My Thoughts On Religion

[InspectoGeneral]

If you read my post, then you would know why it is foolish for me to debate you. In a debate, the debaters hold positions. In the case of an Atheist, they have no position. They believe in nothing as concerning God. You can attack my beliefs. But I can't attack yours. Why? Because you have none. That is precisely the reason I said that Atheism is for the weak. Anyone can attack someone. Especially when they have no position to attack. You have no vulnerabilities, no position.

Someone doesn't understand Atheists...

 

Inspecto, I may think you're an idiot, but I'll do you this favour.

The position held in debates are based on information... the information is what is attacked, not the position.

 

For instance, you state that Atheists have no position concerning God. That's fine and dandy... it just means that you don't see any way to debate an Atheist.

Me, on the other hand, would debate an Atheist by finding out WHY they don't believe, and then attacking them based on that information.

 

 

Not only do you not understand Atheists, but you don't understand how to debate.

That is why it is foolish to debate you. It isn't really a debate at all. It is you attacking what I believe, which is no debate at all. What do you want to attack? Creation? Go ahead. You can't explain where everything came from or how life began. But you can attack Creation. Do you want to attack the existence of God? Go ahead. Since you don't know everything, the existence of God is a possibility. Again, neither one is a debate. It is you attacking, and anyone can attack when they have nothing to defend.

Inspecto... if you were honest, you would admit that saying "Godidit" doesn't explain where everything came from or how life began. All it does is push the question back a bit.

 

Seriously... how did life begin? "Godidit" Well, how did God do it? "dunno, but Godidit"

If you have any other answer, go right ahead and let us know... because we've been waiting for a long time for some Christian to give us the answer of how life began.

 

Creationists claim they have the answer, but the answer they have is no answer at all...

 

Meanwhile, you can attack Abigenesis... but you'd need to understand it beforehand, or you'd get your ass handed to you in short order. (do you understand it?)

You could attack Evolution... but you'd need to understand it and you've already shown that you don't.

You could attack our reasons for not believing... but you'd need to know them, and understand them first.... and you've already shown that you're not interested in anything we have to say about that.

 

 

3 lines of attack there... and valid ones at that... but you don't see them.

 

You are blind to the possibilities, so proclaim our position for the weak. Funny how not having the answers, how having to find things out, how not having the God security blanket and how having shit loads of people despise us is for the weak.

 

You need to be a strong person to be an Atheist, Inspecto... but you don't understand it.

You don't understand it, so you don't even try to find out anything about it.

 

THAT is a weak position... and it's sad that you see it as a position of strength.

 

 

Noone understand Athiests. That's the point right. You can believe or not believe whatever you want as long as you don't believe in God. Attack your reasons? Are you serious?

 

So here it goes, my debate with an atheist.

 

Q. So why don't you believe in God?

A. Because I don't want to.

 

How 'bout this one.

 

Q. Why don't you believe in God?

A. Because someone made me go to Church and they sang too many hymns. If there were a God, they wouldn't have sang so many hymns.

 

Debating with someone on 'why' they don't believe in God is one of the more absurd things I've heard here. Then again, since there are only questions here. I guess this fits the mold.

[mwc]

Noone understand Athiests. That's the point right. You can believe or not believe whatever you want as long as you don't believe in God. Attack your reasons? Are you serious?

 

So here it goes, my debate with an atheist.

 

Q. So why don't you believe in God?

A. Because I don't want to.

 

How 'bout this one.

 

Q. Why don't you believe in God?

A. Because someone made me go to Church and they sang too many hymns. If there were a God, they wouldn't have sang so many hymns.

 

Debating with someone on 'why' they don't believe in God is one of the more absurd things I've heard here. Then again, since there are only questions here. I guess this fits the mold.

Well, that's a darn concise debate you've had with yourself. So, with that out of the way, what exactly is your purpose for hanging around here? If it's not to debate another member of the site (either about their position or yours...whatever the case may be) and/or answering questions (which does mean you might have to debate them I guess) then beyond mocking people what purpose does your presence serve?

