kristoff wrote: Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:49 pm For what it is worth, there will not be a forum on religion and philosophy.

Pity. I was so looking forward to flaming some of the idiots who would post on such a forum. And no doubt being flamed too.

Religion is relatively easy to get emotional about. Most of us in the course of our lives have had some instruction in it.

Philosophy on the other hand is not all that easy. It calls for rigorous logic and a great deal of close reading before we are qualified to pronounce on an issue.

And in philosphy pointing out an error is someone else's logic is part of the fun.

Not that being ill-informed would stop most of us from having a say. We have have grown up in a democratic tradition where having your say is something to which you are perfectly entitled, but which you do not necessarily deserve.

We believe.

We believe we know.

We think we know.

Yet how much of what we believe we know or think we know really is not fact?

Proper news media goes to great lengths to publish to the greatest extent possible the truth, even though sometimes even they are mistaken.

The internet is a forum for massive mis-information. Some of it intentionally created, some of it mistakenly created. But once created, like the old fashioned "phone tree", the word is spread, distorted a little more, and spread again.

Thus any dialogue on any topic, religion and philosophy included, can be a potential exercise in futility. How can we know we are putting forth actual truth? How can we know that the comments of others are true, or are at least based on actual fact?

Even before digital imaging, photographs were "doctored" to create something that never existed in reality. Today photographic manipulation is rampant. We can not believe what we see in print, be it word or photograph.

There is so much to doubt, so much to not believe in, people almost lust for something, anything that they can believe in. It is therefore understandable that people believe in that which can not be proven to be false and religion fits that criteria. Outer space aliens is another thing to believe in for that too can not yet be proven or disproven and we don't know if it will ever be proven or disproven.

I can believe that I will never win a lottery, and I can know for certain that this is true if I never buy a lottery ticket. But if I buy a ticket now and then, I can believe that I will never win a lottery, but my belief is not necessarily true for it is possible that I might win something small or large. Or I can believe that I will win. The choice to believe is mine. Either way it is unproveable until I win, or I stop buying tickets whether alive or dead.

Religion is a bit like the lottery in that regard. You can choose to believe in everything that a religion contains, or you can choose to pick a la cart and believe in certain parts of a religion, or you can choose to believe in nothing about a particular religion. Many religions have similar beliefs, so if you believe in one or more parts about one religion there is a chance that you believe, in part, with another religion.

Ethics and morality on the other hand seem to be intrinsic in life, whether you believe in one, or more, or no religions. Ethics and morality transcend religion. You can be a so called "non-believer" (in religion) and still know, not just believe, that it is immoral to sexually molest a child----not knowing this, not believing this, is an indication you grew up in a morally corrupt environment and/or are clinically insane.

Facts and truths do not divide us, unless you absolutely refuse to accept what is factual or truthful.

No, it is our beliefs in what can not be proven, what is disputable, what is possible or probable that divide us. And we debate, argue, and enter into dispute and conflict.

DIfferences of opinon, about that which can not be proven; either at all, or until some eventual conclusion.

Will the government's stimulus packages (Bush's and Obama's) work?

We debate, we agree, we disagree.

Eventually we will know the answer.

Sometimes it seems we waste our time debating that which we can not know until we know it. In the end we are looking to win the lottery of being right over others who were wrong.

...

Kortpeel (imported) wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2009 2:36 am I was so looking forward to flaming some of the idiots who would post on such a forum. And no doubt being flamed too....

& ....Not that being ill-informed would stop most of us from having a say. We have have grown up in a democratic tradition where having your say is something to which you are perfectly entitled, but which you do not necessarily deserve.

People with firm beliefs in a particular religion or philosophy are not neccessarily idiots. If people are ill-informed then they must have their say so that those who may be better informed can correct them, but at all times with respect and courtesy.

gareth19 (imported) wrote: Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:52 pm As the philosopher David Hume observed of the Kantian revolution in philosophy, "There is nothing to know, and no mind to know it." So that is pretty much the end of philosophy.

Martin Luther opined that every man could be his own priest (and this has evolved so that everyone is his very own personal Ted Haggard), and that has pretty much put an end to religion.

So what is there to talk about?

