P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes, it’s quite evident that he certainly did understand.
That’s the peculiar point.
We are left wondering what the point is in feigning an inability to think in the abstract.
- Status
We are left wondering what the point is in feigning an inability to think in the abstract.
M
MPat
Guest
Why? You seem to be saying there is a moral duty to that effect. In that case, how do you know such duty exists? And why should anyone care?
And, of course, how do your answers fit together with the rest of your views?
So, what were you trying to achieve by that “stupid question”, and what have you actually achieved?The presented poetic style only served to muddy the waters and provide no clear mechanism to achieve the desired perception… The reason for such muddying is beyond me, but it only served to assume I was the target of a big inside joke! Hence the stupid question.
In other words: you started it!
And couldn’t you achieve the same (or better in some way) result with “What exactly do you mean by that?” or a declaration that you are leaving the discussion?
Or is the fact that you are calling your question “stupid” actually meant to indicate that you didn’t think that through? That your intuition didn’t serve you well here?
For that matter, was something similar happening with your other questions that did not look like rhetorical questions, but that, as it seemed afterwards, were asked without any intention to get the answers? Like:
Or was that unrelated - just a try to get away from the examination of your views and reasoning, and back to your “sermon” about religion, imaginary friends etc.? As you seem to claim here:
That, by the way, is a rather boring “sermon” (I am not going to list all that is wrong in it), and the one we have heard already… Detailed examination of your views and reasoning (even with some resistance) was far more interesting… It’s a pity that you didn’t want to learn more about your views (or something else related) yourself…
Happy new year to you too!Oh, Happy new year, guys! I’m already there!
P
pocaracas
Guest
They fit together fine, thank you.
“moral duty”?.. where did you get that from?
It’s plain courtesy… accuracy of response.
If people don’t care to provide an accurate answer to a question, then why be in a forum such as this one?
A peaceful Christmas!
And I understood just how much thought goes into the God thing…
Goad people into thinking it’s possible to perceive God… tell them some story about clean hearts and then… oh you need to die(!) before you actually perceive God.
When one follows through the whole thing, atheism sounds like the most reasonable option.
What?!
NO! I’d just get another fuzzy warm feelings reply to delay and confuse a bit more, while you thought you were providing some really good insight into that religious thing.
Leave the discussion was not my intention… my intention is to provide my point of view… which, as the title clues you into, refers to the non-acknowledgement of your point of view.
Sorry about boring you to death… it seems it’s the only way for you to get in contact with God, you see.
[Joking!]
I don’t want to learn more about my views?
My views are fine, thank you. None of you managed to shake them the slightest…
My information about your views may be a bit skewed, or lacking, or even wrong, but that’s another problem… or is it?
M
MPat
Guest
Interesting: the words mean an opposite of what they seem to say, and it is not sarcasm (nor a lie).
But yes, I get it - you want this discussion to end, you do not want your views to be discussed any more. That’s fine (although it is, um, unlikely to mean that all is fine with your views).
I will still answer to some parts of your post - who knows, maybe someone else will be interested in such “debriefing”.
Naturally. It is well known that participants of Internet discussions hardly ever change their positions.
That’s why a reasonable goal for such discussions is simply to learn more about views of others - and about one’s own views. What they are, how do they fit together, what arguments support them - or could support them… And, perhaps, to respond to all that for the benefit of readers who are not participating in the discussion.
Yes. That’s an impression I got. See just above if you thought I wanted to say that you didn’t want to learn about views of someone else. Oh, and the thread itself is about your views.
First, I think you meant “precision” instead of “accuracy”?
Second, is there some reason why poetic language is incompatible with precision or accuracy?
Third, um, we can see that one can also “be in a forum such as this one” in order to present some “sermons”. Are you sure you want to argue that one must only be here to answer questions accurately and without evasion…?
