[POLL]Your religion? - Page 8

On August 13 2012 01:15 uiCk wrote: Philosophy is the process of creating theories. Spirituality is a theory. Spirituality does not give us answers, but IS an answer to the "subjective" realm. Philosophy is the process of organizing and understanding the "subjective" realm, or in real terms, knowledge, ideas, arguments, logic etc. i'm arguing about that semantic, since i don't want to see philosophy and other useful disciplines be dragged down to the uselessness that is spirituality and it's monstrous creation which is religion; which in your terms, decimates the "subjective" realm by replacing it with absolutes like God, Heaven, Soul and other ideas to "satisfy one need to know" instead of letting oneself be content with what really drives everything, which is chaos. As for the OCD part, you are right that what drives people is curiosity and the "need to know" which is why Organized religion has had such huge success harvesting that impulsive "need to know" i'm going to stop here, i was only interested into seeing if you actually had anything thoughtful of why you would group philosophy and spirituality and religion into one group; which you have not accomplished since your only point is that they all deal with theoretical work (one creates theories the other is a theory and the other is organized ponzi scheme, where the higher returns are a promise that you matter and will live forever)

I don't see it that way, you have a very strict definition of religion. I haven't bought any ready made religion, because I don't believe they have the best possible truth either, I have "made my own" religion by putting together the best possible explanation from any religion or philosophy. I don't believe in dogma, I believe in a religion which evolves just like man evolves, and thus evolves to suit mans current needs and provide the best explanation from current knowledge, just like science.

Maybe a dogmatic religion was needed because man could not think for himself, maybe you can lessen the dogma in proportion to the intelligence and knowledge of the population.

On August 13 2012 01:17 Zorglub wrote: Perhaps there is a logical reason for the existence of religions? Perhaps it has to do with diversity? If we look at what we know, it sure looks like mother earth prefers diversity over almost everything else. Maybe religion is responsible for the diversity of cultures, traditions and people, the stuff that makes the earth an exciting and interesting place to live, where you can experience new and different stuff everywhere? Wouldn't it be boring if we were all the same and everywhere you went looked the same?

How is religion responsible for the diversity of cultures? Aren't things like crusades, missionaries there to assimilate, influence other cultures? (which really means to destroy other cultures).

Diversity in human race was due to geographical barriers. What is happening right now, what you call "boring", is called globalization, thanks to science and breaches in new technologies that transfer information instantly.

There are things in this world that makes us more diverse and original then being part of a organization or culture. There are other ways to feed our desire to be part of a "group" , which is really the main purpose of a "culture", a "country" or race etc.
What makes an individual special is not what country hes from, what culture he's part of, what religion he's part of, but what his sum of personal experiences that individual is constituted from. That's diversity.

On August 13 2012 01:34 uiCk wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2012 01:17 Zorglub wrote: Perhaps there is a logical reason for the existence of religions? Perhaps it has to do with diversity? If we look at what we know, it sure looks like mother earth prefers diversity over almost everything else. Maybe religion is responsible for the diversity of cultures, traditions and people, the stuff that makes the earth an exciting and interesting place to live, where you can experience new and different stuff everywhere? Wouldn't it be boring if we were all the same and everywhere you went looked the same? How is religion responsible for the diversity of cultures? Aren't things like crusades, missionaries there to assimilate, influence other cultures? (which really means to destroy other cultures). Diversity in human race was due to geographical barriers. What is happening right now, what you call "boring", is called globalization, thanks to science and breaches in new technologies that transfer information instantly. There are things in this world that makes us more diverse and original then being part of a organization or culture. There are other ways to feed our desire to be part of a "group" , which is really the main purpose of a "culture", a "country" or race etc. What makes an individual special is not what country hes from, what culture he's part of, what religion he's part of, but what his sum of personal experiences that individual is constituted from. That's diversity.

Diversity is the result of any kind of difference be it philosophy, geographical barriers, culture, color, gender, etc. this includes religion/world view. Thus different world views/religions provide even more possibilities for diversity.

Because of human emotions like greed, jalousi and such these differences cause strife, when in fact we should cherish them and see them for what they are namely opportunities for ourselves and everybody else to learn/experience/be something we are not.

