Which is why you get all the flack. Hearsay is bullshit without the evidence to back it up.
A lack of ‘subject/object duality’ has nothing whatsoever to do with the phrase, “I am.” NOTHING!
I can argue for something I don’t whole heartedly believe. That may make me a liar of sorts. I’m not claiming to be perfect. In fact, I know lie to myself all the time. It may not be coincidence that the argument ultimately failed because I was inventing the truth (as I saw it).
Yes. I can accurately define what I think the self is. I can define it in simple terms and complex terms. The range of human attributes falling under the category of self is a wide one. And I do not claim to understand all of the conditions which give rise to the self.
But we have to agree on a working definition. Otherwise I’m just making claims and you’re just shooting them down and we’re back to the endless threads which only you and I are reading after a while.
For starters, the self is subjective. It is the sense of being a thing which is conscious of the external world which is outside of a body to which it belongs (or which belongs to it).
The self can be different for diff people. But I would hazard the guess that like other kinds of perceptions, the similarities in self-awareness among different peoples are more common than the differences.
It’s subjective. It has to be experiences by the person.
When we agree on a definition of the self we can apply the deconstruction of it in principle. Then you might know what I mean.
Then tell me your personal definition of the Self and depending on how we understand its construction we can talk about its deconstruction.
I assumed your definition of objective meant “demonstrated scientifically”. What do you mean by “objective”? The “IT” will have to wait for now. We already have a lot to discuss.
That’s fine. However I’d like to agree on definitions before getting logical extensions.
There are, as you already know, a thousand ways to talk about the Self. If this debate is going to go anywhere at all we have to agree on a definition.
I couldn’t have said it better myself. How can one have subject/object duality without “I am”? They have NOTHING to do with each other.
Another good observation, Cog.
I’m a little late to this party, so I hope you are still around, Christian. @Sheldon did not IMPLY anything of the sort. States quite clearly in YOUR bible that YOUR god purposely struck a new born baby with an illness and then allowed it to suffer for several dies before letting the baby die. And your god did all of that for the sole purpose of punishing the child’s father for talking bad about your god. Therefore, according to YOUR OWN sacred and holy book (the bible), YOUR god purposely TORTURED an innocent baby to death. But according to you…
Therefore, according to YOUR OWN statement, your god was WRONG for torturing that child to death. If you are unable (or worse, UNWILLING) to see the simple logic of that, I’m afraid you are too far gone to be capable of any rational/reasonable discussion. That is not meant as an insult in any way. It is just a simple personal observation.
3 Likes
David Hume and the Buddha: the notion of a permanent self that exists as a unified identity through time is an illusion. I agree with both. But I am off to class now. My Self must become a teacher of children. I will hop around the room like a bunny rabbit, climb a tree like a monkey, and sing happy little songs to laughing children. The monkey jumps from his tree.
2 Likes
One can play devil’s advocate of course, though some of the claims went beyond that. However this seems an apropos time to ask, what is your cirteria for disbelieving a claim or assertion?
self
noun
- a person’s essential being that distinguishes them from others, especially considered as the object of introspection or reflexive action.
That’s the dictionary definition, so it seems like a subject perception of how we view ourselves, as distinct from how others view us?
Well it should be within the context of this thread to be fair, and I can see how one’s perception of themselves might influence their views of morality, since both are subjective notions.
Because you always talk nonsensical bollocks.
You use ‘satisfy’ how theists use ‘faith’
Satisfy the mind
And experiencing satisfaction are two very different things.
Disbelief? Ah. Well. I’m an extremely gullible person. I’m teased at work and by my wife regarding all manner of things. For example, if I see a scene in a movie which is clearly CGI, I’ll exclaim to my wife, “is that CGI???” And she’ll yank my chain and say “no, dear. All of those explosions are real.” And it takes me a moment to figure out if she’s kidding or not.
So, I’m want to believe almost everything. If you stand for nothing, you fall for everything.
I’m keen on lies however. I don’t like being lied to. If I suspect someone is lying to me, I’m likely to withhold belief. That’s where skepticism comes in.
This is a wide topic. I’m not in a good intellectual mood to go into detail. My illness is particularly devilish when it comes to lies. I’m being lied to all the time by the schizophrenia. It’s literally as if there was a being feeding me lies all day long. So, in a position like that one becomes immune to the truth.
And, believe me. I quite a liar myself. I’ve been struggling as of late to even identify with anything I write or think. I’ve expressed that level of depersonalization before I think.
Gotta run. Shift change is upon us.
1 Like
Those two assertions seem slightly incongruous, but lets try this. What would make you skeptical or dubious about a claim?
I sympathise, as it undoubtedly makes it much harder to discern what is real and what imagined, that was one of the reasons I asked the question. It was just a thought, but it occurred to me that if it was harder than normal to discern truth from lies, it might help to set a higher and more objective standard for credulity.
Anyway as I have said before, beyond challenging beliefs here for the sake of debate, I have no problem with anyone holding subjective beliefs per se, as long as the belief is not pernicious, either to the holder or to anyone else. Luckily in the UK religions don’t really hold as much influence as they appear to in the US.