 

Now, if your only goal is to simply mock us, fine, so be it. I'd just like to have it stated so that I know what to expect from you. If you have something else to offer then I'd like to know what that is since it hasn't been obvious from the (few) messages of yours that I have read so far.

 

I realize that these are merely more questions in search of answers but perhaps you'll be able to enlighten me?

 

mwc

[willybilly30]

InspectoGeneral, when I first came here I asked Atheists why they don't believe in God and never once did I get "oh they sang too many hyms" or "I just didn't like it" I never even seen you ask them that question. Seems like you'd rather guess what they'd say then just ask them. Read the testamonies if you see one part where they said they went Atheist cause of tooI'm ab many hyms or just cause they didn't like church give me the link to it.

[Asimov]

Debating with someone on 'why' they don't believe in God is one of the more absurd things I've heard here. Then again, since there are only questions here. I guess this fits the mold.

 

And once again you show your complete ignorance of any position contrary to yours on this website.

 

Keep settin up those straw-men and attacking them, IG.

[Lycorth]

Yes, it does seem that IG, like most fundy Xians that come here, lives in his own little bubble and views everything through his own little filter, seeing everything as he wants to see it.

 

Debating with a dimwit like him won't change his mind (unless years down the road, this all comes back to nag him and he wakes up), but like I said, people like him help to underscore why Xianity just plain sucks.

 

Gotta love it

[InspectoGeneral]

Debating with someone on 'why' they don't believe in God is one of the more absurd things I've heard here. Then again, since there are only questions here. I guess this fits the mold.

 

And once again you show your complete ignorance of any position contrary to yours on this website.

 

Keep settin up those straw-men and attacking them, IG.

 

You obviously think the 'why' is paramount in importance. Again, it fits with your paradigm.

 

Upon what basis can you say that the 'why' is the most important thing?

 

 

Yes, it does seem that IG, like most fundy Xians that come here, lives in his own little bubble and views everything through his own little filter, seeing everything as he wants to see it.

 

Debating with a dimwit like him won't change his mind (unless years down the road, this all comes back to nag him and he wakes up), but like I said, people like him help to underscore why Xianity just plain sucks.

 

Gotta love it

 

 

I thought plagarism was forbidden here.

 

 

InspectoGeneral, when I first came here I asked Atheists why they don't believe in God and never once did I get "oh they sang too many hyms" or "I just didn't like it" I never even seen you ask them that question. Seems like you'd rather guess what they'd say then just ask them. Read the testamonies if you see one part where they said they went Atheist cause of tooI'm ab many hyms or just cause they didn't like church give me the link to it.

 

willy-

 

To you, the why is of great importance. You come here and share your why's. Yet you all come to the same conclusion. The journey is important to you, the conclusion is important to me.

 

Noone understand Athiests. That's the point right. You can believe or not believe whatever you want as long as you don't believe in God. Attack your reasons? Are you serious?

 

So here it goes, my debate with an atheist.

 

Q. So why don't you believe in God?

A. Because I don't want to.

 

How 'bout this one.

 

Q. Why don't you believe in God?

A. Because someone made me go to Church and they sang too many hymns. If there were a God, they wouldn't have sang so many hymns.

 

Debating with someone on 'why' they don't believe in God is one of the more absurd things I've heard here. Then again, since there are only questions here. I guess this fits the mold.

Well, that's a darn concise debate you've had with yourself. So, with that out of the way, what exactly is your purpose for hanging around here? If it's not to debate another member of the site (either about their position or yours...whatever the case may be) and/or answering questions (which does mean you might have to debate them I guess) then beyond mocking people what purpose does your presence serve?

 

Now, if your only goal is to simply mock us, fine, so be it. I'd just like to have it stated so that I know what to expect from you. If you have something else to offer then I'd like to know what that is since it hasn't been obvious from the (few) messages of yours that I have read so far.

 

I realize that these are merely more questions in search of answers but perhaps you'll be able to enlighten me?

