Originally posted by epiphinehasAnd I have no reason to believe otherwise. Neither do you. You have provided no evidence or argument to support your claim.
It is your claim that animals and humans have a free will which cannot be affected by conditioning. You allow that animals and humans can be conditioned to a certain degree, but that an essential part of their nature is somehow indomitable.
You have no reason to believe this.
So far, all that you've been able to muster in defense of your ad hoc position is, "If you owned a dog, then you'd know that I'm right."
I know a bit about how conditioning works, and I see no reason why it should be assumed that it can be used for total control. I simply take the default position that it cant.
You on the other hand seemed to believe that it was standard knowledge that humans are unique in that respect and that atheists were trying to prove otherwise. That is not true.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonlove exists? art exists? you are mistaken. they are all abstract notions. i am not even sure how you can define them. let's start with art, it is simpler.
[b]…god isn't required to make the universe work..…
Correct -no “god” is necessary to “explain” why anything works in the universe or, indeed, “why” the universe exists (not that I think there is a reason “why&ldquo😉 -that is why “god” is an unnecessary hypotheses.
…but applying the same argument to extreme, one would claim that art is not n ...[text shortened]... gs that we know exists because we DO have credible evidence for the existence of those things.
a van gogh picture is art. you look at it and you find it beautiful. you experience emotions. but do all people looking at it experience the same thing? i find ashley Pollock a waste of canvas. some people don't. is it still art? there are nowadays pictures of shapes and colors that some people call art. a piece of twisting metal can be called "dancer running on abyss" and it can be called art. art isn't art until someone says it is. how is that much different than the idea of god? (please observe i didn't used idiotic until now when i told you i didn't use idiotic.)
nobody can tell you are in love, you just know it. you believe it. there is no doctor than can diagnose you with love. you just make a claim: i love. it can be anything, wife, husband, kidz, pizza, the sky, puppies etc.
but you have to realize it. and once you realize it, you inform your brain that from then on, the respective object is on the like list and so the brain produces endorphins and other hormones everytime you see that object to remind you you like it.
next time you answer think it through. and be polite. insults are so last tuesday, we should strive for a more civilized way of debating.
Originally posted by jaywillnot really the service. we must be careful when throwing away stuff we find unnecessary because someday we might need them or find they are not completely useless.
Okay, fair enough.
My point is that saying Atheism does the service of attempting to rid the world of the uneccessary, well, You're trying to make dung look like icecream.
so i was not really praising atheism entirely. atheism can be called a safer way of life, if you have a strict moral codes and rely on nothing other than what can be proven, disappointments happen less often.
but then again, walking is also safer than driving a motorcycle, yet if ones is a responsible biker, it would be acceptable to allow harleys into the world
6 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanzi…love exists? art exists? you are mistaken. they are all abstract notions. i am not even sure how you can define them.
love exists? art exists? you are mistaken. they are all abstract notions. i am not even sure how you can define them. let's start with art, it is simpler.
a van gogh picture is art. you look at it and you find it beautiful. you experience emotions. but do all people looking at it experience the same thing? i find ashley Pollock a waste of canvas. some pe lite. insults are so last tuesday, we should strive for a more civilized way of debating.
..…
so we don’t know how to “define” certain abstract concepts/feelings that exist in our brain -but they still “exist” in our brain and we know they “exist” in our brain because we directly experience them (I.e. directly observe them) inside our minds -thus they “exist”. This is true even if you claim they are some sort of “illusion” because if they ARE literally an “illusion” then that “illusion” must “exist“!
…art isn't art until someone says it is. how is that much different than the IDEA of god? ..…(my emphasis)
It isn’t different from the “IDEA” of god -but just like art -although it “exists” as an “idea”, that’s all it exists as -just an “idea”.
But I would say god “doesn’t exist” in everyday language because when people normally talk about the existence of “god” they are normally talking about “god” existing in a non-abstract sense and not merely as "god" being just merely an abstract “idea”
-on the other hand, I assume that when people talk about the “existence” of art or love that they ARE talking about the existence of these things in the purely abstract sense because I assume they realise that these things cannot exist independently of minds thus, in everyday language, I would say that art and love “DO exist” -but we are talking about two different kinds of “existence” here that shouldn’t be confused with one another -the purely abstract kind and the non-abstract kind.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonhow can art be real if all you have to do for it to exist is say "this crappy piece of wood left in the sun and rain and burnt at one end is art. it represents mankind's struggle against the unknown".
