Posts: 13051
Threads: 66
Joined: February 7, 2011
Reputation:
92
RE: Theory number 3.
October 25, 2012 at 11:39 am
(This post was last modified: October 25, 2012 at 11:40 am by Faith No More.)
Quote:Faith no more, I think without emotionally driven beliefs, we would all become nihilist. No morality, no praise, no value, no goodness, no meaning.
And it's hard to fall in love with someone you feel has no value . So you telling me I shouldn't care about that either.
It seems "marriage" institution might fall without emotionally driven beliefs as well.
No, I'm not saying eliminate emotions; I'm advocating for people to set them aside to the best of their ability when trying to determine the "truth" about the reality around them. Emotions are wonderful tools in the life of a human, just not when you're trying to understand any sort of objective truth about reality.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Posts: 19552
Threads: 177
Joined: July 31, 2012
Reputation:
92
RE: Theory number 3.
October 25, 2012 at 11:41 am
The thing is.... emotions+ethics+morality+(anything non-material, non-rational) does not imply god(s).
You can have all those things without god(s).
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Theory number 3.
October 25, 2012 at 11:43 am
(This post was last modified: October 25, 2012 at 11:45 am by Mystic.)
(October 25, 2012 at 11:39 am)Faith No More Wrote: Quote:Faith no more, I think without emotionally driven beliefs, we would all become nihilist. No morality, no praise, no value, no goodness, no meaning.
And it's hard to fall in love with someone you feel has no value . So you telling me I shouldn't care about that either.
It seems "marriage" institution might fall without emotionally driven beliefs as well.
No, I'm not saying eliminate emotions; I'm advocating for people to set them aside to the best of their ability when trying to determine the "truth" about the reality around them. Emotions are wonderful tools in the life of a human, just not when you're trying to understand any sort of objective truth about reality.
I don't mean without emotionally driven beliefs, we would be without emotions, but we would not believe in value, praise, morals, or meaning, without emotion driving these beliefs as a factor.
The key point is that it's a factor. Emotion is not the only thing that makes you believe, but it's a high driving factor, with regards to these things.
(October 25, 2012 at 11:41 am)pocaracas Wrote: The thing is.... emotions+ethics+morality+(anything non-material, non-rational) does not imply god(s).
You can have all those things without god(s).
I disagree with this, but this topic is not arguing that we need God for morality or emotions or ethics or value or praise. I've made those threads arguing that.
Posts: 3226
Threads: 244
Joined: April 17, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Theory number 3.
October 25, 2012 at 11:53 am
Hmm. AdBlock doesn't block me from seeing ad hoc arguments. Gotta report this bug.
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
Posts: 13051
Threads: 66
Joined: February 7, 2011
Reputation:
92
RE: Theory number 3.
October 25, 2012 at 11:56 am
MysticKnight Wrote:The key point is that it's a factor. Emotion is not the only thing that makes you believe, but it's a high driving factor, with regards to these things.
Of course emotions are a high drvining factor. That's part of the problem. The rest of the problem being that emotions cloud our ability to determine what is truth. That's why when searching for truths, i.e. god's existence, our emotions must be cast aside to the best of our ability.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Posts: 69248
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Theory number 3.
October 25, 2012 at 12:00 pm
Quote: Maybe it's also possible for all humans to know God too.
First, you need to demonstrate that there is a god. Then you need to figure out which god it is. Give me a ring when you get those two worked out.
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Theory number 3.
October 25, 2012 at 12:02 pm
(October 25, 2012 at 11:56 am)Faith No More Wrote: MysticKnight Wrote:The key point is that it's a factor. Emotion is not the only thing that makes you believe, but it's a high driving factor, with regards to these things.
Of course emotions are a high drvining factor. That's part of the problem. The rest of the problem being that emotions cloud our ability to determine what is truth. That's why when searching for truths, i.e. god's existence, our emotions must be cast aside to the best of our ability.
Hmm...we seem to have a problem. Emotion blinds us sometimes and makes us believe in false things (like religion). At the same time, without it driving others beliefs, we wouldn't believe in value, morality and praise.
So we need it to believe in some true things but it also blinds us to believe in false things.
Perhaps it's not that we have to cast away emotions, it's that our love of finding the truth and being honest to ourselves, has to overcome, and that would separate falsehood from truth.
So in this case, despite belief in value being emotionally driven, we can say we know it to be true, seeking to see the truth in that.
And that in the case of religion, we know it to be wrong, despite our original emotional attachment to wanting it to be true (in some cases).
It's a struggle really.
Posts: 3628
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
RE: Theory number 3.
October 25, 2012 at 12:16 pm
(October 25, 2012 at 11:53 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Hmm. AdBlock doesn't block me from seeing ad hoc arguments. Gotta report this bug.
You need the following add-ons:
1. Presuppositional blocker
2. Affirming the Consequent blocker
3. False analogy eliminator
4. Begging the question blocker
5. Equivocation blocker
6. Appeal to emotion blocker
But then, the OP would be almost entirely blank.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Posts: 8214
Threads: 394
Joined: November 2, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: Theory number 3.
October 25, 2012 at 12:21 pm
(This post was last modified: October 25, 2012 at 12:24 pm by Mystic.)
For people perhaps misunderstanding (or just trying to easily dismiss the argument), this thread is not an argument for the existence of God.
It's simply a hypothesis assuming that 1) God exists, 2) God is knowable to humans, why don't Atheists know God exists, while many other people do.
If you it see it from this perspective, I'm sure you would see none of those fallacies you mentioned. 
Also, I'm not arguing any of these notions are facts and is the reason why Atheists don't believe. It's a 'hypothesis'.
Posts: 3117
Threads: 16
Joined: September 17, 2012
Reputation:
35
RE: Theory number 3.
October 25, 2012 at 12:23 pm
(October 25, 2012 at 12:21 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: For people perhaps misunderstanding (or just trying to easily dismiss the argument), this thread is not an argument for the existence of God.
It's simply a hypothesis given that 1) God exists, 2) God is knowable to humans, why don't Atheists know God exists, while many other people do.
If you it see it from this perspective, I'm sure you would see none of those fallacies you mentioned.
Here's the real question: why would god design humans in a way that would prevent some of them from knowing him?
|