 

mwc

 

 

To mock you? Now wouldn't that be ironic if I was here for the same reason you were, just on the other side.

 

FWIW I have engaged in discussion with the rational posters. Mongo to name one. Rational posters are in short supply here. Maybe ya'll could bring some in.

[Asimov]

You obviously think the 'why' is paramount in importance. Again, it fits with your paradigm.

 

I think it's important to understand the position, because in a debate you are analyzing the "why" and seeing if it fits logically and evidentially.

 

Let's say that I'm an atheist because I don't want there to be a God. Clearly that's a fallacious reason and is invalid as a position. Thus, I've lost the debate.

 

Let's say that you are asserting that Theism is the only tenable position to take. I'd ask "why?".

 

The why of it is why we debate. Why do you think God exists, why do you think Atheism is for the weak? etc.

 

You present your position and then you explain it. Atheism isn't a non-position. It's a stance on the existence of God, a stance which asserts that we do not believe that God exists.

 

The reasons for that are multiple and varying from person to person, so it's definitely an important question or you run the risk of doing exactly what you're doing now...setting up straw-men and stereotyping my position.

 

I'm not even an ex-Christian so I don't know why people singing too many hymns would have anything to do with it.

 

 

To you, the why is of great importance. You come here and share your why's. Yet you all come to the same conclusion. The journey is important to you, the conclusion is important to me.

 

Yes, but how do you know if their conclusion is rational or not unless you know the why?

[willybilly30]

name='InspectoGeneral' date='Nov 9 2006, 11:43 PM' post='230879'

 

name='willybilly30' post='230602' date='Nov 9 2006, 04:01 AM

InspectoGeneral, when I first came here I asked Atheists why they don't believe in God and never once did I get "oh they sang too many hyms" or "I just didn't like it" I never even seen you ask them that question. Seems like you'd rather guess what they'd say then just ask them. Read the testamonies if you see one part where they said they went Atheist cause of too many hyms or just cause they didn't like church give me the link to it.

 

 

willy-

 

To you, the why is of great importance. You come here and share your why's. Yet you all come to the same conclusion. The journey is important to you, the conclusion is important to me.

 

 

That doesn't even make sense what are you saying I just come here, and Leave a bunch of questions never saying anything else? Well, You just come, and bash everyone.

The conclusion is important too you? Well. let me tell you what that will be, Your just going too spew shit and fight with everyone over, and over till you give up and leave.

[InspectoGeneral]

You obviously think the 'why' is paramount in importance. Again, it fits with your paradigm.

 

I think it's important to understand the position, because in a debate you are analyzing the "why" and seeing if it fits logically and evidentially.

 

Let's say that I'm an atheist because I don't want there to be a God. Clearly that's a fallacious reason and is invalid as a position. Thus, I've lost the debate.

 

Let's say that you are asserting that Theism is the only tenable position to take. I'd ask "why?".

 

The why of it is why we debate. Why do you think God exists, why do you think Atheism is for the weak? etc.

 

You present your position and then you explain it. Atheism isn't a non-position. It's a stance on the existence of God, a stance which asserts that we do not believe that God exists.

 

The reasons for that are multiple and varying from person to person, so it's definitely an important question or you run the risk of doing exactly what you're doing now...setting up straw-men and stereotyping my position.

 

I'm not even an ex-Christian so I don't know why people singing too many hymns would have anything to do with it.

 

 

To you, the why is of great importance. You come here and share your why's. Yet you all come to the same conclusion. The journey is important to you, the conclusion is important to me.

 

Yes, but how do you know if their conclusion is rational or not unless you know the why?

 

 

The conclusion is what it is. In a debate, you must have a true premise and proceed in a logical manner to a valid conclusion. Peoples beliefs are not debates. And that is OK.

 

Someone may say they don't believe in God because the were forced to go to Church when they were young. That's what they believe. People are emotional. Sometimes emotions have more say than rationality. People also are spiritual beings. That which is spiritual is not neccessarily in line with someones rationality. You may deny that people are spiritual. And that is fine, it suits your supposition that everything is rational or irrational. That logic is the be-all-end-all.

