[leelover]

Thanks for your participation too, dattaway!
Exchange of ideas is essential for growth I think!
The more I think I get a handle on my behavior, attitudes, and motivation, the more "new frontiers" I find to attend to...

[C9H13NO3 4me]

Originally Posted by leelover

good assessment, I believe!
So, should we all sing "Imagine" and believe in peace? Have the only conviction be that we should all get along with no real plan on how to do so?
When I was much younger I read something on Jihad, I had an "Imagine" attitude at that time, btw (well, close anyway). I remember thinking, "How can anyone be so committed as to kill in the name of religion? After all it isn't something anyone can prove right or wrong, at least here."
Lots of water under the bridge since then. I personally would not kill to spread my beliefs, that is not what Jesus Christ taught. (yes, I am one of those).
Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic Church and The Crusaders don't share my view. I think the will pay for this for Eternity. I believe they used ignorance to spread their "hate" version of the Gospel.
From what I know (and my firsthand info is admittedly limited), Islam has a different view of making converts and dealing with "infidels".
So, how do you know? Are there just different views on things that can't be proven, or does right and wrong exist?

You say "good assessment,"I believe" That sounds like a typical non-commital response of someone who is afraid of taking a stand.

You ask if we should all sing Imagine? I prefer to accept that I have no idea what happens after this life and I choose not to listen to fools who CLAIM to know or worse actually believe in a supernatural god created by man.

I believe right and wrong are human normative concepts that are applied to situations.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by C9H13NO3 4me

You say "good assessment,"I believe" That sounds like a typical non-commital response of someone who is afraid of taking a stand.

You ask if we should all sing Imagine? I prefer to accept that I have no idea what happens after this life and I choose not to listen to fools who CLAIM to know or worse actually believe in a supernatural god created by man.

I believe right and wrong are human normative concepts that are applied to situations.

Are you putting ME in the camp that is afraid to make a stand? If so YOU are not paying attention!

It is fine for you to accept what ever you wish to. Even if spouted by "fools" who started out with the same belief system you have, and realized that it ultimately collapses when put to the test of time and reason.

You can believe right and wrong are subjective from the human perspective regarding situations all you want. Your concept assumes that all humans fit into a certain range of acceptable motivation. If there is no Standard, or Ultimate Truth, then the judgment of right and wrong fall to human standards, which have proven to be very malleable in the hands of those with agendas. Nazi Germany would be a quick example that comes readily to mind.
"I believe" that I am making a stand here, if not I will build on it as I am able.

Since you made some statements about what you believe, I would like to see you expound on the truth of them.

[C9H13NO3 4me]

Originally Posted by leelover

Are you putting ME in the camp that is afraid to make a stand? If so YOU are not paying attention!

It is fine for you to accept what ever you wish to. Even if spouted by "fools" who started out with the same belief system you have, and realized that it ultimately collapses when put to the test of time and reason.

You can believe right and wrong are subjective from the human perspective regarding situations all you want. Your concept assumes that all humans fit into a certain range of acceptable motivation. If there is no Standard, or Ultimate Truth, then the judgment of right and wrong fall to human standards, which have proven to be very malleable in the hands of those with agendas. Nazi Germany would be a quick example that comes readily to mind.
"I believe" that I am making a stand here, if not I will build on it as I am able.

Since you made some statements about what you believe, I would like to see you expound on the truth of them.

Faith=Hope....one hopes that the cold hard ground is not the final destination...HOPE in somebody else's interpretation of that which cannot be known is not FAITH. I have faith that the chair I'm sitting on will support me. This faith is based on knowledge (not fear). Knowledge of the strength of the materials of which the chair is constructed, knowledge of the condition of the chair, knowledge that historically, the chair has supported me. My knowledge of these facts and other facts relating to why the chair should support me allow me to have faith that the chair will support my weight. Therefore, hope, which is a lesser extent of certainty, is not necessary.

As to my belief that HUMANS assign quality of "right" or "wrong" to situations, behaviors, events, etc… Consider the following statement...Killing is wrong. Most people would agree with this statement. It is not an absolute truth, however. Even many of those who agree that killing is wrong accept killing done in war, self defense, etc. would be acceptable or "right." I don't recall any disclaimers on the Ten Commandments.

Obviously, behavior must be regulated in order for a civilized society to exist. Therefore, we have agreed definitions of standards of "right" and "wrong." To say that the concept of right and wrong are concepts created by humans is not to say that "...there is no Standard, or Ultimate Truth..." Standards are what governments implement through law, like it or not. Some governments have more humane traits than others.

