Are feelings rational?

[menkooomigen]

Ravi Zacharias is very talanted when it comes to making word sallads and avoiding awnsering questions, but thats about it. His arguments are flawed and completely empty of substance. Ravi would get destroyed in a debate with someone like Hitchens,

[M3PanoS]

@menkooomigen ...oh the irony

[menkooomigen]

@M3PanoS I seriously doubt that anyone who holds Ravi in a high fashion would have much of a sense for irony.

[M3PanoS]

@menkooomigen I don't even know why I replied to you since after reading your statement I don't hold your opinion to be of any value whatsoever...I guess I was vainly hoping you'd see the stupidity behind your statement...oh well. Peace.

[menkooomigen]

@M3PanoS That doesnt surprise me in the slightest, I allways suspected that you are the kind of person who lacks the ability to see valuable statements when you are presented with one. Ironically though, you are in a way a lot like Ravi in that you fail to present any substancial arguments (in your case any arguments at all!) and you are only ever able to comment on your opponents personality.

[M3PanoS]

@menkooomigen ...oh the irony, again -_- (talking to you is like a vicious circle) Give me one meaningful statement then.

I didn't fail to present any substantial arguments because I was never called to do so, you can't fault me for not answering to something I was never called to -nice try at a bait and switch though. Rather, the topic was on YOUR claims that all Ravi does is make 'word salads' and that his arguments 'lack substance' -it's up to you to bring it buddy, not me.

[menkooomigen]

@M3PanoS I'm starting to see the pattern in your comments, first you say somthing about irony then you call the other person stupid, then its back to irony again. Let me guess, your next post is about how stupid I am? Well thats typical for a person like you, ad hom attacks the second they dont like what they hear. At least you have confirmed my original suspicion about you, that you obviously dont understand irony. Talking with you is a complete waste of time, I have no interest in continuinng.

[M3PanoS]

@menkooomigen ...oh the irony. Oops, I broke the pattern. >.<

Actually you did, since my responses are just reactions to what you say... -_-

[menkooomigen]

@M3PanoS This goes back to what I was saying eariler, and server to further prove my point: You are like Ravi in that you fail to present any substancial arguments (in your case any arguments at all!) and you are only ever able to comment on your opponents personality.

[M3PanoS]

@menkooomigen Lolwut? You have a point? O_O

You're an atheist, on that worldview your life is pointless, and knowing that, the fact that you haven't killed yourself a long time ago only shows how terribly inconsistent you are with your own worldview.

And like I said the only pattern here is your comments: I see a pattern -oooh what he just said confirms it!!one!1!!

The reason what you said is ironic is because Hitchens' 'word salads' were utterly destroyed already by William Lane Craig.

[menkooomigen]

@M3PanoS I don't understand why you think I'm an atheist. Any sufficently intelligent theist would agree that Ravi is completely full of shit. But come on, do please describe exactly what my world view is. I can understand that you want to shift the discussion away from Ravis empty ramblings and instead focus on insulting me. Its very typical from people like you and comes as no surprise this time or the last thousand times it has happened.

[M3PanoS]

@menkooomigen WHAT ARE YOU!?!?! This is gonna bring teh lulz for sure.

Shift the discussion away? Come at me, bro. Tell me where in the video Ravi messes up. QUOTE me the part that makes no sense to you. I'm begging you, please.

I insult the atheist worldview because it's so easy to do, and because many of those assholes think they have a monopoly on reason. With that said, go ahead, try and define your worldview, so I can blow it into oblivion.

[menkooomigen]

@M3PanoS HAhah ok now I understand what kind of a pathetic christ boy u are. Come at me bro is a far cry from turning the other cheek lol. "Tell me where he messes up" WHAT HAVE WE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS WHOLE TIME? WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?

Come at me bro AHAHAHAHAH thats the funniest thing I've even seen.

My worldview?

