(April 24, 2017 at 12:58 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(April 24, 2017 at 12:23 pm)Brian37 Wrote:
It is about mere feelings otherwise you could answer without trying to point to your particular club and writings.
It is about mere feelings otherwise you would not be afraid of a neutral lab where it isn't trying to point to anything.
"When you were a non-believer" yep, you were still not armed with enough. I could not care less what you were prior, once you start trying to point to a particular club/writing your are back in the same position as if you were raised with a club.
Humans move from one position to another, that is not an argument.
You, "It's not entirely intellectual" ........I wouldn't put it quite like that. I have seen very elaborate apologies from followers of every label worldwide. Don't falsely equate the human ability to make up or swallow elaborate false claims as the claim being true itself. Shakespeare''s plays are also complex but that does not make the characters real.
Men popping out of dirt is not intellectual, Muslims pointing out claims of rivers of milk and wine, also not intellectual, spinning prayer wheels in front of a Buddhist temple, also not intellectual, on top of the fact that the first depictions of the Buddha mythology has him being born of royalty and also avoiding the birth canal.
You certainly can be intelligent AND WRONG. Bernie Madoff scammed rich people and college educated people out of lots of money. Every religion has followers who either fall for or create and sell elaborate apologies.
Neutrality is the only thing in scientific method that works. If you want neutral intellect and not personal bias, that is the only thing that works. I am sure you might think you are being "intellectual" but complexity of a naked assertion and trying to call it philosophy and or trying to reach back in time after the fact to try to square it to modern science is not being intellectual, it is merely falling for someone's vivid imagination.
Christians have left to become Muslims, Muslims have left to become Christians, Christians have left to become Buddhist, and some leave all of them. The fact you fell back into one of them only means you fell back into one.
Your first sentence here, is ridiculous. Basically, if I am understanding correctly, you ask for an answer about one belief over another, but then reject anything trying to point to that belief. Second, a science lab is not appropriate, for all claims of truth. I'm not afraid of a neutral lab, where it is applicable.
I would also be curious as to how you are defining neutrality here. It appear to me, that you are just rejecting anything from anyone who believes what they are proclaiming (however I assume you wouldn't do the same when what is proclaimed aligns with what you are selling). The only question is what is the belief based on. From whom the information comes from, doesn't matter. What you feel are their motives... doesn't matter. Once again, I would encourage you to lay out, what these principles you are putting forth are, and we will examine them neutrally, and see where they go (although note, not in a science lab, as that would be a category error and inappropriate to test this type of assertion).
No, from the start of this thread I have asked for EVERYONE to challenge themselves to ask THEMSELVES why they feel the need to hold the position they do.
A science lab MOST CERTAINLY is the place where you determine facts. You don't get to make up scientific facts by yourself. If you are attempting to do that that "scientist" should be considered a QUACK.
Now if you are talking about issues of morality in the form of analogy, metaphor or art, those would be mere artificial reflections in the form of human stories reflecting our real evolutionary behaviors.
I can find morality in Star Wars, Charlotte's Web, Star Trek and Harry Potter without turning those fictions into a religion.
Hubris is found in Oedipus Rex, but you don't treat that play as a holy book do you? Hubris as explained by psychology and psychiatry would be a personality trait of that individual based on their upbringing, life input and individual brain chemistry.
Art and metaphor are fine, but there is no need to think those things should replace a lab. Religion is merely something humans invent and pretend is true, and that pretending does convey our evolutionary behaviors, but it is not a real requirement to understand biological evolution and why humans behave the way we do.
Religion is fiction that humans falsely mistake as fact. It does create real social order, but it is not based on anything real. The ancient Egyptians for 3,000 years were successful centered around the very FALSE belief that the sun had a God named Ra controlling it. They depicted their motifs of bravery, heros and kindness, but none of those depictions made their god/s real.