That has nothing to do with what I am referring to as the ultimate truth. By that, I mean what happens after this life. Death is not dependent on what one believes will happen. Every country will have its own agenda and will act on it accordingly. Whether or not an afterlife EXISTS (which cannot be known by people who are alive) as one group or another believes it to be has no bearing upon what societies will define as acceptable or not. The BELIEF (hope) or interpretation of what the afterlife is may reinforce the justifications for brutality where two groups who disagree are in conflict because they believe their god supports their actions. Judgments of right and wrong have always been in "human standards." Animals don't know about the concept as far as we know so we don't hold them to our standards. Who else is going to create standards of behavior if not Humans? I'll tell you...Humans who tell you that a god told them that this is what is right and what is wrong.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by C9H13NO3 4me

Faith=Hope....one hopes that the cold hard ground is not the final destination...HOPE in somebody else's interpretation of that which cannot be known is not FAITH. I have faith that the chair I'm sitting on will support me. This faith is based on knowledge (not fear). Knowledge of the strength of the materials of which the chair is constructed, knowledge of the condition of the chair, knowledge that historically, the chair has supported me. My knowledge of these facts and other facts relating to why the chair should support me allow me to have faith that the chair will support my weight. Therefore, hope, which is a lesser extent of certainty, is not necessary.

Faith=Hope, Ok. Your chair example is good, but I would suspect that you do things by faith that have much less substance or history. Things you can't prove because you can put your hands on them (intangible). Driving at night in the rain, riding in a vehicle with another person driving, trusting in another human's love...
Faith goes beyond what you can see and "prove".


"As to my belief that HUMANS assign quality of "right" or "wrong" to situations, behaviors, events, etc… Consider the following statement...Killing is wrong. Most people would agree with this statement. It is not an absolute truth, however. Even many of those who agree that killing is wrong accept killing done in war, self defense, etc. would be acceptable or "right." I don't recall any disclaimers on the Ten Commandments."[/quote]

Ancient language does not always translate into English with out losing some accuracy. The original Hebrew would mean what we call "murder". If you read the Old Testament you find this supported by the way the Jews were to deal with those who kill without justification, to harm, steal, or further own agenda. Even if you do not study the original language.

"Obviously, behavior must be regulated in order for a civilized society to exist. Therefore, we have agreed definitions of standards of "right" and "wrong." To say that the concept of right and wrong are concepts created by humans is not to say that "...there is no Standard, or Ultimate Truth..." Standards are what governments implement through law, like it or not. Some governments have more humane traits than others."[/quote]

So you are comfortable with government deciding what is right and wrong? Seems like you are proving MY point.

"That has nothing to do with what I am referring to as the ultimate truth. By that, I mean what happens after this life. Death is not dependent on what one believes will happen. Every country will have its own agenda and will act on it accordingly. Whether or not an afterlife EXISTS (which cannot be known by people who are alive) as one group or another believes it to be has no bearing upon what societies will define as acceptable or not".[/quote]

I agree up to this point.

"The BELIEF (hope) or interpretation of what the afterlife is may reinforce the justifications for brutality where two groups who disagree are in conflict because they believe their god supports their actions."[/quote]

This does happen, I don't think that it is right that it does.

"Judgments of right and wrong have always been in "human standards." Animals don't know about the concept as far as we know so we don't hold them to our standards".[/quote]

Um, yeah...

"Who else is going to create standards of behavior if not Humans? I'll tell you...Humans who tell you that a god told them that this is what is right and what is wrong."[/quote]

Stand time!
Yes, I think God created the Standards!
Only the Creator can set standards that are not able to be changed to suit an agenda. Do you see any evil intent in the Ten Commandments? Which one of them will cause you harm if you follow it?

[C9H13NO3 4me]

Originally Posted by leelover

Faith=Hope, Ok. Your chair example is good, but I would suspect that you do things by faith that have much less substance or history. Things you can't prove because you can put your hands on them (intangible). Driving at night in the rain, riding in a vehicle with another person driving, trusting in another human's love...
Faith goes beyond what you can see and "prove".


"As to my belief that HUMANS assign quality of "right" or "wrong" to situations, behaviors, events, etc… Consider the following statement...Killing is wrong. Most people would agree with this statement. It is not an absolute truth, however. Even many of those who agree that killing is wrong accept killing done in war, self defense, etc. would be acceptable or "right." I don't recall any disclaimers on the Ten Commandments."

Ancient language does not always translate into English with out losing some accuracy. The original Hebrew would mean what we call "murder". If you read the Old Testament you find this supported by the way the Jews were to deal with those who kill without justification, to harm, steal, or further own agenda. Even if you do not study the original language.

