Religion

[Mykey]

Bravo, your opinion is useful

[Nosajimiki]

I was told insanity is to repeat an action over, and over expecting a different result. So I have to agree.

Sorry I should have clarified that point before posting. Insainity is a general term which basicly just meens you don't think normally, but yes this is a common expression used to define it though it is more of just an example. The point of scitzofrenia(another example of insainity) was brought up in the previous post which was what I was refferencing through the term insanity so as to infer that other forms of insainity could be derived from the same source.

For your first thing

Results vary from person to person.

that secont part whent way above my head.

I agree results do very, most people aren't satisfied with the answer of not knowing, it's why so much human effort is invested in finding answers, but not knowing is an answer. It's the most faultless answer mankind has as to where we come from, how the universe started, and the meaning of life. Some people find that depressing so they cling to thier gods and thier sciences and thier philosophies. But once you find your self believeing that you dont know anything about the big picture, you discover a lot more about youself, which leds to discoveries about the people around you, until eventually you realize, hey! I'm a good guy anyway, I'm alive, I like being alive, this is some good shit![/quote]

[Nalaris]

Of course, none of it has potential application in life.

It is moot.

[Nosajimiki]

Back with your assumptions again. It only lacks application if you don't apply it. It's just not a way you are used to thinking.

Edit: Sorry, I read back over this and it occured to me that it could be taken the wrong way. To clarify, I'm not trying to assault your opinion, you're as entiltled to yours as I am mine, but before calling my views a moot point, you should atleast try to deliver an arguement against it. For example: Why can't it be applied? Where have you seen it fail, and why did it fail? If it can be applied and doesn't work when it is, then how doesnt it work?

I understand if you have personal experiences of it failing. Like I already mentioned, it's not a way of thinking that some people can come to terms with. Some people feel that it's better to take a risk and fail than to loose the oppotunity, such people also ussally feel that it is better to risk being wrong and make an assumption. It's a valid way to live as far as I am concerned so I don't contest that you shouldn't, or that your rationalizations behind your assumptions are moot, only that you are wrong in that assumptions are based on non-universal truths.

[Nalaris]

I've gone over several interesting idea's at night while I'm drifting to asleep, for example 'What if I'm actually frozen in one moment of time, but because of some strange loop I can't percieve this?' or 'What if the brain(s) in a jar theory is true'?

All of these basically lead me to one conclusion (assuming I'm not asleep by then). 'If this strange new idea is true, what on this green Earth can I do about it?' Generally, the answer is nothing. If I'm a brain in a jar, I have no physical body and thus can never break out from the jar. So how can I apply that in my percievable world? Well, if everything is a computer than it all has a set program, so if I can crack the code then I'm set for life.

But I can't crack the code, because there does not appear to be a definite pattern behind every persons actions except in that some people act in certain ways consistently, but I do that as well, and because I think, I must be (I think therefore I am), so it's only possible that there is either a nigh on uncrackable code which is perfectly modeled after myself to provide a world of my species which is completely believable (in which case cracking the code doesn't do anything for me that I can't do outside the brain in a jar theory), that there are multiple brains in a jar, or that the world is real.

If there are multiple brains in a jar, than the only thing I can predict through the code is the inanimate objects. But what code can be found in how the world works that does not already exist through various sciences?

In what other way could I benefit from existing in a computer generated world and from having knowledge of this?

If you have any further insight on this, please, feel free to shed some light.

[Floris]

I also don't agree that assumption means insanity.

I assume in my life certain ideas, for example I assume that I can trust my friends, but I never know for sure, I can only follow my experiences which prove that I can trust most of my friends most of the time.

Am I insane for this? Perhaps. Moreover, I would like to hear the definition of normality. Humans being each unique, one could quickly 'assume' lots of people being insane.

Or in other words, you say that people who assume things are insane. But where is your proof of that? I mean, if you can not prove it, your idea of assuming people being insane is an assumption and therefore, by your assumption, you would be insane yourself!




PS: I do realize that the above paragraph may seem to be proof of me being insane but I think not(yet have no proof for not being insane, hence I must assume that I am not insane).

[formerly known as hf]

Assumption is required for sanity.

If we did not conciously assume some things, we would be constantly questioning everything.
Everything does need to be questioned, but not constantly.



Everytime I wave to someone, I assume that my hand won't fall off.