**NILHISM*

*asterisks added to make the minimum 10 character post demand.

Hillel used to say: ”If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?” Wisdom from the Talmud.

It's just a game to say

gareth19 (imported) wrote: Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:52 pm "There is nothing to know, and no mind to know it."

If that were so, then there's also no mind to perceive this, or lips to speak it. If anyone is serious about saying he doesn't exist, then let him send me all his possessions.

bobover3 (imported) wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2009 9:58 pm Hillel used to say: ”If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?” Wisdom from the Talmud.

It's just a game to say

gareth19 (imported) wrote: Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:52 pm "Ther

bobover3 (imported) wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2009 9:58 pm e is nothing to know, and no mind to know it."

If that were so, then there's also no mind to perceive this, or lips to speak it. If anyone is serious about saying he

doesn't exist, then let him send me all his possessions.

Yes, something like...

...if my penis dipped into the toilet, would anyone hear the splash...

OR...

...if I really do not exist then what is all of this fuss about orgasms...

Kortpeel (imported) wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2009 2:36 am Pity. I was so looking forward to flaming some of the idiots who would post on such a forum. And no doubt being flamed too.

Religion is relatively easy to get emotional about. Most of us in the course of our lives have had some instruction in it.

Philosophy on the other hand is not all that easy. It calls for rigorous logic and a great deal of close reading before we are qualified to pronounce on an issue.

And in philosphy pointing out an error is someone else's logic is part of the fun.

Pointing out an error logically and civilly is part of the fun. Flaming shouldn't really happen in philosophy. That's why it's such a fantastic discipline: you have to work through things with your opponents, refining logical gaps and improving your argument. When people attack it just shuts down enjoyable conversation.

Arab Nights (imported) wrote: Fri Jun 05, 2009 5:35 am My one-liner was twisted humor as in pro-lifers killing people.

meh I feel compelled to say that there is very little hypocrisy there.

The real hypocrisy is that there are pro-death penalty people that believe abortion is murder and yet are not out there killing abortionists.

Arguing that all innocent humans have the "right to life" doesn't mean a murderer necessarily does.

Not something I agree with, but... considering most prolifers views as a whole, it only makes sense that they're killing doctors.

...

nullorchis (imported) wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2009 3:07 am it is our beliefs in what can not be proven, what is disputable, what is possible or probable that divide us. And we debate, argue, and enter into dispute and conflict.

DIfferences of opinon, about that which can not be proven; either at all, or until some eventual conclusion.

Having your beliefs challenged by a knowledgeable person in a calm and reasoning discussion is a truly educational experience. You will go away from that discussion and rethink your position. The result is intellectual growth. You will be a little better and a little wiser for it.

I have noticed that debate over issues does actually move things forward. It reveals what is important and what is unimportant, it causes us to examine and redefine objectives, it reveals aspects of an issue which we hadn't previously considered. It makes for better understanding all round.

Yes we are human and we may get angry with someone else during the course of the debate. Provided no actual physical harm has been done the anger generated by words can be resolved by words (and the parasympathetic nervous system of course).

But always remember, even in the heat of the moment, attack the argument, not the person. Being able to do that is the essence of being a civilised person.

My criticism of philosophy is, that practically all philosophers have made assumptions which they didn't recognize to be assumptions--usually, the philosopher considered that something was obvious when it wasn't--and that invalidated most or all of his philosophy. Kant, Shankara, Aquinas, even Santayana, all started their reasoning processes from one or more (usually many) assumptions that can now be shown to be almost certainly false.

Of course, another way of looking at things, is that we live and exist as personalities entirely in our minds, and we create our own reality in our brains. So if a philosophy is consistent in your head, then it works for you. Quite true that our notion of reality is largely generated by the properties of our minds. Color, for example, represents an emphasis by our minds on reflections of certain wave lengths of electromagnetic radiation. If the sun emitted different wave lengths of light, we'd probably have evolved to emphasize those. Not sure why music is considered beautiful by our minds, but perhaps the relative simplicity of the harmonies and melodies makes our heads think that those musical qualities are attractive.

Charlie Brown, Lucy, and Linus are some of my favorite philosophers. Too bad Charles Schulz is deceased and Peanuts is a thing of the past.