"Obviously, behavior must be regulated in order for a civilized society to exist. Therefore, we have agreed definitions of standards of "right" and "wrong." To say that the concept of right and wrong are concepts created by humans is not to say that "...there is no Standard, or Ultimate Truth..." Standards are what governments implement through law, like it or not. Some governments have more humane traits than others."[/quote]

So you are comfortable with government deciding what is right and wrong? Seems like you are proving MY point.

"That has nothing to do with what I am referring to as the ultimate truth. By that, I mean what happens after this life. Death is not dependent on what one believes will happen. Every country will have its own agenda and will act on it accordingly. Whether or not an afterlife EXISTS (which cannot be known by people who are alive) as one group or another believes it to be has no bearing upon what societies will define as acceptable or not".[/quote]

I agree up to this point.

"The BELIEF (hope) or interpretation of what the afterlife is may reinforce the justifications for brutality where two groups who disagree are in conflict because they believe their god supports their actions."[/quote]

This does happen, I don't think that it is right that it does.

"Judgments of right and wrong have always been in "human standards." Animals don't know about the concept as far as we know so we don't hold them to our standards".[/quote]

Um, yeah...

"Who else is going to create standards of behavior if not Humans? I'll tell you...Humans who tell you that a god told them that this is what is right and what is wrong."[/quote]

Stand time!
Yes, I think God created the Standards!
Only the Creator can set standards that are not able to be changed to suit an agenda. Do you see any evil intent in the Ten Commandments? Which one of them will cause you harm if you follow it?[/quote]

Even the love of humans has limits. I view the bible as an archaic attempt to explain the unknown and to regulate human behavior.

As to my comfort with the government deciding what is right and wrong...we are the government...granted, I don't believe my views are representative of a majority. My level of comfort can be gauged by the frequency with which I vote. It still doesn't change the fact that the Supreme Court ultimately determines how laws are to be interpreted in the USA. People ultimately have the responsibility to overthrow their government if it becomes a dictatorship. Social contract.

God's standards didn't stop Hitler and many others like him who chose not to follow God's or Man's Standards. They set their own standards. Does that mean that mankind in general would follow their lead? I think not. Look at what happens to these types of men. Do you think God intervened? If so, why not stop them sooner?

I don't take exception with the Ten Commandments. I'm sure following them would result in much less strife and conflict. However, that does not mean that I believe that they were created by god.

[leelover]

Even the love of humans has limits. I view the bible as an archaic attempt to explain the unknown and to regulate human behavior.

As to my comfort with the government deciding what is right and wrong...we are the government...granted, I don't believe my views are representative of a majority. My level of comfort can be gaged by the frequency with which I vote. It still doesn't change the fact that the Supreme Court ultimately determines how laws are to be interpreted in the USA. People ultimately have the responsibility to overthrow their government if it becomes a dictatorship. Social contract.

God's standards didn't stop Hitler and many others like him who chose not to follow God's or Man's Standards. They set their own standards. Does that mean that mankind in general would follow their lead? I think not. Look at what happens to these types of men. Do you think God intervened? If so, why not stop them sooner?

I don't take exception with the Ten Commandments. I'm sure following them would result in much less strife and conflict. However, that does not mean that I believe that they were created by god. [/quote]



I honestly think that most of what you are saying is backing up MY stance.
To what end does the Bible attempt to regulate human behavior?
My point about the gov deciding right and wrong...I think you are probably a basically "good" person with no agenda to harm others, or place them under bondage, etc. Could be wrong, lol. The point is not everyone is of that type. Which leads into...
Hitler. If you look at his rise to power, one of the major things done was to restrict religious freedom, discourage worship of God and adherence of His laws. I will let you draw any connections between his social belief structure and any modern systems for yourself. My point here is Hitler was careful to eliminate or minimize any Church involvement early on. After that it was easy to sway the public, he WAS charismatic. He was able to turn basically good people into those who did horrid things to their country men. Because there was no standard in place at that time. Do you think Hitler would have been able to rise to power if people had an immovable standard that wouldn't have allowed them to be slowly changed to monsters?

[C9H13NO3 4me]

I honestly think that most of what you are saying is backing up MY stance.
To what end does the Bible attempt to regulate human behavior?
My point about the gov deciding right and wrong...I think you are probably a basically "good" person with no agenda to harm others, or place them under bondage, etc. Could be wrong, lol. The point is not everyone is of that type. Which leads into...
Hitler. If you look at his rise to power, one of the major things done was to restrict religious freedom, discourage worship of God and adherence of His laws. I will let you draw any connections between his social belief structure and any modern systems for yourself. My point here is Hitler was careful to eliminate or minimize any Church involvement early on. After that it was easy to sway the public, he WAS charismatic. He was able to turn basically good people into those who did horrid things to their country men. Because there was no standard in place at that time. Do you think Hitler would have been able to rise to power if people had an immovable standard that wouldn't have allowed them to be slowly changed to monsters?