On August 13 2012 01:39 Zorglub wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2012 01:34 uiCk wrote:   On August 13 2012 01:17 Zorglub wrote: Perhaps there is a logical reason for the existence of religions? Perhaps it has to do with diversity? If we look at what we know, it sure looks like mother earth prefers diversity over almost everything else. Maybe religion is responsible for the diversity of cultures, traditions and people, the stuff that makes the earth an exciting and interesting place to live, where you can experience new and different stuff everywhere? Wouldn't it be boring if we were all the same and everywhere you went looked the same? How is religion responsible for the diversity of cultures? Aren't things like crusades, missionaries there to assimilate, influence other cultures? (which really means to destroy other cultures). Diversity in human race was due to geographical barriers. What is happening right now, what you call "boring", is called globalization, thanks to science and breaches in new technologies that transfer information instantly. There are things in this world that makes us more diverse and original then being part of a organization or culture. There are other ways to feed our desire to be part of a "group" , which is really the main purpose of a "culture", a "country" or race etc. What makes an individual special is not what country hes from, what culture he's part of, what religion he's part of, but what his sum of personal experiences that individual is constituted from. That's diversity. Diversity is the result of any kind of difference be it philosophy, geographical barriers, culture, color, gender, etc. this includes religion/world view. Thus different world views/religions provide even more possibilities for diversity.

Yea i think your confusing things here. Diversity in religion, is due to diversity of that region where that certain religion is based in. Religion didn't create the diversity. When the America was discovered, the curch was the first to make sure the new, much more diverse population, becomes assimilated, and much less diverse. i don't see how (since you have not) you can say Religion has created diversity in a logical manner.

Unless you mean for a person in our day and age, born under a certain "view"/religion, has the option to "diversify" himself with (only) the good side of a different religion. Then yea sure, but that has nothing to do with anything we have discussed and explains how you and many others these years are turning into the true new religion of the future : New Age. (unless we move on from silly idea that we have a soul thus we are eternal thus we don't have to fear nothingness/the unknown; i still have hope). Which is not really diversity since, at the moment, New Age is forming as a conglomerate of religions and spiritual beliefs, creating a global religion which will ultimately kill all religious diversity. And the structure of this new religion is much more corporate then ever before (Naturopathy and yoga related things are cashing in big now).

On August 13 2012 01:48 uiCk wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2012 01:39 Zorglub wrote:   On August 13 2012 01:34 uiCk wrote:   On August 13 2012 01:17 Zorglub wrote: Perhaps there is a logical reason for the existence of religions? Perhaps it has to do with diversity? If we look at what we know, it sure looks like mother earth prefers diversity over almost everything else. Maybe religion is responsible for the diversity of cultures, traditions and people, the stuff that makes the earth an exciting and interesting place to live, where you can experience new and different stuff everywhere? Wouldn't it be boring if we were all the same and everywhere you went looked the same? How is religion responsible for the diversity of cultures? Aren't things like crusades, missionaries there to assimilate, influence other cultures? (which really means to destroy other cultures). Diversity in human race was due to geographical barriers. What is happening right now, what you call "boring", is called globalization, thanks to science and breaches in new technologies that transfer information instantly. There are things in this world that makes us more diverse and original then being part of a organization or culture. There are other ways to feed our desire to be part of a "group" , which is really the main purpose of a "culture", a "country" or race etc. What makes an individual special is not what country hes from, what culture he's part of, what religion he's part of, but what his sum of personal experiences that individual is constituted from. That's diversity. Diversity is the result of any kind of difference be it philosophy, geographical barriers, culture, color, gender, etc. this includes religion/world view. Thus different world views/religions provide even more possibilities for diversity. Yea i think your confusing things here. Diversity in religion, is due to diversity of that region where that certain religion is based in. Religion didn't create the diversity. When the America was discovered, the curch was the first to make sure the new, much more diverse population, becomes assimilated, and much less diverse. i don't see how (since you have not) you can say Religion has created diversity in a logical manner. Unless you mean for a person in our day and age, born under a certain "view"/religion, has the option to "diversify" himself with (only) the good side of a different religion. Then yea sure, but that has nothing to do with anything we have discussed.