 

My point is, that people believe a host of things for a host of reasons. I am concerned with what they believe. The conclusion.

 

name='InspectoGeneral' date='Nov 9 2006, 11:43 PM' post='230879'

 

name='willybilly30' post='230602' date='Nov 9 2006, 04:01 AM

InspectoGeneral, when I first came here I asked Atheists why they don't believe in God and never once did I get "oh they sang too many hyms" or "I just didn't like it" I never even seen you ask them that question. Seems like you'd rather guess what they'd say then just ask them. Read the testamonies if you see one part where they said they went Atheist cause of too many hyms or just cause they didn't like church give me the link to it.

 

 

willy-

 

To you, the why is of great importance. You come here and share your why's. Yet you all come to the same conclusion. The journey is important to you, the conclusion is important to me.

 

 

That doesn't even make sense what are you saying I just come here, and Leave a bunch of questions never saying anything else? Well, You just come, and bash everyone.

The conclusion is important too you? Well. let me tell you what that will be, Your just going too spew and fight with everyone over, and over till you give up and leave.

 

You missed the point willy. My point was that the conclusion people come to, ie what they believe, is what is important.

[Asimov]

The conclusion is what it is. In a debate, you must have a true premise and proceed in a logical manner to a valid conclusion. Peoples beliefs are not debates. And that is OK.

 

Of course peoples beliefs are debatable. Beliefs can be and are wrong in many instances.

 

Every belief must have valid premise's and proceed in a logical manner to a valid conclusion.

 

Someone may say they don't believe in God because the were forced to go to Church when they were young. That's what they believe. People are emotional. Sometimes emotions have more say than rationality. People also are spiritual beings. That which is spiritual is not neccessarily in line with someones rationality. You may deny that people are spiritual. And that is fine, it suits your supposition that everything is rational or irrational. That logic is the be-all-end-all.

 

Emotional reasons for not believing in God are invalid in a debate. Debates are logical analyzations of a persons position in a topic.

 

It doesn't matter if some people are more emotional than rational, that doesn't mean anything. People being spiritual beings is also a naked assertion, which you just claim and then use it as a central point against rationality.

 

So far you've commited 2 fallacies. Non sequiter and a naked assertion.

 

My point is, that people believe a host of things for a host of reasons. I am concerned with what they believe. The conclusion.

 

Yes, and those reasons can be invalid which would invalidate the conclusion. How can you state that the conclusion is wrong or right if the justification for that conclusion is ignored?

[InspectoGeneral]

The conclusion is what it is. In a debate, you must have a true premise and proceed in a logical manner to a valid conclusion. Peoples beliefs are not debates. And that is OK.

 

Of course peoples beliefs are debatable. Beliefs can be and are wrong in many instances.

 

Every belief must have valid premise's and proceed in a logical manner to a valid conclusion.

 

Someone may say they don't believe in God because the were forced to go to Church when they were young. That's what they believe. People are emotional. Sometimes emotions have more say than rationality. People also are spiritual beings. That which is spiritual is not neccessarily in line with someones rationality. You may deny that people are spiritual. And that is fine, it suits your supposition that everything is rational or irrational. That logic is the be-all-end-all.

 

Emotional reasons for not believing in God are invalid in a debate. Debates are logical analyzations of a persons position in a topic.

 

It doesn't matter if some people are more emotional than rational, that doesn't mean anything. People being spiritual beings is also a naked assertion, which you just claim and then use it as a central point against rationality.

 

So far you've commited 2 fallacies. Non sequiter and a naked assertion.

 

My point is, that people believe a host of things for a host of reasons. I am concerned with what they believe. The conclusion.

 

Yes, and those reasons can be invalid which would invalidate the conclusion. How can you state that the conclusion is wrong or right if the justification for that conclusion is ignored?

 

 

So you think everyones beliefs are arrived at though a logical process? Talk about being in the box. People can hold whatever beliefs they want for whatever reason they want. Peoples live aren't debates. To dismiss the fact that people have emotions is simple denial. People have emotions. Do you deny that people have emotions? Do you deny that people hold beliefs for whatever reason they choose?

