You are equating mysticism with paranoia. Thats like saying instinct is the same as intuition. In other words, you are saying all non-rational states are pre-rational states. Some non-rational states are trans-rational states.
"Almost inevitably ending up condemning our families, and pursuing a life of semi-solitary integrity..."
Man you hit the nail right on the head with that one. It is nice to know that is normal. I was thinking I was the only one. The pressure to conform is so enormous. Thanks for letting me know. It will keep me a little more resolved to know others are struggling and it is a normal process.
The last time he asked for my argument, I gave it, and he just referred me to his 17-video introduction. After watching a few of his videos I realized he tends to not take a position, other than to ridicule others. That would not be too bad if he didn't also imply that he had something better.
I remember that. At the time I also remember thinking that having watched his introduction series myself, I found his position in the matter to be fairly clear. Regardless, I now understand why you didn't feel the urge to argue. Fair enough.
He is a good guy, and it takes guts to make your thoughts public. The argument for a perfectly logical/causal world denies Free Will - and cannot be logically made. Yet here on AthiesTube, it is taken as fact. I wont harangue stefbot anymore.
If you presume that our behaviour is influenced by uncountable factors and measuring our "state of the mind" will also have an influence on our behaviour than there IS a free will in the way that nobody can predict our behaviour in the future.
If you presume that our behaviour is influenced by uncountable factors and measuring our "state of the mind" will also have an influence on our behaviour than there IS a free will in the way that nobody can predict our behaviour in the future.
I offered as much proof as you did, which was none. My grandmother is very religous, and she is not full of rage. If you had made such a blanket statement about black people or homosexuals you would be crucified rather than applauded.
Yes pipslingerz isn't modern tolerance wonderful?! But anyway how do you know what's going on in your Grandma's soul - what ancient injuries may lie therein? On an earlier point, free will is not such a simple issue as you take it to be. You will see this even from a rapid perusal of the Wikipedia article on the subject.
Your point about not knowing what is in Grandma's head makes my point, beause stefbot couldn't know either. I am very familiar with the ideas of Free Will, consciousness, self-consciousness, morality, and determinism - and your right they are very tough to get people to agree on definitions.
Yes, it's true that Stefbot doesn't really present knockdown arguments for knowing your grandma's (or any other believer's) soul. But there is a discipline - psychoanalysis - which has at least started to explain religion in this way; see my refs in Part 2.
My view of religion is that it is peoples attempt to get closer to a higher truth. I believe that higher truth is there, which is why I defend people seeking it. Athiests here think religous people are nutcases because they believe in something "without any proof". So I tend to challenge these athiests to provide proof for the things they take for granted, such as other peoples self-awareness. stefbot doesnt like these type of questions, and I know why.
I can't speak for Stefan M, and I don't think it's helpful just to say believers are nuts. But I don't think that they have the monopoly on "higher truth" i.e. questions of ultimate value, either. Atheists address such questions through philosophy, which has the advantage of using the same standards of proof (evidence of senses+rational argt) as in other domains, and not accepting "revelation". Good ones don't avoid any difficult questions.
The problem with philosophy is that it is rational, and can thus never explain the irrational. Free Will is, by definition, "irrational". Experiential knowledge, "revelation", may be the only way to know what they are seeking.
On rationality and philosophy, we're getting into deep water! I would say, using Wittgenstein' distinction between what can be shown and what can be said, that indeed the religious experience can't be SAID in your sense (=explained) but that it can be SHOWN, pointed to (=described)as it is e.g. by W.James (VRE)or later by phenomenology i.e. it's possible to describe the essence of this experience, it's structure.
I'm not sure how your comment on free will relates to the rest, but by "revelation" I meant sacred texts, not experiential knowledge. I don't deny the reality of the latter, but I am sceptical whether it gives us certain knowledge of something beyond it i.e. God. Just as there are sensory illusions and hallucinations, I think there can be extrasensory ones which are more illusions of the emotional life.
You are equating mysticism with paranoia. Thats like saying instinct is the same as intuition. In other words, you are saying all non-rational states are pre-rational states. Some non-rational states are trans-rational states.
stevenwagner 4 months ago
"Almost inevitably ending up condemning our families, and pursuing a life of semi-solitary integrity..."
Man you hit the nail right on the head with that one. It is nice to know that is normal. I was thinking I was the only one. The pressure to conform is so enormous. Thanks for letting me know. It will keep me a little more resolved to know others are struggling and it is a normal process.
summergiles 2 years ago
I thought there was dark matter. Is that not true?
summergiles 2 years ago
Haha.. way to hold your stance pips.
