is essentially what I was saying to you before. The reason why educated people do not believe, and even think the idea of survival is absurd, is largely due to the time and place they were born.

You just said it. The reason why educated people do not believe in fairy tales is because they are educated!. They just don't look at the wrong way to find the answers.

However, it is true that Science does not give us all the answer we would like to hear. But, why should we look back in the past or believe in irrational explanations provided by our grandparents?

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I wonder though why you think that emotions and a rational appraisal need be mutually exclusive?



Again, I did not say they are mutually exclusive. I said that one should recognize where emotions play a part in decisions.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

You simply couldn't be more wrong. There is a huge collosal amount of evidence.
...
Anyway, for a very brief adumbration of the various types of evidence take a look here (http://www.noetic.org/IONS/archivelisting_frame.asp?ID=447)



I did not see anything in that article that suggests they have more than anecdotal evidence of an afterlife. Near-Death experiences are inadmissable simply because of the unstable state of the human mind in such situations.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

The reason why educated people do not believe, and even think the idea of survival is absurd, is largely due to the time and place they were born. We implicitly take on the beliefs of our prevailing culture. If you had been born in a different century on a different part of the globe, do you really sincerely belief you would have the same beliefs? No of course not! This idea that it is more rational not to believe in a "life after death" and paranormal phenomena is just a nonsense. To say the very least the emphasis on the rationality of humankind is greatly exaggerated! Nor, I believe, would it make much difference if we continually tried to be as rational as it is humanly possible to be. It is my opinion that reality is to baffling and intractable to be understood. Accept our limitations.

This argument actually works against you, Ian. First, I was raised as a Protestant Christian who was very active in his church throughout much of his life. I always had doubts, and they constantly grew. Eventually, my doubts reached "critical mass" and I realized that I was deluding myself. So, the time and place in which I was born worked to have to opposite effect on me.

Second, at no time in my education was I taught how to think critically. Our school system teaches us to accept what is given to us as true, so my education is not a factor.

Lastly, you say that I would not be an atheist in a different time and place. This is probably true. However, if I had been born in ancient Greece or Rome, I would have believed in many gods. Does this make it right? I would have believed that bleeding relieves fevers. I would have believed that demons cause disease. Does this validate those concepts? Is it more rational, then, to believe these things because they were once held as true?

[DrMatt]

I believe in the yumminess of chocolate.

[Franko]

j3k:
This could just be because men urge for power more and through history have been the majority of all leaders.

Well behaved Women rarely make history.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Well behaved Women rarely make history.

...and Logical Deists never do.