Fourth, I don’t see how changing “moral duty” to “courtesy” helps here…
I see. You just wanted to move on to your “sermon”, and it felt like we didn’t let you do so? But it was still possible to include the “sermon” in the declaration that you are leaving the discussion. It ended anyway.
And I think you meant “disagreement” instead of “non-acknowledgement”…
P
pocaracas
Guest
Remember, “my views” relate to your views as their non-acknowledgement (or refusal to accept).Interesting: the words mean an opposite of what they seem to say, and it is not sarcasm (nor a lie).
But yes, I get it - you want this discussion to end, you do not want your views to be discussed any more. That’s fine (although it is, um, unlikely to mean that all is fine with your views).
The discussion ended when you guys refused to provide a proper methodology as how to sustain your views, thus providing me with the understanding I’m in the right.
yeah… that’s true…Naturally. It is well known that participants of Internet discussions hardly ever change their positions.
This internet isn’t so good for that… maybe it’s because there’s too much lag in communications…
I’ve noticed that quite a few people on this forum concern themselves with the so-called lurkers.
They are rarely, if ever, in my mind, when I reply or start these threads… But they are a reality that maybe should not be ignored… bah!
It is about my views, yes. But the bit about my views that relate to your views - so it was useful to get some hard data on those… however, I got poetic mumbo-jumbo… which only confirmed my views!
cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/precision_accuracy.png
I think it’s accuracy I want. You guys were very precise in the mumbo-jumbo department… but not very accurate in actually providing a mechanism to perceive the God you claim exists.
Really? You’re asking me this?
Accurately describe the Sun:
- poetic: huge ball of fire, lighting our lives and giving us life.
- accurate/precise: 1.41×10^18 km^3 of protons fusing due to their own gravity into helium and other heavier elements, such a fusion reaction gives off an excess energy sent out as electromagnetic waves, some of them falling in the visible spectrum. (could even be more accurate, but that’s enough for now)
sigh…Third, um, we can see that one can also “be in a forum such as this one” in order to present some “sermons”. Are you sure you want to argue that one must only be here to answer questions accurately and without evasion…?
“only” of course… not worth typing it…
One seems to imply something mandatory, the other not.
One is nice, the other not.
It ended… for you guys.
If someone wishes to pick up on it, I will reply to the best of my abilities (which, as you have found through the thread, is something variable
)hmmm… perhaps. I remember wrestling with which word to put there, as none came to mind.
F
fbl9
Guest
I see atheism like this i came from nothing and end as nothing so by logic i am nothing.
0 + L =0
0= source of my beginning
L= life now
0= the end
So L is 0 as well. I give congratulations to those who can live with such a belief, without being beeepholes. To me it it would be very frustrating to prove the impossible to myself, that life is worth living.
0 + L =0
0= source of my beginning
L= life now
0= the end
So L is 0 as well. I give congratulations to those who can live with such a belief, without being beeepholes. To me it it would be very frustrating to prove the impossible to myself, that life is worth living.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I’m curious about what you might think may be the strongest motivators in life for someone living with above mentioned view.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Pleasure?
P
pocaracas
Guest
You won’t believe this, but I came mainly from my mother.
I don’t know who those people who claim they “came from nothing” are… I’ve met a few atheists and none made such a claim… (maybe they would, but they didn’t do it to my face).
I have seen an astrophysicist claim that, when adding all the energy and mass (converted to energy) in the Universe, taking into account the dark matter and dark energy and anti-particles and all those exotic things out there, the sum total is ZERO. So… maybe you’re not that wrong with your nothing in, nothing out.
Me? I don’t know how that guy came to that number. Maybe someday I’ll know and come to either agree or disagree with it. until then… it’s a hypothesis.
M
MPat
Guest
Things are far more complex than that. Even if we would concede that you just “lack a belief in God”, you hold many related beliefs - up to belief that “millions” of children believe that imaginary friends they just made up are real.
In fact, in the original post you were more specific:
That’s what was happening here during the discussion. Yet, apparently, your views on your goals in this thread were not “fine”, and they have changed.