انه هو الله وحده، خالق الكون ، والقاضي للبشرية. انه فريد من نوعه وجوهرها واحد ، كل رحيم يعلن القرآن واقع الله. ALLAH you american pig motherfucker. fuck u

[M3PanoS]

@menkooomigen And btw, if you're Muslim, why did you say Hitchens would destroy Ravi in a debate? That's why I thought you were atheist. He hates your religion just as much as Christianity; only difference is you guys are crazy, so he's not willing to slander you guys like he does Christians.

And the Koran is inconsistent, it claims that the Gospels are the Word of God but that Jesus wasn't crucified when it says so IN the Gospels. Lolwut? It's time to stop playing religion, and come to Christ.

[menkooomigen]

@M3PanoS Thats the best you got when it comes to blowing my worldview into oblivion?? Boy you should bring me what you have or you should shut your false-prophet-worshipping mouth.

Who is the best chiristianity has to offer? Well cuz RZ doesnt say shit but can only spew his incoherent rambling throwing in a few fancy words here and there, I can only assume its Billy Craig since you mentioned him earlier.

Wanna see his ass DEMOLISHED by hitchens dick?

watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

[M3PanoS]

@menkooomigen Lol that link is the best you've got? Atheists themselves admit Hitchens got spanked by Craig. And this is why I keep bringing up the point 'irony' -you say stupid things that you think you can attribute to my position, when in reality it's just the other way around.

However, it does speak volumes on your position when you seek to arm yourself with the ideas of others that don't support you in the vain attempt to discredit Christianity. Truth threatening you bro?

[M3PanoS]

@menkooomigen It's also a curious thing to note how all other worldviews band together to form a unified opposition when it comes to Christianity; and you guys all try to systematically dismiss Christianity but continuously fail.

And btw, what good things did you do to account for being such an ass to me? Don't you have to hit that 51% good mark to get into heaven, bro? You better not be walking the line, that's pretty risky if you ask me...

[menkooomigen]

@M3PanoS Kicking infidels like you is one of the أركان الإسلام. Pillars of Islam raping your dirty little jew ass since creation til heaven come.

I always knew you were a pussy who thrash talk and have nothing to back it up. Constantly trying to shift the focus over to me AGAIN and fucking AGAIN.

I knew you were a joke right from the start. Still waiting to watch you obliderate my worldview.

But I already know you got shit.

american jew pig الأم الأبله.

Good bye.

[M3PanoS]

@menkooomigen Tell me why I should believe Muhammad was a prophet and I'll convert right meow!! >.<

I've backed up everything I've claimed, which was very little; you on the other hand made a bunch of accusations that you haven't supported. You just keep complaining how I'm supposedly trash talking you.

And for the record, I've already looked at Islam from an objective, serious POV and considered it, but it didn't fare very well. Have you done the same for Christianity? I didn't think so...

[zcjxxx]

@M3PanoS Very Nice!

[M3PanoS]

@menkooomigen What about the thousands upon thousands of Muslims that are coming to Christ after living devout Muslim lives and thinking just like you did that Christians are liars, insane and stupid?

Whatever dude, say what you want, but the SPLINTER has already been planted in your brain. Eventually you will either come to the truth or you'll die denying it in your own blind fury of pride. Your choice to come to the light or to go down in flames -whatever choice, you can only blame yourself.

[menkooomigen]

@M3PanoS Those "muslims" will face the same fate as you when judgement comes.

Splinters are what your false prophet got his ass full of when he was nailed to a tree.

So lets reiterate:

You have been unsuccessful in defending ravi.

I showed you several reasons why christianity is stupid and you had NO REBUTTAL except saying "well that is true for muslims too"- which seems to be your catchphrase for awnsering any criticism of your stupid beliefs. What a pathetic piece of shit you are dude.

[M3PanoS]

@menkooomigen No, YOU will face the same judgment as other Muslims -you've got it twisted.

And btw, why do you keep talking so badly about the Messiah if He's considered a prophet in your religion? You're not even being consistent with your own beliefs... -_-

I have given answers, you've refused to evaluate them and have just gone around screaming how stupid I am -it seems to be a theme with your people though, otherwise you'd all have converted by now. It's your pride that blinds you.

[zcjxxx]

@menkooomigen What hate! Really wonder how can any one see the beauty of Islam that way.