I think religion has the role of building the skeleton or structure on which the culture grows. Its rules and regulations functions as the "blueprint" for the civilization. If there were no blueprint, there would be too much chaos, and this would perhaps cause the culture to decline due to too much diversity and nothing holding the culture together. (Of course a communist dictator could do the same job).

Just like everywhere else there need to be the right relation of order and chaos, diversity and patriotism, science and religion. They work best or only in pairs, alone they are not half as good as when they are together in the right amounts. Syncretism, the two of them together gives more value than twice any of their individual values.

On August 13 2012 01:10 Zorglub wrote: good luck with your flat earth and geocentric theories.

Pathetic attempt at drawing me into an argument. Boring.

On August 13 2012 02:10 Funktion wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2012 01:10 Zorglub wrote: good luck with your flat earth and geocentric theories. Pathetic attempt at drawing me into an argument. Boring.

Dude you have brought nothing to this argument at all except pathetic attempts at insulting me, I don't fall for your teenage psychology. Discuss the stuff on topic and enlighten me where my logic is flawed or just shut up, thank you.

On August 13 2012 01:59 Zorglub wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2012 01:48 uiCk wrote:   On August 13 2012 01:39 Zorglub wrote:   On August 13 2012 01:34 uiCk wrote:   On August 13 2012 01:17 Zorglub wrote: Perhaps there is a logical reason for the existence of religions? Perhaps it has to do with diversity? If we look at what we know, it sure looks like mother earth prefers diversity over almost everything else. Maybe religion is responsible for the diversity of cultures, traditions and people, the stuff that makes the earth an exciting and interesting place to live, where you can experience new and different stuff everywhere? Wouldn't it be boring if we were all the same and everywhere you went looked the same? How is religion responsible for the diversity of cultures? Aren't things like crusades, missionaries there to assimilate, influence other cultures? (which really means to destroy other cultures). Diversity in human race was due to geographical barriers. What is happening right now, what you call "boring", is called globalization, thanks to science and breaches in new technologies that transfer information instantly. There are things in this world that makes us more diverse and original then being part of a organization or culture. There are other ways to feed our desire to be part of a "group" , which is really the main purpose of a "culture", a "country" or race etc. What makes an individual special is not what country hes from, what culture he's part of, what religion he's part of, but what his sum of personal experiences that individual is constituted from. That's diversity. Diversity is the result of any kind of difference be it philosophy, geographical barriers, culture, color, gender, etc. this includes religion/world view. Thus different world views/religions provide even more possibilities for diversity. Yea i think your confusing things here. Diversity in religion, is due to diversity of that region where that certain religion is based in. Religion didn't create the diversity. When the America was discovered, the curch was the first to make sure the new, much more diverse population, becomes assimilated, and much less diverse. i don't see how (since you have not) you can say Religion has created diversity in a logical manner. Unless you mean for a person in our day and age, born under a certain "view"/religion, has the option to "diversify" himself with (only) the good side of a different religion. Then yea sure, but that has nothing to do with anything we have discussed. I think religion has the role of building the skeleton or structure on which the culture grows. Its rules and regulations functions as the "blueprint" for the civilization. If there were no blueprint, there would be too much chaos, and this would perhaps cause the culture to decline due to too much diversity and nothing holding the culture together. (Of course a communist dictator could do the same job). Just like everywhere else there need to be the right relation of order and chaos, diversity and patriotism, science and religion. They work best or only in pairs, alone they are not half as good as when they are together in the right amounts. Syncretism, the two of them together gives more value than twice any of their individual values.

instead of blabering about what comes into your head, how about you reply to my posts?

i'll try and make it easier

How does religion create diversity?

What is spirituality? and is it not a theory? Can you have a "spiritual" discussion with someone? (obviously not, but you can have a philosophical discussion about spirituality, or in real terms, the study of metaphysics, which is a branch of philosophy)
What is philosophy? is it theory? if not, how is it the same as spirituality?

give me substance; i don't really care what you think, i wanna know what you know, so i can understand how you think.