NineDimensional 5 years ago
The last time he asked for my argument, I gave it, and he just referred me to his 17-video introduction. After watching a few of his videos I realized he tends to not take a position, other than to ridicule others. That would not be too bad if he didn't also imply that he had something better.
pipslingerz 5 years ago
I remember that. At the time I also remember thinking that having watched his introduction series myself, I found his position in the matter to be fairly clear. Regardless, I now understand why you didn't feel the urge to argue. Fair enough.
NineDimensional 5 years ago
He is a good guy, and it takes guts to make your thoughts public. The argument for a perfectly logical/causal world denies Free Will - and cannot be logically made. Yet here on AthiesTube, it is taken as fact. I wont harangue stefbot anymore.
pipslingerz 5 years ago
If you presume that our behaviour is influenced by uncountable factors and measuring our "state of the mind" will also have an influence on our behaviour than there IS a free will in the way that nobody can predict our behaviour in the future.
philippschuetz 5 years ago
If you presume that our behaviour is influenced by uncountable factors and measuring our "state of the mind" will also have an influence on our behaviour than there IS a free will in the way that nobody can predict our behaviour in the future.
philippschuetz 5 years ago
Try reading Spinoza - or an introduction at least, on the question of free will.
parispeter2 4 years ago
To say that all religious people are full of rage, is insane.
pipslingerz 5 years ago
That's not an argument...
stefbot 5 years ago 2
It's not meant to be.
pipslingerz 5 years ago
See? You're taking a religious approach to argument, and you're angry...
stefbot 4 years ago 6
I offered as much proof as you did, which was none. My grandmother is very religous, and she is not full of rage. If you had made such a blanket statement about black people or homosexuals you would be crucified rather than applauded.
pipslingerz 4 years ago
Yes pipslingerz isn't modern tolerance wonderful?! But anyway how do you know what's going on in your Grandma's soul - what ancient injuries may lie therein? On an earlier point, free will is not such a simple issue as you take it to be. You will see this even from a rapid perusal of the Wikipedia article on the subject.
parispeter2 4 years ago
Your point about not knowing what is in Grandma's head makes my point, beause stefbot couldn't know either. I am very familiar with the ideas of Free Will, consciousness, self-consciousness, morality, and determinism - and your right they are very tough to get people to agree on definitions.
pipslingerz 4 years ago
Yes, it's true that Stefbot doesn't really present knockdown arguments for knowing your grandma's (or any other believer's) soul. But there is a discipline - psychoanalysis - which has at least started to explain religion in this way; see my refs in Part 2.
parispeter2 4 years ago
My view of religion is that it is peoples attempt to get closer to a higher truth. I believe that higher truth is there, which is why I defend people seeking it. Athiests here think religous people are nutcases because they believe in something "without any proof". So I tend to challenge these athiests to provide proof for the things they take for granted, such as other peoples self-awareness. stefbot doesnt like these type of questions, and I know why.
pipslingerz 4 years ago
I can't speak for Stefan M, and I don't think it's helpful just to say believers are nuts. But I don't think that they have the monopoly on "higher truth" i.e. questions of ultimate value, either. Atheists address such questions through philosophy, which has the advantage of using the same standards of proof (evidence of senses+rational argt) as in other domains, and not accepting "revelation". Good ones don't avoid any difficult questions.
parispeter2 4 years ago
The problem with philosophy is that it is rational, and can thus never explain the irrational. Free Will is, by definition, "irrational". Experiential knowledge, "revelation", may be the only way to know what they are seeking.
pipslingerz 4 years ago
On rationality and philosophy, we're getting into deep water! I would say, using Wittgenstein' distinction between what can be shown and what can be said, that indeed the religious experience can't be SAID in your sense (=explained) but that it can be SHOWN, pointed to (=described)as it is e.g. by W.James (VRE)or later by phenomenology i.e. it's possible to describe the essence of this experience, it's structure.
parispeter2 4 years ago
I'm not sure how your comment on free will relates to the rest, but by "revelation" I meant sacred texts, not experiential knowledge. I don't deny the reality of the latter, but I am sceptical whether it gives us certain knowledge of something beyond it i.e. God. Just as there are sensory illusions and hallucinations, I think there can be extrasensory ones which are more illusions of the emotional life.
parispeter2 4 years ago
wait, what?
nightpotato 4 years ago