[menkooomigen]

@M3PanoS And youre wrong btw. Hitchens doesnt hate anyones religion, not your and not mine. What he does is DESTROY Christianity with logical arguments. How does it feel to know just one guy can roll your whole shit false prophet religion like that? Tell me how it FEELS bro

And BTW: unlike you I dont care if you follow the true God or not. You see I'm fine knowing that you gonna go to hell, I dont give a shit. Its fine if you wanna become a الطفل الإله but I could not care less whether you do.

[M3PanoS]

@menkooomigen Yes he does, he hates all religions, if you think he only hates Christianity, you're in denial and a liar. He just doesn't speak as vehemently against Islam because not only does he not live in an Islamic dominated society, but you guys are crazy, so he'd rather just attack and harass Christians since he's a pussy.

If you don't care about others, then I don't care about your religion -that alone is enough for me to dismiss your BS. I'm the one that has the one, true God, not you.

[swordseller1]

GOD draws people to Him. Jesus Christ says No one can come to me unless my Father draws him.

The choice is yours

[thefrozenmercury]

Hmm. The title of this video is inaccurate. He didn't prove feelings were rational. He stressed the significance of using emotions in conjunction with structured thought.

[festyosemtex]

He doesn't prove that thoughts engender feelings, he merely states it.

I don't get it, if thought engenders feeling then surely we would be able to control our feelings, to alter them, will them out of existence. That is hardly the case in reality.

Have I made a mistake here? Could someone explain this to me?

[BassP86]

@festyosemtex

Your point is well taken. Remember what Ravi said in the video. There must be a logical connection between a feeling and a thought. If that connection lies within the feeling itself, you have to ask yourself why you are even feeling it in the first place. If feelings are the basis for our thoughts that that is circular reasoning, and logically nothing can be real or true unless we make it that way.

(cont.)

[BassP86]

For example: Descartes posited the idea that "I" exist because "i" think. That statement is circular, because he was presupposing that there must be an "I" to do the thinking. If Descartes's statement is correct, then logically I must have THOUGHT myself into being, but really I did not CHOOSE to exist. Can I be BOTH human & not human at the same time & in the same sense? No. If feelings engender thought, then our feelings would PRECEDE everything else, which they don't.

Does that make sense?

[festyosemtex]

@BassP86 no

[festyosemtex]

@BassP86 just kidding, that was a wonderful answer. Fair play to you.

"If feelings engender thought, then our feelings would PRECEDE everything else"

why must the feeling precede the realisation?

[BassP86]

@festyosemtex

Thanks for replying. Remember that I am NOT arguing that feelings precede the realization as MY position. I'm saying that feeling preceding the realization is the logical ENTAILMENT from the statement that "feelings engender thought." That statement is a postmodern argument which holds that what may be true for one may not be true for another. According to this entailment I could believe whatever I want to believe, therefore I could MAKE UP whatever I want to believe.

(cont.)

[BassP86]

Therefore to say that feelings engender thought would allow one to conveniently hold to that position regardless. The reason why "feelings preceding the realization" would entail from the statement that "feelings engender thought" is because it is an open act of the will. Despite the irony that relativism ITSELF is self-defeating whether it is absolutely true or relatively true, "feelings preceding the realization" flows consistently with the postmodern framework that truth is relative.

[festyosemtex]

@BassP86 I'm finding it hard to understand.

"If feelings are the basis for our thoughts that that is circular reasoning, and logically nothing can be real or true unless we make it that way." Could you clarify what you mean there?

You appear to say that 'feelings are the basis for our thoughts...is circular reasoning', and then in the next comment you seem to say that thinking before the feeling is also circular reasoning. and then you just jump back to feelings and state if they engender

[festyosemtex]

@BassP86 cont.

thought 'they would PRECEDE everything else, which they don't."

? How does logically deducing that both ‘preceding arguments’ are circular PROVE that if the feeling engenders the thought it must precede it?

If both ‘preceding arguments’ are circular reasoning, wouldn’t the best explanation then be that feeling and realization come at the same time?