I’m pretty sure you had no doubts about your position during all the discussion.
Also, didn’t the discussion end when you pretended to misunderstand what “heart” means poetically…? Which is what we are discussing in this “debriefing”…? You even said you didn’t want the discussion to end…
It has nothing to do with lag. The important thing is the self-selection of participants with strong opinions.
Well, it depends on the your goals.
If you are here because you simply find arguing fun, there is no need to care about persuading anyone.
I thought you were not happy with poetic language, because you considered it to be imprecise - ambiguous. Now you are saying it was precise, but didn’t accurately describe anyone’s position at all?
Um, in here you just made the non-poetical description more detailed. If you would have kept the same level of detail, you would have gotten something like this:
- poetical: “ball of fire, lighting our lives”;
- non-poetical: “spherical body of hot material, source of light reaching the Earth”.
Well, if you say that avoidance of poetic language is not mandatory, why are you criticising it that much?
N
Nixbits
Guest
I’d like to apologise to Pocaracas, and the other contributors to this thread, if my post #720 (about my frustration with the use of unclear phrases) has taken the discussion in a less fruitful direction. But, at the risk of stirring up more contention, I’d like to defend my position.
Take for example, the phrase “I feel it in my heart”. I understand that the heart is not literally doing any feeling. In fact, the heart is not involved at all. It’s a poetic or figurative use of the word. I get that. What I don’t understand is what is really meant. Is it something like: “This is a belief that underlies most of my most fundamental views.” Or is it more like: “This is a belief that is based on some innate instinct.” The former relates to emotional and intellectual investment. The latter relates to something other than normal conscious thought processes. Or are there other possible interpretations?
I’m not expecting any response about what this phrase might mean. But this is the level of clarity that I seek when I hear phrases of this type. Without a level of understanding of what is actually meant, and not just what might be meant, the phrase has no information value. Unfortunately, in my experience, clarification is rarely forthcoming.
Take for example, the phrase “I feel it in my heart”. I understand that the heart is not literally doing any feeling. In fact, the heart is not involved at all. It’s a poetic or figurative use of the word. I get that. What I don’t understand is what is really meant. Is it something like: “This is a belief that underlies most of my most fundamental views.” Or is it more like: “This is a belief that is based on some innate instinct.” The former relates to emotional and intellectual investment. The latter relates to something other than normal conscious thought processes. Or are there other possible interpretations?
I’m not expecting any response about what this phrase might mean. But this is the level of clarity that I seek when I hear phrases of this type. Without a level of understanding of what is actually meant, and not just what might be meant, the phrase has no information value. Unfortunately, in my experience, clarification is rarely forthcoming.
Y
You
Guest
i’ve never heard anyone say ‘i feel it in my heart’, i have heard them say ‘i feel it in my bones’, or ‘i feel it in my waters’. the last one is actually very descriptive of the deep and turbulent waters of the human heart.
P
pocaracas
Guest
That thing about the kids has little bearing on my disbelief in the existence of a god, right?
It was one attempt at making you guys understand how your mind is (most likely) working… but, such is the nature of these religion-based discussions that no such thing can be clarified.
Well then… clarify how can a cave-person have perceived God?In fact, in the original post you were more specific:
That’s what was happening here during the discussion. Yet, apparently, your views on your goals in this thread were not “fine”, and they have changed.
Were they clean hearted enough? But only after living in large enough communities?
I didn’t pretend to misunderstand…
I wanted clarification of what it meant, for that was not an adequate reply to the original question.
Well then, it is not a feature of internet discussions alone, provided the same individuals are present…
I’m here to present my point of view on these matters. If it persuades someone, that’s a plus… but I’ve been on enough of these forums to realize that’s very unlikely.Well, it depends on the your goals.
If you are here because you simply find arguing fun, there is no need to care about persuading anyone.
At best, I expect to get some people thinking about things that they never thought before.