 

The truth is, you have committed a greater fallacy. Applying logic where it doesn't apply. When you deny that people have emotions, you have denied a fundamentally accepted truth.

[Asimov]

So you think everyones beliefs are arrived at though a logical process?

 

This is why it's important to read a post before replying. I never stated anything of the sort.

 

I said that everyones beliefs MUST be arrived at through a logical syllogism and valid conclusion.

 

People can hold whatever beliefs they want for whatever reason they want.

 

I've never stated that they can't.

 

Peoples live aren't debates.

 

I never stated that they were.

 

To dismiss the fact that people have emotions is simple denial. People have emotions. Do you deny that people have emotions? Do you deny that people hold beliefs for whatever reason they choose?

 

Where did I say that people do not have emotions and where did I say that people do not hold beliefs for whatever reason they choose?

 

I said that arriving at a conclusion for emotional reasons is fallacious and that people should have a logical reason for believing what they do.

 

The truth is, you have committed a greater fallacy. Applying logic where it doesn't apply. When you deny that people have emotions, you have denied a fundamentally accepted truth.

 

And you have now commited a third fallacy, the straw-man.

[Alice]

IG,

 

My understanding of your comments in this thread are that you believe conclusions are more important than the process by which someone arrived at their conclusion. Have I understood you correctly?

 

If so - I am really interested in finding out how you came to the conclusion that conclusions are more important than the process that led to the conclusion.

 

Do you just apply this to theological questions or do you take this approach in all of your life? For example do you just see how others behave and pay little heed to why they behave thus?

[InspectoGeneral]

IG,

 

My understanding of your comments in this thread are that you believe conclusions are more important than the process by which someone arrived at their conclusion. Have I understood you correctly?

 

If so - I am really interested in finding out how you came to the conclusion that conclusions are more important than the process that led to the conclusion.

 

Do you just apply this to theological questions or do you take this approach in all of your life? For example do you just see how others behave and pay little heed to why they behave thus?

 

 

If you murder my wife in cold blood, it doesn't matter why you did it, she's dead.

 

So you think everyones beliefs are arrived at though a logical process?

 

This is why it's important to read a post before replying. I never stated anything of the sort.

 

I said that everyones beliefs MUST be arrived at through a logical syllogism and valid conclusion.

 

People can hold whatever beliefs they want for whatever reason they want.

 

I've never stated that they can't.

 

Peoples live aren't debates.

 

I never stated that they were.

 

To dismiss the fact that people have emotions is simple denial. People have emotions. Do you deny that people have emotions? Do you deny that people hold beliefs for whatever reason they choose?

 

Where did I say that people do not have emotions and where did I say that people do not hold beliefs for whatever reason they choose?

 

I said that arriving at a conclusion for emotional reasons is fallacious and that people should have a logical reason for believing what they do.

 

The truth is, you have committed a greater fallacy. Applying logic where it doesn't apply. When you deny that people have emotions, you have denied a fundamentally accepted truth.

 

And you have now commited a third fallacy, the straw-man.

 

 

No edit button = stating things you ahve already addressed in your thread.

 

"people should have a logical reason for believing what they do."

 

Why? Says who? They are emotional beings and spiritual beings. Upon what basis do you conclude that ones beliefs should be based on logic?

[crazy-tiger]

IG,

 

My understanding of your comments in this thread are that you believe conclusions are more important than the process by which someone arrived at their conclusion. Have I understood you correctly?

 

If so - I am really interested in finding out how you came to the conclusion that conclusions are more important than the process that led to the conclusion.

 

Do you just apply this to theological questions or do you take this approach in all of your life? For example do you just see how others behave and pay little heed to why they behave thus?

 

 

If you murder my wife in cold blood, it doesn't matter why you did it, she's dead.

If a plane crashes, it doesn't matter why it did, it's still crashed...