2 Likes
I never said they weren’t. And I’m only using the latter in the exact and specific sense it suggests.
If you can’t answer the question, just admit it. If, however, you feel more comfortable dissing me even further, feel obliged.
Peace out.
1 Like
There you go pulling the straw man bullshit again. Who said a child deprived of the conditions necessary for life need not feel satisfied? (Where did you pick up this value judgment of more or less?) How would you measure 'more or less." Are you asserting he could not be more satisfied than you? What do you think satisfaction is? Do you think being born into riches makes one more satisfied?
Silly silly ratty… Perhaps you need to travel more.
1 Like
Ok, then define satisfaction.
1 Like
This is a good point, since we often imagine we are describing the same thing when we use a particular word, and sometimes this is not the case when dealing with the vernacular of religious apologetics.
Satisfaction
noun
1.fulfilment of one’s wishes, expectations, or needs, or the pleasure derived from this.
So worth noting that the word is not describing something specific, but a number of vague and subjective ideas for a start. What one person “chooses” to find satisfying, another may not. So the word appears to be describing subjective perception that is relative. Not some absolute condition, or even one that is objectively measurable or quantifiable.
1 Like
BINGO! 100% On Target! At least someone out there gets it. Poor poor ratty and his delusions of a black-and-white world where things should and ought to be one way or another.
1 Like
Correct, but lets take it further.
What is satisfaction? Its literally a name for a chemical reaction within the brain.
So do i feel or experience satisfaction? I’m sure we all experience instances where our brains react in a certain way and we call that satisfaction or being satisfied.
1 Like
@Sheldon your application of the No True Scotsman fallacy does not follow.
The following is a simplified rendition of the fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Person A: “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
Person B: “But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge.”
Person A: “But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
Here’s our conversation laid out in the same structure and boiled down:
ME: No Christian kills Jews in Concentration Camps.
YOU: Hitler was a Christian and he did that.
ME: Hitler was not a true Christian.
In the Wikipedia example, a passport could prove Uncle Angus’ citizenship and confirm him a Scotsman, rendering Person A guilty of the fallacy.
In our example, you cannot verify Hitler’s citizenship. If you can, then I committed the fallacy. If you can’t, I refuted your point.
Here’s the way I see our conversation, which is not a Scotsman fallacy:
ME: No Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.
YOU: But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge.
ME: Show me Uncle Angus’ passport. I reject the claim that he’s a Scotsman. He can’t be one just because he claims it is so!
And neither can Hitler or the 54% of his countrymen be Christian just by claiming it to be so. The Christian passport comes by faith but is evidenced by one’s actions. See where Jesus said:
Matthew 7:15–20 (NIV) — 15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them."
My claim is that Hitler was a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He produced (very) bad fruit, and by it I recognize him.
Christianity has a long history of calling out its own when they do not act justly and faithfully to God (check out Malachi as one of many examples). Or check out Nathan confronting David for his murder and adu
Does not follow. Nathan and David(*) were not christians.
(*) Assuming that they actually existed, for the sake of argument.
3 Likes
That’s a straw man, here is your original no true Scotsman fallacy quoted verbatim:
No mention of Hitler, so we can all see the goal posts being moved there, and the context was a rebuttal to your claim that "every ought was an example of objective morality, when I offered the example of Nazis thinking they ought to commit genocide, you never actually addressed this. The fact that Nazi Germany was 96% Christian is evidenced in 1939 census I cited, and again I showed that all SS members had to be theists, quoting Himmler’s edict at the time that atheists were unsuitable as he considered them undisciplined free thinkers.
But your claim that 96% of Germans were not “really” Christians is ok, you really don’t see the irony of this assertion? Especially alongside the objective evidence of the census demonstrating they were, and the fact that Germany had been an overwhelmingly Christian country for centuries, with a long history of European anti-semitism.
You’re simply repeating your no true Scotsman fallacy. There are 45k different sects and denominations of Christianity globally. you don’t get to decide who is a real Christian based on your subjective beliefs.
You mean your new claim, you original claim was about Nazis, not solely about Hitler, and Hitler was a theist, he claimed to be doing god’s work, a claim he is on record making throughout his life.
You’re spinning away from the original context, and didn’t address my questions?
You have also failed to produce a single example of a moral absolute. Or address your contradictory claims that torturing children is always immoral, but not when your deity is depicted as doing it.
My example never mentioned Hitler:
You are creating a subgroup of “bad Christians” to assert they are not really Christians, and of course this is the very definition of a no true Scotsman fallacy. You’re not anywhere near the first apologist who’s used this exact example of the fallacy either. I’ve seen apologists use it countless times.
2 Likes
Cosmology. Laws of Gravity Was Made By Issac Newton Who was Christian Right?
1 Like
Seriously, what’s up with redundant capital letters? Sir Isaac Newton was a Unitarian, since you asked, he rejected the notion of the trinity. What was it you wanted to debate?
2 Likes