If feeling and realization came at the same time, the idea that

[festyosemtex]

@Bass

the idea that

‘feelings/thoughts engender the thought/feelings without preceding it’

could still fit in there, no?

--

“...That statement is a postmodern argument which holds that what may be true for one may not be true for another.” Could you clarify what this means. I just don't understand it here.

--

“The reason why "feelings preceding the realization" would entail from the statement that "feelings engender thought" is because it is an open act of the will.”

Could you explain that?

[BassP86]

@festyosemtex

I'm glad you pointed this out. I'm not saying that it is circular reasoning to say that thought engendering feeling is circular reasoning. My elaboration should have been more clear. Let me give you this illustration to further explain what I mean:

Let's say that I see an empty coffee mug on a table. It is true, not because I feel that it is there. It is true because the empty coffee mug ITSELF, makes it so. Existence is an idea that exists independently of my feelings.

(cont.)

[BassP86]

If relativism is true, then my feelings would precede the idea of existence. Therefore my feelings would be able to conceive the existence of that empty coffee mug, without having to conceive of the idea of existence beforehand or the definition of a coffee mug for that matter. Outside of relativism, my realization of that mug is subjective, but it is NOT the same as subjectivism (relativism).

(cont.)

[BassP86]

Concepts exist prior to humans and in order for humans to express feelings, we must be able to conceive of those concepts through thought FIRST. I think the misunderstanding is that you think I'm using two different definitions for relativism but that's not what I'm doing at all.

Here's a video which clarifies it:

watch?v=iJi4-j-wjSY

[BassP86]

The statement "feelings engender thought" is often used to justify relativism. By arguing such, one is openly allowing all possible truths to be accepted by himself or herself, regardless if they are mutually exclusive. This is merely a way of trying to avoid any type of conflict or offense with anyone else who disagrees with him or her. By saying that "feelings engender thought", they believe whatever they want to believe and not have to feel accountable for what may be OBJECTIVELY true.

[BassP86]

"What may be true for one may not be true for another" means that person A can believe X whereas person B can believe Y. If X and Y are both contradictory to one another, then both X and Y are still true because each of those two persons believe either X or Y to be so. Therefore all things are both true and not true at the same time and in the same sense.

I do not believe this philosophy to be a valid position.

[2icebaked]

That boy should stop,drop&roll cause he got burned!

[Hemulen40]

Verry emotional stuff ! ( :

[azgirl777]

Please keep posting more videos of Ravi! These are incredible!

[riseofatheism]

Why did a god become pertinent to this point? I must've missed the connection.

[jajdr]

@riseofatheism so that it's not just a preference of "right" and "wrong," but universal truth coming from an absolutely good reference point.

[riseofatheism]

@jajdr

Who ever said it was just preference?

[roryphelan]

did I understand that right? Is he saying that the thought comes before the feeling?

Could someone explain to me what he is saying here, because that is the impression I got. (I apologize, I am guessing from the other comments of praise that I may be a little bit slow.)

Also, could someone explain to me what he means by:

'I am taking the thought and showing it what it feels'

(he says it towards the end)

[jajdr]

@roryphelan "I am taking the thought and showing where it feels," or is felt within a person

[roryphelan]

@jajdr

Thank you for responding, but could you elaborate please, on what that means?

[jajdr]

@roryphelan That it is felt in the mind, as a rational thought, not a biological reaction. He spends the whole speech explaining why.

[roryphelan]

@jajdr Again thank you for responding.

To "feel stuff in the mind..."

a rational thought (in the mind) has feeling, without the 'biological reaction' of feelings?

Did I get that right or have I totally misinterpreted your comment?

[jajdr]

@roryphelan I am assuming that the soul exists, and that the mind did not arise from atheistic evolution, or chance. Since truth, as a category, exists, it follows that the immaterial, yet very real, spiritual world exists, thus meaning that the mind is more than a physical object and thoughts are more than electric signals. Ravi Zacharias is trying to say that feelings we have that some acts are actually immoral and wrong are more than just physical reactions, but spiritual ones, in the mind.