On August 13 2012 02:19 uiCk wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2012 01:59 Zorglub wrote:   On August 13 2012 01:48 uiCk wrote:   On August 13 2012 01:39 Zorglub wrote:   On August 13 2012 01:34 uiCk wrote:   On August 13 2012 01:17 Zorglub wrote: Perhaps there is a logical reason for the existence of religions? Perhaps it has to do with diversity? If we look at what we know, it sure looks like mother earth prefers diversity over almost everything else. Maybe religion is responsible for the diversity of cultures, traditions and people, the stuff that makes the earth an exciting and interesting place to live, where you can experience new and different stuff everywhere? Wouldn't it be boring if we were all the same and everywhere you went looked the same? How is religion responsible for the diversity of cultures? Aren't things like crusades, missionaries there to assimilate, influence other cultures? (which really means to destroy other cultures). Diversity in human race was due to geographical barriers. What is happening right now, what you call "boring", is called globalization, thanks to science and breaches in new technologies that transfer information instantly. There are things in this world that makes us more diverse and original then being part of a organization or culture. There are other ways to feed our desire to be part of a "group" , which is really the main purpose of a "culture", a "country" or race etc. What makes an individual special is not what country hes from, what culture he's part of, what religion he's part of, but what his sum of personal experiences that individual is constituted from. That's diversity. Diversity is the result of any kind of difference be it philosophy, geographical barriers, culture, color, gender, etc. this includes religion/world view. Thus different world views/religions provide even more possibilities for diversity. Yea i think your confusing things here. Diversity in religion, is due to diversity of that region where that certain religion is based in. Religion didn't create the diversity. When the America was discovered, the curch was the first to make sure the new, much more diverse population, becomes assimilated, and much less diverse. i don't see how (since you have not) you can say Religion has created diversity in a logical manner. Unless you mean for a person in our day and age, born under a certain "view"/religion, has the option to "diversify" himself with (only) the good side of a different religion. Then yea sure, but that has nothing to do with anything we have discussed. I think religion has the role of building the skeleton or structure on which the culture grows. Its rules and regulations functions as the "blueprint" for the civilization. If there were no blueprint, there would be too much chaos, and this would perhaps cause the culture to decline due to too much diversity and nothing holding the culture together. (Of course a communist dictator could do the same job). Just like everywhere else there need to be the right relation of order and chaos, diversity and patriotism, science and religion. They work best or only in pairs, alone they are not half as good as when they are together in the right amounts. Syncretism, the two of them together gives more value than twice any of their individual values. instead of blabering about what comes into your head, how about you reply to my posts? i'll try and make it easier How does religion create diversity? What is spirituality? and is it not a theory? Can you have a "spiritual" discussion with someone? (obviously not, but you can have a philosophical discussion about spirituality, or in real terms, the study of metaphysics, which is a branch of philosophy) What is philosophy? is it theory? if not, how is it the same as spirituality? give me substance; i don't really care what you think, i wanna know what you know, so i can understand how you think.

I just explained it. It functions as the blueprint of a civilization, from which other diversities grow. Religion is the "base" organism, the laws, the natural laws of a culture or civilization if you will. It provides an overall or generel proto type of a species and a generel direction of evolution, from which other species or prototypes evolve.

Regarding the spirituality/philosophy you just said it yourself, the line dividing philosophy and spirituality is not strictly defined, perhaps that is also why I ended up in spirituality through philosophy. But religion and spirituality is also knowledge, no matter if you hold it for the truth or not, and as such it is still interesting if you are only interested in knowledge.

I see philosophy as regarding all knowledge, including science and religion. Strictly speaking you could say philosophy is the science of the realm of thoughts, while spirituality is the science/theories about the unknown or unverifiable or subjective experience.

I know nothing, I believe with a logical/probability reason to believe what I do. I believe it exactly because it is the most likely explanation/theory I have yet seen which best explains what we think we know, in the most logical and reasoned manner.

On August 13 2012 01:05 Funktion wrote: I'm not arguing with you at all. Nothing to be gained from trying to influence a fool with such bastardised definitions of science and logic.