 

 

Sorry Inspecto, but your comments indicate that you have no desire to understand anything at all, which makes certain comments of yours incredibly ironic.

assigning me position based on your misunderstanding, only reveals your misunderstanding.

Do you understand just what you're doing? You're determined to misunderstand!

 

You misunderstand our positions, our beliefs, (or lack thereof) our motivations, just about everything about us... yet you insist that you KNOW us better than we know ourselves.

 

 

You are arrogant, and have chosen to be ignorant... believing that your ignorance is a strength, you attack those you have no understanding of... being arrogant, you refuse to even consider the possibility that you're wrong...

 

Being arrogant and ignorant, you refuse to learn... and for that, I pity you.

[Alice]

IG,

 

My understanding of your comments in this thread are that you believe conclusions are more important than the process by which someone arrived at their conclusion. Have I understood you correctly?

 

If so - I am really interested in finding out how you came to the conclusion that conclusions are more important than the process that led to the conclusion.

 

Do you just apply this to theological questions or do you take this approach in all of your life? For example do you just see how others behave and pay little heed to why they behave thus?

 

 

If you murder my wife in cold blood, it doesn't matter why you did it, she's dead.

 

 

 

If your wife leaves you - does it matter why she walked out?

 

You present as lacking in empathy, IG.

 

In my experience this is a common side effect of fundamentalism. As a member of fundamentalist churches for years the lack of empathy in many of the doctrines and the failure of much of fundamentalist religion to understand others and to show compassion was always a stumbling block for me.

 

It sems to me that a good fundamentalist never lets concern for their fellow man or compassion for the plight of others get in the way of their dogma.

 

IG - you show all the signs of being a first class fundamentalist.

[Asimov]

Why? Says who? They are emotional beings and spiritual beings. Upon what basis do you conclude that ones beliefs should be based on logic?

 

Because through logic comes knowledge. Emotions and faith provide no route knowledge. Emotions are reactions to the environment and faith is belief without evidence.

 

Beliefs that are justified are justified logically. If you have no reason to believe then you have no credible justification.

[Jubilant]

Why? Says who? They are emotional beings and spiritual beings. Upon what basis do you conclude that ones beliefs should be based on logic?

 

And I'm sure that applies to those of other faiths...not just Christianity, right?

[InspectoGeneral]

IG,

 

My understanding of your comments in this thread are that you believe conclusions are more important than the process by which someone arrived at their conclusion. Have I understood you correctly?

 

If so - I am really interested in finding out how you came to the conclusion that conclusions are more important than the process that led to the conclusion.

 

Do you just apply this to theological questions or do you take this approach in all of your life? For example do you just see how others behave and pay little heed to why they behave thus?

 

 

If you murder my wife in cold blood, it doesn't matter why you did it, she's dead.

 

 

 

If your wife leaves you - does it matter why she walked out?

 

You present as lacking in empathy, IG.

 

In my experience this is a common side effect of fundamentalism. As a member of fundamentalist churches for years the lack of empathy in many of the doctrines and the failure of much of fundamentalist religion to understand others and to show compassion was always a stumbling block for me.

 

It sems to me that a good fundamentalist never lets concern for their fellow man or compassion for the plight of others get in the way of their dogma.

 

IG - you show all the signs of being a first class fundamentalist.

 

 

You think compassion is when people say 'I care' on an internet message board. Hopw you enjoy all the 'I care' you get here. I care. See, I do have compassion.

 

Why? Says who? They are emotional beings and spiritual beings. Upon what basis do you conclude that ones beliefs should be based on logic?

 

Because through logic comes knowledge. Emotions and faith provide no route knowledge. Emotions are reactions to the environment and faith is belief without evidence.

 

Beliefs that are justified are justified logically. If you have no reason to believe then you have no credible justification.

 

You explained why you believe it to be so, but provided no basis.

 

Does knowledge only come through logic?

 

Upon what basis do you say the beliefs are only justified when they are justified logically?

[crazy-tiger]

You think compassion is when people say 'I care' on an internet message board. Hopw you enjoy all the 'I care' you get here. I care. See, I do have compassion.