I do not know that it won't, it is not 100% certain that it won't, but if I questioned it, it would slow me down considerably.


We all need to assume some quite low-level things, some things we assume, which others do not, and some things should never be assumed.

[Mykey]

It is remarkable, rather amusing idea

[Nosajimiki]

Ohh so much to say

Nalaris:
Good series of thoughs, well written out. I've actually wondered simaler things when I was younger. My conclusion is this. Either I'm real in the since that I precieve it, or I am a "brain in a jar". Regardless, if I'm cut, I feel pain, if I'm loved I feel joy, if I don't eat I feel hungry. What the world is isn't important, it's what we make of it. I would feel no more or less upset to find out that life is not real than to be asssured that it is because either way, I've had my ups and my downs and will have more ups and downs and I will have to experence them, I'm best off just going with it. (fyi: I like to picture my charies as sort of Matrix people oblivious to a false existance )

Floris:
Your not insane to think that, infact insanity is as highly debatable a subject as any other brought up on this thread so lets just pretend that I used the word scystophrinic(sp?) instead... I'll try not to make my posts at 3:00am from now on.

HF: ... yeah what Mykey said.

[Pie]

Insanity, i think, well, if you look at it in a legal go to court way, is when you are so messed up in the head, that you cant tell the difference from right or rong.(as in morality speaking.)


Being normal is all just sociaty's lie.

And I to hate it when people just assume that things are true. Such as the big bang theory, evolution, and the like. Although I try not to assume anything without having proof.

[formerly known as hf]

I do not assume evolution theory or the Big Bang theory are anything more than what they are theories, but with a hefty amount of backing. I don't assume they are reality, but I see no reason to doubt them heavily.

Insanity, like all words, is what you make it. Legally, pie is on the right track, but 'right and wrong', 'sane and insane' are so subjective as to make the development of an objective meaning nigh impossible.

When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.

- The relativity of wrong

[Dee]

I can't believe this thread is still getting responses.

[Diego]

Scientific theories have no absolute merit over religious theories. Science has no absolute merit over religion. But, if one bothers to be logical or rational, one has to be scientific, since any and all scientifical theories are by definition infinitely more logical and rational than their religious counterparts.

Logic and rationality doesn't mean you're right. It just means you're logic and rational--both man-made concepts, and as such, capable of being flawed. But if you're choosing religion, you have no reason or explanation for ever being remotely rational or logical at all.

So sure, be a Jesusfish Creationist if you want. But if you choose that path, don't try to rationalize it--it's just not rational. And don't try to be rational in anything else you do--that'd just be senseless.

[formerly known as hf]

But, if one bothers to be logical or rational, one has to be scientific, since any and all scientifical theories are by definition infinitely more logical and rational than their religious counterparts
...
logic and rational--both man-made concepts, and as such, capable of being flawed.

I'm gonna pick bones, just 'cos I want to.

Rationality is a man-made concept, and, I would argue, inherently subjective.

To say that people of faith cannot rationally uphold that belief, is misleading. To someone who may feel 'touched', their faith would seem entirely rational to them.
To you, and to me, that is not rational, in our sense of rational.

Not that I am suggesting that it makes a 'believer' rational, just because they feel rational. Whilst rationality may be subjective, it is also relative - and the commonly upheld notions of rationality do not converge with what someone of faith may feel.

Additonally, I would argue that objective rationality does not exist (cannot, as it is a word, and meanings associated with words are far from ojective).
But, even if there was such a thing as objective rationality, no person could ever be such a thing, we cannot, by our nature, be objective.


Arguments arise when two groups cannot comprehend why another group thinks, feels, does whatever they do. We have, at our side, a pleathora of arms in the form of words. But those we argue with have the exact same set of weapons, but wield them differently.
We can say some people are irrational to believe in illogical faith, others would argue that we are irrational for not opening ourselves to 'feeling' God's presence. We may say they are blind for not considering the obvious flaws in their reasoning, in return, we are blind for not seeing how obviously truthful their concerns are.

All right and wrong, irrational and rational, logic, reasoning, proof, truth and falsehood are all subjective, as are all words.


Words are but mud, and all mud is but a shade of shit. When it comes to slinging, some handfuls of mud might stick better, but it all stinks.

[Pie]

now this is confusing.

Why couldn't someone who believes in religion have "no reason or explanation for ever being remotely rational or logical at all. "?