Remember that? I hold no respect for how you think or draw your conclusions. I despise how you wield words like science and logic to give some sort of psuedo credence to the baseless crap you speak. Science can replicate and offer proof of conclusions, you explain away your personal revelation of "an entity/god" + Show Spoiler +

with "personal opinion/experience" + Show Spoiler +

To make it clear, there is just no point arguing with someone like you who equates science with religion + Show Spoiler +

or believes that religion is anything resembling or approaching the truth + Show Spoiler +

So have fun with your petty flat earth and teenage digs if they make you feel better.

Edit: There is a word coined by Colbert that pretty much sums this up: Truthiness.

On August 13 2012 02:51 Funktion wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2012 01:05 Funktion wrote: I'm not arguing with you at all. Nothing to be gained from trying to influence a fool with such bastardised definitions of science and logic. Remember that? I hold no respect for how you think or draw your conclusions. I despise how you wield words like science and logic to give some sort of psuedo credence to the baseless crap you speak. Science can replicate and offer proof of conclusions, you explain away your personal revelation of "an entity/god" + Show Spoiler +   On August 12 2012 23:25 Zorglub wrote:made me realize that an entity/God was the only possible or at least most probable explanation. with "personal opinion/experience" + Show Spoiler +   On August 12 2012 23:39 Zorglub wrote: As I said it is a personal opinion/experience that took me years to realize, so I am afraid I can not explain the whole sequence of events that let me to that conclusion here in a short form, I am sorry. That is why I said it was a personal opinion/experience, it has to be experienced to be realized, I can hardly explain it all in words and especially not in a short term. By adding the "personal opinion" I sort of tried to say that I can not explain it to you, it is just a personal experience. To make it clear, there is just no point arguing with someone like you who equates science with religion + Show Spoiler +   On August 12 2012 23:52 Zorglub wrote: To me religion is like science. or believes that religion is anything resembling or approaching the truth + Show Spoiler +   On August 12 2012 23:32 Zorglub wrote: Times change and new theories and religions appear which are hopefully a little closer to the truth than the former versions. So have fun with your petty flat earth and teenage digs if they make you feel better.

I should probably just ignore you, but you know what? I don't really care what you think of me, I did not come here to please you or your hurt ego. What you still dont seem to understand is that science can only replicate the objective reality, science can never prove or replicate the subjective reality, yet we all know it exists. So science can only ever give you half the truth, because it does not look at that part of reality which is the subjective experience and therefore it will never be able to explain or say anything about it, because the results can never be verified objectively.

But I am starting to believe you are just a troll, this is like your fourth post or something and you still didn't bring anything besides pathetic attempts at insults. I have a feeling you could not find any counter arguments, so you had to resort to petty insults.

On August 12 2012 07:35 HiyAfOu wrote: Show nested quote + On August 12 2012 06:36 Baalim wrote:   On August 12 2012 06:01 HiyAfOu wrote:   On August 12 2012 03:31 FarmMylife wrote: Honestly I can see that believing in God and heavan from a logical or scientific point of view is kind or retarded. However if I try to get to heaven by doing good things I am not really hurting anyone. When I die if I was right then all is good and I end up in heaven, if the athiest was right then it wont matter anyways because I wont know. yet there are many scientists who believe in God. Hell, even Einstein believed: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html 98% of nobel prize winner in hard sciences are atheists/agnostics. Could you provide a source? I've found an article (kinda old, it's from 2005) that says it's close to 50% http://www.livescience.com/379-scient...ef-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html

im in colombia right now but ill try to look for the source as soon as i get back, i remember the number perfectly, souce might be faulty.

Still what i meant is the perfectly documented relationship between religiosity and intelligence.

btw Zorglub i answered your question... now what

On August 13 2012 03:13 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On August 12 2012 07:35 HiyAfOu wrote:   On August 12 2012 06:36 Baalim wrote:   On August 12 2012 06:01 HiyAfOu wrote:   On August 12 2012 03:31 FarmMylife wrote: Honestly I can see that believing in God and heavan from a logical or scientific point of view is kind or retarded. However if I try to get to heaven by doing good things I am not really hurting anyone. When I die if I was right then all is good and I end up in heaven, if the athiest was right then it wont matter anyways because I wont know. yet there are many scientists who believe in God. Hell, even Einstein believed: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html 98% of nobel prize winner in hard sciences are atheists/agnostics. Could you provide a source? I've found an article (kinda old, it's from 2005) that says it's close to 50% http://www.livescience.com/379-scient...ef-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html im in colombia right now but ill try to look for the source as soon as i get back, i remember the number perfectly, souce might be faulty. Still what i meant is the perfectly documented relationship between religiosity and intelligence.