You know... there are support groups out there that are run by e-mail... and the support they give is valid.

There are support groups out there run by phone... and the support is valid.

There are support groups out there run in anonymous groups... and the support is valid.

 

In all cases, the support is most often nothing more than a listening ear and an understanding person.

 

 

 

What is the meaning of compassion? (you don't know, since you think being a total bastard to everyone is compassion)

compassion

n.

 

Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it.

Well fuck... what do you know...?

 

We have compassion and we show it... you, though... you show a lack of compassion. (despite your claims to be showing some... naughty liar Inspecto)

 

 

Compassion requires that deep awareness... and you just don't get that without understanding. You refuse point-blank to understand, so you will never have compassion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

By the way... no reply to my last post? Don't tell me that you can't think of any way to dig yourself in any deeper...

 

Mind you... you've gone so deep, you're gonna be in China soon.

[Alice]

 

You think compassion is when people say 'I care' on an internet message board. Hopw you enjoy all the 'I care' you get here. I care. See, I do have compassion.

 

 

Your response is very strange to me. How did you conclude that I think compassion is when people say 'I care' on an internet message board?

 

I believe that intent is a relevent consideration in understanding other people and their behaviour and that understanding this often leads to compassion.

 

Simply saying 'I care' does not translate to an expression of compassion for me - it is only in understanding why and on what grounds someone says 'I care' that I am able to see if the words are spoken with compassion.

 

I'm assuming here that you are really saying - just by saying 'I care' isn't really showing compassion - and if this is what you mean, then I agree with you.

 

Which doesn't help me understand why you appear to see no mileage in understanding the reasons for a person's actions.

 

So I ask you again ... if your wife leaves you does it make a difference why she walked out?

[Asimov]

You explained why you believe it to be so, but provided no basis.

 

The basis that emotions are not a cognitive process but a reaction. Reactions are not the gathering and formation of information into concepts.

 

Does knowledge only come through logic?

 

Knowledge only comes through valid reasoning.

 

Upon what basis do you say the beliefs are only justified when they are justified logically?

 

The fact that illogical justifications are invalid by their very nature of being illogical.

[NotBlinded]

IG,

 

My understanding of your comments in this thread are that you believe conclusions are more important than the process by which someone arrived at their conclusion. Have I understood you correctly?

 

If so - I am really interested in finding out how you came to the conclusion that conclusions are more important than the process that led to the conclusion.

 

Do you just apply this to theological questions or do you take this approach in all of your life? For example do you just see how others behave and pay little heed to why they behave thus?

 

 

If you murder my wife in cold blood, it doesn't matter why you did it, she's dead.

If a plane crashes, it doesn't matter why it did, it's still crashed...

 

 

Sorry Inspecto, but your comments indicate that you have no desire to understand anything at all, which makes certain comments of yours incredibly ironic.

And all of life is missed if the destination is the only important thing in life. One might just as well sit on a hill their entire life and sing la la la. What does rain do...well I don't know but I get wet! Wow...what are all those pretty colors in the sky that is shaped like an arch? Oh...wait a minute. I could care less what causes that! All I know is that God-did-it to show that he wouldn't destroy us again by a flood! la la la la

 

I thank the powers that be that people like IG are few and far between. I would rather deal with a person that suffers from cognitive dissonance than someone like IG that could care less about any cognitive processes. Ignorance is bliss couldn't be more aptly applied than in his case.

[crazy-tiger]

I thank the powers that be that people like IG are few and far between. I would rather deal with a person that suffers from cognitive dissonance than someone like IG that could care less about any cognitive processes. Ignorance is bliss couldn't be more aptly applied than in his case.

People like Inspecto, when all is said and done, might as well remove all the brain apart from the brain stem... since they seem to want to use none of it.

 

 

Honestly... do those people really want to have the same understanding of life as an Ameoba?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would have said people who refuse to use cognative processes want to be just like Teri Shiavo, but Teri doesn't deserve the insult.