[b]…love exists? art exists? you are mistaken. they are all abstract notions. i am not even sure how you can define them.
..…
so we don’t know how to “define” certain abstract concepts/feelings that exist in our brain -but they still “exist” in our brain and we know they “exist” in our brain because we directly experience them (I.e. directly ...[text shortened]... t shouldn’t be confused with one another -the purely abstract kind and the non-abstract kind.[/b]
there are no rules governing art(better said those rules change all the time and others are added) . just like there are no laws that god adheres to. there is no experiment that results in art. just like god.
2 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou appeared to simply ignored what I actually said in my post.
how can art be real if all you have to do for it to exist is say "this crappy piece of wood left in the sun and rain and burnt at one end is art. it represents mankind's struggle against the unknown".
there are no rules governing art(better said those rules change all the time and others are added) . just like there are no laws that god adheres to. there is no experiment that results in art. just like god.
I wasn’t saying I could define “art” nor was I approving of dubious modern art.
Is “god” just an “idea” in peoples heads or is “he” supposed to be something more than purely abstract?
Isn’t it the case that “god” , to most people, is supposed to exist independently from our minds?
Originally posted by ZahlanziNo it doesn't. For most of us it is merely a lack of belief. I think you are the only person I know who fully admits to belonging to a religion that you clearly do not consider factual. That is a life choice, but you are still an atheist.
😀 and that doesn't constitute an aspect of how you choose to live your life?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI've know plenty of observant Catholics and Jews who do not consider their religion factual, indeed consider most of it nonsense (more Catholics than Jews on that last one). But they continue practicing partly out of respect for the traditions of their ancestors, partly because the practice constitutes an important part of their identity, partly out of sheer habit....they continue practicing, even though they don't think it's true, because they get something out of it that they can't get anywhere else.
No it doesn't. For most of us it is merely a lack of belief. I think you are the only person I know who fully admits to belonging to a religion that you clearly do not consider factual. That is a life choice, but you are still an atheist.
As far as atheism being a lifestyle or way of life--no, that seems wrong to me. Mainly because there are all kinds of atheists who live all kinds of different lifestyles, with different ethical and political beliefs. An atheist like me has MUCH MORE in common with, say, a liberation theologist Catholic activist--or a member of the Catholic Workers--than I have with an atheistic Ayn Randian Objectivist. I mean, really the difference between me and the Catholic Workers I've worked with boils down the absence of a belief in their God, and that's it. And the only similarity between me and an Objectivist is that neither of us have that belief in God.
Originally posted by convectDorothy Day was an interesting figure. If more christians were like her, christianity wouldn't be so bad.
I've know plenty of observant Catholics and Jews who do not consider their religion factual, indeed consider most of it nonsense (more Catholics than Jews on that last one). But they continue practicing partly out of respect for the traditions of their ancestors, partly because the practice constitutes an important part of their identity, partly out of shee ...[text shortened]... ly similarity between me and an Objectivist is that neither of us have that belief in God.
Originally posted by convectThats interesting and I guessed it to be true, but I have personally not met any that will admit as such.
I've know plenty of observant Catholics and Jews who do not consider their religion factual, indeed consider most of it nonsense (more Catholics than Jews on that last one).
Where I come from, the vast majority of people do actually believe in God.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadGood points, twhitehead. I can't argue with your reasoning.
And I have no reason to believe otherwise. Neither do you. You have provided no evidence or argument to support your claim.
I know a bit about how conditioning works, and I see no reason why it should be assumed that it can be used for total control. I simply take the default position that it cant.
You on the other hand seemed to believe that it was ...[text shortened]... s are unique in that respect and that atheists were trying to prove otherwise. That is not true.
EDIT: Thanks.
Originally posted by epiphinehasI just hope you think about it a bit more, and give animals the respect that they deserve and not just see them as condition-response machines, but fully functioning minds complete with character, emotions, desires, wills etc.
Good points, twhitehead. I can't argue with your reasoning.
EDIT: Thanks.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't see animals as condition-response machines. Thanks for your concern, though.
I just hope you think about it a bit more, and give animals the respect that they deserve and not just see them as condition-response machines, but fully functioning minds complete with character, emotions, desires, wills etc.