Intelligence is a funny thing. It takes intelligence to see intelligence, if the gap is too big you can not see it, or it will make no sense to you.

Maybe the scientist can't see the ones who are socially/emotionally intelligent, and vice versa. Maybe there are all kinds of ways to be intelligent, where the mathematical/scientific is only one of them. Maybe beeing a good mother or a great buddy is also a kind of intelligence?

On August 13 2012 03:14 Baalim wrote: btw Zorglub i answered your question... now what

Post #111

On August 13 2012 03:03 Zorglub wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2012 02:51 Funktion wrote:   On August 13 2012 01:05 Funktion wrote: I'm not arguing with you at all. Nothing to be gained from trying to influence a fool with such bastardised definitions of science and logic. Remember that? I hold no respect for how you think or draw your conclusions. I despise how you wield words like science and logic to give some sort of psuedo credence to the baseless crap you speak. Science can replicate and offer proof of conclusions, you explain away your personal revelation of "an entity/god" + Show Spoiler +   On August 12 2012 23:25 Zorglub wrote:made me realize that an entity/God was the only possible or at least most probable explanation. with "personal opinion/experience" + Show Spoiler +   On August 12 2012 23:39 Zorglub wrote: As I said it is a personal opinion/experience that took me years to realize, so I am afraid I can not explain the whole sequence of events that let me to that conclusion here in a short form, I am sorry. That is why I said it was a personal opinion/experience, it has to be experienced to be realized, I can hardly explain it all in words and especially not in a short term. By adding the "personal opinion" I sort of tried to say that I can not explain it to you, it is just a personal experience. To make it clear, there is just no point arguing with someone like you who equates science with religion + Show Spoiler +   On August 12 2012 23:52 Zorglub wrote: To me religion is like science. or believes that religion is anything resembling or approaching the truth + Show Spoiler +   On August 12 2012 23:32 Zorglub wrote: Times change and new theories and religions appear which are hopefully a little closer to the truth than the former versions. So have fun with your petty flat earth and teenage digs if they make you feel better. I should probably just ignore you, but you know what? I don't really care what you think of me, I did not come here to please you or your hurt ego. What you still dont seem to understand is that science can only replicate the objective reality, science can never prove or replicate the subjective reality, yet we all know it exists. So science can only ever give you half the truth, because it does not look at that part of reality which is the subjective experience and therefore it will never be able to explain or say anything about it, because the results can never be verified objectively. But I am starting to believe you are just a troll, this is like your fourth post or something and you still didn't bring anything besides pathetic attempts at insults. I have a feeling you could not find any counter arguments, so you had to resort to petty insults.

With proper knowledge in the field of Cognitive science, you wouldn't have to put a bunch of things you don't understand (perception, feelings, thoughts) into a group you call "subjective reality" which is code word for "i don't know what i'm talking about"

The more you argue, the more transparent your ignorance becomes.

On August 13 2012 03:03 Zorglub wrote: I have a feeling you could not find any counter arguments, so you had to resort to petty insults.

I think most people reading this will know that I, or anyone else who is so inclined can counter you but, and I'm repeating myself, there is no point. I'm not trying to convince you or persuade you but I don't think you should be able to make these sorts of posts and go unchallenged or to inadvertently influence any casuals who may happen to read this (however unlikely). By calling you out I hope others will see there is a conflict there and look into it for themselves.