[roryphelan]

@jajdr This term 'atheistic evolution'. Do you believe in evolution?

[jajdr]

@roryphelan What I meant was that I don't believe that we were created out of mere chance, whatever that is. Macroevolution is irrelevant to the conversation, as it is a scientific issue and not a philosophical one. Atheistic evolution is a philosophical issue.

[roryphelan]

I'm sorry jajdr. I didn't mean that question in any agressive way at all. I apologize for not writing it better.

I was in my own train of thought about evolution, and what it means for people I know who believe it undermines the bible because they take the book of Genesis literally. I'm assuming you believe in evolution. I would like to ask you:

what would you say, as a devout believer in Christ, to people who doubt/rubbish evolution theory because 'it is not how the book of Genesis states'?

[jajdr]

@roryphelan As we are getting distracted from our original conversation, I'll give you a simple answer: there are multiple ways that you can look at Creationism. Some people say that "seven days" literally means seven 24-hour cycles, and the Earth is just a few thousand years old. I do not hold this view, and I believe that the seven days are stages, and we are in the Seventh day, if you catch my drift. For your original question, anyway, you should watch the video.

[roryphelan]

@jajdr Sorry I thought we were finished with our original conversation.

Thanks again for your comment. But to repeat, what would you actually say to a person who said they read Genesis literally, and considered the theory of evolution as something they could not accept because the sanctity/truth of the Bible would fall apart as a result? what would you say to them?

---

From your view outlined above it would mean that the good book should be open to ones subjective interpretation. yes?

[roryphelan]

@jajdr Hi jajdr.I know you didn't respond to my last comment, so you may find another one an odd thing, but I have a question about something you said in one of your comments. If you were willing to answer it in some way I would appreciate it.

You said previously that

"Since truth, as a category, exists, it follows that the immaterial, yet very real, spiritual world exists"

Could you explain to me how you got from one point (that truth exists) to the other (that the spiritual world/God exists)

[jajdr]

@roryphelan Think of where truth exists. That is the same place, or dimension, in which God exists. In fact, Jesus declared that God Himself (or Itself) is truth.

[roryphelan]

@jajdr

So God is truth because Jesus said so?

[jajdr]

@roryphelan That's not the assertion that I was making, and although I do believe that truth itself is God, I was not making an argument based on that. I was explaining to you what Christians believe and how it is not systematically false. You are asking for another argument, but I am not going to give you one. If you're looking for answers, search for them, reach out for them, but don't follow the jargon-based idea that none exist. That's self-defeating.

[roryphelan]

@jajdr thanks.

You are saying that God could occupy another dimension/place, because you believe in what you are saying?

By your standards/conception, do you believe God is only truth?

What makes you so sure that the bible God is truth? Is it because you beleve in the tenants of the bible?

I hope you can answer these questions and not say I am bringing up something that was not intended to be discussed. Sorry I don't want this to be harsh

I don't know something doesn't feel right here.

[roryphelan]

@jajdr

I was told, this William Blake line -

'If the doors of perception were cleansed, we could see the truely infinite.'

I believe there is an objective truth, but could you tell me why does this mean there has to be a God? please tell me. please. if you know, please. I am finding the answer hard to find anywhere else. if you could point me in the right direction.

I am sorry if you find this annoying but how do you know God is truth jajdr?

why can't truth be truth and no God attached?

[jajdr]

@roryphelan What did you think truth was?

[roryphelan]

@jajdr Sorry but I don't understand the question, or given the wording I don't quite know how to answer it. I am sorry about that.

If you don't mind, could you clarify the question or reword it?

And if you feel comfortable doing so, could you tell me what makes you so sure that the bible God is truth?

[jajdr]

@roryphelan You do not understand the question, which is alright because we cannot fully understand what truth is, what with the shortcomings of capacity to think that we intrinsically have. However, truth, like poetry, can be communicated before it is understood. Therefore, truth is identifiable. Truth is defined as "what is," or what is really real. Truth is immaterial, eternal, and unconquerable, and ultimately transcending. To me, at least, God and truth do not have any dissimilarities.