-.-’
Clean heart = no cholesterol… oh wait! no evil thoughts…
Yeah, it was precise enough… just not an adequate answer… and my criticism of that answer was totally misconstrued… Spock - I should have known.
It’s always strange to see how people confuse a fusion reaction with fire… but that’s me.
If you call it fire, you are using a poetic language. “Ball”… it is spherical.
Well, back to our case at hand, the question was about how PR said we can see God.
If there is a way, I’d like to know about it.
“Clean heart” is not an adequate response…
Comparison time!
- How do I start my car?
- Have clean pockets.
- How do I turn a tv on?
- Have clean room.
Intelligence is not mandatory either…
(but this will be misconstrued again…)
P
pocaracas
Guest
No need to apologize!
It was a very pertinent detail and one that hasn’t yet been, like you said, clarified.
A
Aloysium
Guest
This discussion about the heart brings to mind Sacratissimi Cordis Iesu, the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.
The image that depicts this aspect of our relationship with God is that of Jesus pointing to His heart, which shines with a divine light, is crowned by a cross, pierced by a lance and surrounded by thorns; it is flaming as a symbol of His healing grace.
Jesus, the incarnate Word of God whereby we are brought into existence, is one of us, knowing and sharing in our suffering.
In a manner of speaking, we exist within the infinite sea of His compassion. He is the Light and the living Way to eternal love. He is the true Self to which we aspire, beyond the transience, illusions and emptiness offered by the world.
On the cross, He not only takes upon Himself all our sins, redeeming us and allowing for our salvation, but He reveals the depth to which He shares in the suffering that is integral to our human nature.
At the hands of men and women, those He loves, we find Him stripped of all possessions, including His very life, physically subjected to the worst pain, humiliated and rejected, the innocent lamb.
There is no hurt He does not know. Christian transcendence in the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus - through the offering of our suffering to God we are one with He who rules creation.
And, through His healing power, we are made new, more loving, ever closer to our eternal home.
The image that depicts this aspect of our relationship with God is that of Jesus pointing to His heart, which shines with a divine light, is crowned by a cross, pierced by a lance and surrounded by thorns; it is flaming as a symbol of His healing grace.
Jesus, the incarnate Word of God whereby we are brought into existence, is one of us, knowing and sharing in our suffering.
In a manner of speaking, we exist within the infinite sea of His compassion. He is the Light and the living Way to eternal love. He is the true Self to which we aspire, beyond the transience, illusions and emptiness offered by the world.
On the cross, He not only takes upon Himself all our sins, redeeming us and allowing for our salvation, but He reveals the depth to which He shares in the suffering that is integral to our human nature.
At the hands of men and women, those He loves, we find Him stripped of all possessions, including His very life, physically subjected to the worst pain, humiliated and rejected, the innocent lamb.
There is no hurt He does not know. Christian transcendence in the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus - through the offering of our suffering to God we are one with He who rules creation.
And, through His healing power, we are made new, more loving, ever closer to our eternal home.
M
MPat
Guest
There was nothing wrong with you writing that post. The discussion itself was over by that time. We might as well have a “debriefing”.
And what is the practical difference between those “This is a belief that underlies most of my most fundamental views.” and “This is a belief that is based on some innate instinct.”? Whichever of those options is true, it is perfectly clear that it says “This is a belief.”. Therefore, your claim that “the phrase has no information value.” is wrong. You might not get all the subtle details, but it is unlikely that you really need them. And if you do, just ask for them. But it might be that none were actually meant - not everyone does so much “wordsmithing” for a forum post.
M
MPat
Guest
I did expect it to be unimportant, yet the investigation has shown that it is rather important. If it really was unimportant for your atheism, you would have easily conceded the point after being shown how the evidence you have offered actually disproves it. But you did no such thing. Thus I conclude that it is (surprisingly) important for your atheism.
In fact, that’s one thing you can learn about your own views, as, apparently, you didn’t know that.