+ Show Spoiler +

Obviously I'm having some influence on you, you're starting to sound like me. But then you are religious + Show Spoiler +

On August 13 2012 03:43 Funktion wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2012 03:03 Zorglub wrote: I have a feeling you could not find any counter arguments, so you had to resort to petty insults. I think most people reading this will know that I, or anyone else who is so inclined can counter you but, and I'm repeating myself, there is no point. I'm not trying to convince you or persuade you but I don't think you should be able to make these sorts of posts and go unchallenged or to inadvertently influence any casuals who may happen to read this (however unlikely). By calling you out I hope others will see there is a conflict there and look into it for themselves. + Show Spoiler +   On August 13 2012 02:10 Funktion wrote: Pathetic attempt at drawing me into an argument. Boring.   On August 13 2012 01:05 Funktion wrote: So have fun with your petty flat earth and teenage digs if they make you feel better.   On August 13 2012 03:03 Zorglub wrote: you still didn't bring anything besides pathetic attempts at insults. I have a feeling you could not find any counter arguments, so you had to resort to petty insults. Obviously I'm having some influence on you, you're starting to sound like me. But then you are religious + Show Spoiler + too petty?

How about you started refuting my logic or arguments instead of petty insults then, it should not be difficult if they are as far out as you claim. I am not set on any specific theory, my theory changes as soon as new or better evidence turns up, so if you could convince me with arguments and logic, we would both gain something.

On August 13 2012 03:40 uiCk wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2012 03:03 Zorglub wrote:   On August 13 2012 02:51 Funktion wrote:   On August 13 2012 01:05 Funktion wrote: I'm not arguing with you at all. Nothing to be gained from trying to influence a fool with such bastardised definitions of science and logic. Remember that? I hold no respect for how you think or draw your conclusions. I despise how you wield words like science and logic to give some sort of psuedo credence to the baseless crap you speak. Science can replicate and offer proof of conclusions, you explain away your personal revelation of "an entity/god" + Show Spoiler +   On August 12 2012 23:25 Zorglub wrote:made me realize that an entity/God was the only possible or at least most probable explanation. with "personal opinion/experience" + Show Spoiler +   On August 12 2012 23:39 Zorglub wrote: As I said it is a personal opinion/experience that took me years to realize, so I am afraid I can not explain the whole sequence of events that let me to that conclusion here in a short form, I am sorry. That is why I said it was a personal opinion/experience, it has to be experienced to be realized, I can hardly explain it all in words and especially not in a short term. By adding the "personal opinion" I sort of tried to say that I can not explain it to you, it is just a personal experience. To make it clear, there is just no point arguing with someone like you who equates science with religion + Show Spoiler +   On August 12 2012 23:52 Zorglub wrote: To me religion is like science. or believes that religion is anything resembling or approaching the truth + Show Spoiler +   On August 12 2012 23:32 Zorglub wrote: Times change and new theories and religions appear which are hopefully a little closer to the truth than the former versions. So have fun with your petty flat earth and teenage digs if they make you feel better. I should probably just ignore you, but you know what? I don't really care what you think of me, I did not come here to please you or your hurt ego. What you still dont seem to understand is that science can only replicate the objective reality, science can never prove or replicate the subjective reality, yet we all know it exists. So science can only ever give you half the truth, because it does not look at that part of reality which is the subjective experience and therefore it will never be able to explain or say anything about it, because the results can never be verified objectively. But I am starting to believe you are just a troll, this is like your fourth post or something and you still didn't bring anything besides pathetic attempts at insults. I have a feeling you could not find any counter arguments, so you had to resort to petty insults. With proper knowledge in the field of Cognitive science, you wouldn't have to put a bunch of things you don't understand (perception, feelings, thoughts) into a group you call "subjective reality" which is code word for "i don't know what i'm talking about" The more you argue, the more transparent your ignorance becomes.

I am bunching subjective experiences into a group I call "subjective reality" because they are experiences, that are not necessarily interpreted or even experienced the same way by different people, therefore you can only say very little objectively about them as most of the experience is individual and inherent subjective.

Can you explain with words how love feels to a person who never experienced it, and expect him to fully understand the concept and know how it feels? No you can not, we dont have sufficient words/language/vocabulary to explain it perfectly, you have to feel/experience it yourself before you really know what it is. The same holds true for many other feelings and emotions. And even when you have had the experience, your perception of it might not be the same as another persons perception of the same experience, so we would call the feelings/state the same, but in reality we do not necessarily feel the exact same emotions.

On August 12 2012 19:09 Zorglub wrote: Ok and how would an eletric impulse from a neuron ever get translated into something we recognize? I think that requires some kind of mind. We dont see or feel electric impulses, we see pictures and feel emotions right?

LOL what?Plz read this : about perception