To what extent does the bible NOT attempt to regulate human behavior may be a better question.

As to Hitler's rise to power, there were many circumstances, not the least of which was economic, nationalistic anti-immigrant, etc. I believe that those with "immovable standards" did exist and those who had the means left the country. I don't think that "immovable standards" only source is religion.

[leelover]

I didn't say to what extent, I said to what END.
What is the motivation of the Bible's Laws?

[C9H13NO3 4me]

Originally Posted by leelover

I didn't say to what extent, I said to what END.
What is the motivation of the Bible's Laws?

Sorry, the motivation of the Bible's Laws could be to assist governments in controlling people. Religion has been aligned with government longer than science has.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by C9H13NO3 4me

Sorry, the motivation of the Bible's Laws could be to assist governments in controlling people. Religion has been aligned with government longer than science has.

I don't disagree with you on these things.
I guess I can't see how any of the Bible's laws would benefit a ruler as far as any kind of untoward aspirations. I don't see anything there that could be used for personal gain, unless it is taken out of context and perverted.
Has that ever been done? Probably can't count the number of times!
How does this happen? Individuals are ignorant of what the actual teachings are. This allows someone with an agenda to twist the intent of the teaching to suit and further their purpose.
Think about that for a minute, all the travesties done in the name of a Biblical God have been carried out without Biblical substantiation. More the intent of a person or organization to control or conquer a people or land. They used their perverted version of what the Word said to justify it. If one doesn't know what the "Word of God" says, it is easy for them to believe someone in authority, who seems to be speaking it.

[C9H13NO3 4me]

Originally Posted by leelover

I don't disagree with you on these things.
I guess I can't see how any of the Bible's laws would benefit a ruler as far as any kind of untoward aspirations. I don't see anything there that could be used for personal gain, unless it is taken out of context and perverted.
Has that ever been done? Probably can't count the number of times!
How does this happen? Individuals are ignorant of what the actual teachings are. This allows someone with an agenda to twist the intent of the teaching to suit and further their purpose.
Think about that for a minute, all the travesties done in the name of a Biblical God have been carried out without Biblical substantiation. More the intent of a person or organization to control or conquer a people or land. They used their perverted version of what the Word said to justify it. If one doesn't know what the "Word of God" says, it is easy for them to believe someone in authority, who seems to be speaking it.

Amen to that brother.

[analogbear]

Fascinating thread, right up through the religion stuff.

Look, although someone bashed those philosophers who study epistemology, please understand that the study of knowledge, or really, "of what it is to know" presupposes a certain Cartesian (Descartes, the "I think, therefore I am" guy who, among other things, developed the coordinate system that supplanted Euclidian geometry) separation between mind and body, and more specifically, the separation between mind and brain. Is knowledge, then, the biological fact of neurons firing in a certain order, with sodium and potassium alternately causing dendrites to compress and expand, moving current down the axon; or, some consciousness-related belief in the belief some thing?

Is there a difference between "knowing that xxx," and "knowing of xxx?"

Is there a different condition between internal knowledge and external knowledge?

To really have an intelligent conversation about the subject, we must accept the limitations of the matter. Prior to the 19th century, all disciplines of philosophy could be termed sciences. Now, philosophy has really become isolated as the only really rational course of study (besides mathmatics, of course) available, though with the scientific revolution of the aforementioned 19th century, the rigorous testing for repeatability and attendant observation after hypothesis that represents the core of the scientific method is really not possible in the world of mere ideas.

Although I might believe that philosophical ideas and the use of language are super important, and maybe don't find politics important at all is a matter of opinion and perspective. As mentioned above, opinions are personal, fluid, and unassailable. However, they must be of subject matter that is appropriate to opinion. I may opine that Fergie (the pop-singer) is annoying and ugly. That is my opinion, and unless we are debating aesthetics, and her specific appeal to a sense of justice and beauty, my opinion is sacrosanct. However, if I say Fergie is a female human, that is not an opinion. It is a fact. But, central to the issue here in the thread is the difference between fact and truth.

Facts are conditions observable and inarguable, given a basic set of assumptions (we are not insane, dead, or being confused by aliens or demons; we are awake; we speak English; we use the word female to describe those of a two-sex mammalian species who produce the eggs, bear the young and produce the milk; Fergie has real boobs and menstruates, etc).