[roryphelan]

@jajdr "You do not understand the question, which is alright because we cannot fully understand what truth is, what with the shortcomings of capacity to think that we intrinsically have." To be honest Jajdr, I agree with this part, but I can't help getting the feeling that with the rest of your comment you are trying to mould your conception of truth into that of the Biblical God, without any justification, other then it suiting your Dogma. How do you feel about that statement?

[jajdr]

@roryphelan I was not finished speaking. In fact, I never gave any arguments, nor assertions that this God of truth is the God of the Christian Bible. So now I will. You can look at several monotheistic religions, namely the three Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, and see that their conceptions of God are quite similar. The problem is that both Judaism and Islam leave any manner of atonement, or forgiveness, disregarded, and all shortcomings are without hope of recovery...

[jajdr]

@roryphelan ...which would give humanity huge individual problems, as no one is perfect and everyone has their mistakes that cannot be reversed. So there would need to be some sort of reconciliation with this God of truth, or humanity would be forever separated and in the dark. Christianity offered this reconciliation, which is called the Incarnation, and this would satisfy our intellect and give peace to our souls. That is much less problematic and confusing than most other religions...

[jajdr]

@roryphelan ...Even though that seems like a pretty big jump from my other arguments, proving that there is a God just as there is a truth would give solid grounds for theism, and Christianity would be the more appealing faith over other religions. There is much more to say about Christianity and how it is appealing, but there is the Bible and many apologetic writings on this subject. If you cannot find answers, keep searching. It may take a lifetime, but it is worth it. "Those who seek find."

[roryphelan]

@jajdr HI jajdr. Thank you for all that. I know you have said in your last comment that 'There is much more to say about Christianity and how it is appealing,'

But just so I know, are the points you have outlined in the last few comments the main reasons for you? Are they the main things that make you sure the bible God is truth?

[jajdr]

@roryphelan Well, I wouldn't say those are the real main reasons for my faith. I was not born into Christianity, so I have different reasons than just blind faith as in being raised in the Bible without right to question what I do not understand. I used to be atheistic. I accepted Christianity in one of the moments that a person has of getting past self-consciousness and seeing the big picture, which may be called thinking with the right (instead of left) side of the brain...

[jajdr]

@roryphelan ...When I accepted the possibility of a personal, timeless God, I started to investigate writings in apologetics by people like Zacharias and Lewis, and I was surprised to find that those questions that were keeping me from theism were answered in great depth, and that led me to read the actual text of the Bible. Even now, I'm still discovering things that are in the book that people told me were never written and just ignored by the writers...

[lightbrownpoop]

@jajdr christianity is more intellectually stimulating than what most atheists think! i would absolutely love to see this guy debate Hitchens, Dawkins or Harris.

[BassP86]

@lightbrownpoop

Zacharias said he has better things to do than debate Dawkins.

"To give truth to he who loves it not, is to give him multiplied reasons for misinterpretation."

[HelloWorld1947]

@BassP86-Amen and Jesus said don't throw ur pearls before swine and dont feed the dogs unnecessary meat less they tear u apart. why waist ur time telling some1 who doesn't want 2 hear the truth when there r millions who do rit? Love Ravi!

[MrRingmaster]

@lightbrownpoop That would be embarrassing for anyone of those "entertainers."

[thelostcause]

@lightbrownpoop Have you read "The End of Reason"? It is Ravi's response to Sam Harris' book, "Letter to a Christian Nation." So far it is fantastic!

[Follower172]

@lightbrownpoop think he is good, check out James White.

[jerry7424]

@lightbrownpoop

John Lennox has done that. Ravi and Lennox are friends.

[jajdr]

@roryphelan Today, I believe in God by everything that I experience; as C. S. Lewis said, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” I know God through prayer, some other Christians, my love of other people (and their love for me), and pretty much everything else I see. And as Newton said, "In the absence of any other evidence, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence."

[OOPS4U2CNOW]

wow

[madnessconsume]

amen

[lzgstv]

Awesome!

From Brazil!!

[MessiahSaves]

Excellent!!!