First, the thread is about working of your mind, not the mind of anyone else.
Second, what makes you think you have useful insights about working of my mind without even investigating it, when you have missed things like that about working of your own mind?
No complaining about “misconstruing”, please!-.-’
Clean heart = no cholesterol… oh wait! no evil thoughts…
Yeah, it was precise enough… just not an adequate answer… and my criticism of that answer was totally misconstrued… Spock - I should have known.
It’s always strange to see how people confuse a fusion reaction with fire… but that’s me.
If you call it fire, you are using a poetic language. “Ball”… it is spherical.
Well, back to our case at hand, the question was about how PR said we can see God.
If there is a way, I’d like to know about it.
“Clean heart” is not an adequate response…
Comparison time!
- How do I start my car?
- Have clean pockets.
- How do I turn a tv on?
- Have clean room.
Intelligence is not mandatory either…
(but this will be misconstrued again…)
Things are simple: if you want to demand such “heroic” clarity and precision from others, first communicate with such clarity and precision yourself. That is, write in the way that just couldn’t be “misconstrued”. Or otherwise, if that is too hard, be forgiving while dealing with unclear or imprecise language of others.
P
pocaracas
Guest
It was unimportant… you pressed the matter, I replied. I think it’s polite to reply on forums.
And I tried to find a way to present to you the fact that some people have imaginary friends, and some of them think that (or act very much as if) those friends are real. True, you’ve made me see that it’s a minority that have this peculiarity, but it exists.
About the aspect of my mind that pertains to lack of belief in the gods that many other minds believe exist.
I am aware that many people do not know about how their minds can conspire against them.Second, what makes you think you have useful insights about working of my mind without even investigating it, when you have missed things like that about working of your own mind?
I cannot claim that for anyone in particular… I thought I made it clear that the “you” I used was not aimed at your person, but “you” as in general forum population, in this case, Catholics. If I didn’t, I apologize.
At least, I try to provide the best language I can, given the format at hand.No complaining about “misconstruing”, please!
Things are simple: if you want to demand such “heroic” clarity and precision from others, first communicate with such clarity and precision yourself. That is, write in the way that just couldn’t be “misconstrued”. Or otherwise, if that is too hard, be forgiving while dealing with unclear or imprecise language of others.
But… “clean heart” in order to “see God” is not something that goes in that direction, is it?
I mean, I can understand, conceptually, what that means… something along the lines of “Be a good person, follow the commandments set out by God, believe and you shall feel Him working from within you and, with that, you will, in a way, see Him. You will definitely see him after death.”
But I can also understand how it can be a part of a reinforcement mechanism, wittingly, or unwittingly, exploited by many religions. Start with a childhood-based belief imposed by caregivers - proceed to “feel” that God within → “see” God.
Not saying this is how it definitely happens… but it can be. Where would we find some research done on the matter?
Perhaps here: americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-cognitive-psychology-of-belief-in-the-supernatural/99999 ?
hmmm… this article is actually kinda good, although a bit biased by using american children…
I may have to bring my starting point a bit further back: start with a standard generic child, with a natural tendency to assign agency to natural phenomena… reinforce that and extend it to imply the existence of disembodied entities, such as souls, angels, God provided by caregivers, etc…
Given that I know that it is possible that such “seeing God” would be a product of my own mind, and knowing that you guys should be aware of that - I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve written this - how was “clean heart” ever going to be a serious response to “how can you see God?”?
N
Nixbits
Guest
You’re quite right, MPat. I should have said that the use of the phrase conveys no additional information beyond that it is a belief (which is implicit in the statement anyway).
I agree, MPat. I suspect that, more often than not, the person using such phrases does not mean to convey anything specific. Hence my frustration when the discussion is about details and specifics.
Y
You
Guest
what about ‘blessed are those who have not see yet believe’, this leaves another group who have seen and believe. so its not limited to just a belief but also is actual, concrete knowledge.
- Status