Truth also relies upon a set of assumptions, but does not necessarily reflect conditions observable or inarguable (unless you are talking about a "truth-table" in elementary logic--but that is really a term of art relying upon another set of assumptions). Truth, the word, does have a connotation of the psychological, as it includes the perspectives and experiential bias inherent in human nature, where "fact" dispenses with those biases as irrelevant. Think of a court of law, a witness telling the truth: I saw him point a gun at the victim; vs. the entering of factual evidence like a recorded temperature from a certified thermometer. Truths can always be questioned, as perspectives change and informational-intelligence is gathered...

Facts are not able to be questioned as easily or capriciously. However, many mere truths are termed facts for the purposes of intellectual shorthand.

Beliefs require judgement, at the time of describing something as a belief, where facts rely on judgements that are independantly testable, and facts are testable themselves. Beliefs, or truths in this case, cannot necessarily be tested.

Or, more accurately, why would someone want to try to test beliefs; or deign to merely believe in plainly testable facts?

Boy, that was a loaded (and to me profound) sentence. In one set of phrases I kicked the balls of both the religious nuts (who try to test their untestable belief in a supreme being--to prove the existence of god) and Secular Humanist nuts (who only believe the testable facts of science and common existence and hence dispute the existence of god) out there.

[leelover]

Hey analogbear! How are you doing?
Lots of interesting stuff in your post.
Even as eloquently as you put it, I think it all boils down to there is stuff you can prove and stuff you have to take "by faith".
If there is no tangible way to prove something is there a way to know if it is true?
Using your court room example, how is a person proven guilty or not?
I think in many instances it is not a scientific fact, but by the weight of evidence. Obviously, you are more experienced in this than me, I look forward to your views.

[analogbear]

Stuff taken on mere faith, that is, stuff that cannot be repeated, observed, tested, etc. must only be considered a truth, and never a fact.

So, sure, you can believe as true something which cannot be proven as fact. We do it all the time, but call them beliefs and opinions. What is true for one person might not be true for another.

2 seamstresses make a lot of money, and both hold this idea to be true...

The one in NYC makes $75,000, the one in Bangladesh makes $75.00. If you switched their realities, their comments would no longer be true.

However, the conditions: that they are both seamstresses, that one makes $75K and the other makes $75, and that one is in NY and the other is in Bangladesh, are FACTS, irrespective of their subjective truths.

A problem only arises when we do not honor different words as being posessed of a different definition, connotation, and denotation...In short: the synonym-ization of our language. Different words do mean different things. Facts are facts, truths are truths. They are NOT interchangeable terms.

Remember the differences between truths and facts...Truths do not necessarily need to stand up to the same rigorous examination and testing as facts. They are both greater than facts (as truths can address subjects impossible to test) and less than facts (in that ultimately, anything untestable, must be taken on faith). This is not to say that a person can or cannot be factually guilty...Remember, the thing about a courtroom is that it is theater...Show business, with real life and destiny in the mix. "Proving guilt is not a fact or a truth...It is merely a condition...You can choose to believe that OJ is really not the killer, or you can believe that OJ really is the killer...But this is not a condition that can really be tested. I used the courtroom example to illustrate the difference between truth/belief/ and fact. I would never argue that the courtroom is a crucible of fact or truth. It really is theater with rules, that can be used to sometimes overcome actual facts in the pursuit of establishing untrue truths, if you get my meaning...The law is fraught with legal fictions and pragmatic assumptions. Sorry for confusing the issue.

My question to you, Lee is:

Can you assign a meaningful (pragmatic) value to both proveable facts and unproveable truths in which you believe, to allow a comparison between them?

[@cbr1000]

Its all b.s

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by @cbr1000

Its all b.s

Wow...Really profound. You're right. Thank you so much for clearing that up. I now know I have wasted my whole life thus far; with mere thinking, schooling, travelling, serving my country, being married for 13 years, having a couple of kids, **** (!) I should have just kicked back and proclaimed it was all BS.

Remember, we mock what we don't understand (Dan A.), and the retreat into the ad hominem shows no consideration of what I had to say what so ever. That is very disrespectful, mister @. I would have expected better from a newbie...To the site...Obviously the Vietnam-era military aircraft wings noted on your home page as the places you served (?) imply you are of some variety of advanced age.

I was Army, but we all were in the dirt... Semper Fi, brother.

[trippd]

This question seems timeless & I think that this question is not about listing trues, but getting to the essence of what is 'truth'. I think of the man who asked someone that exact question 2000 years ago, namely Pilate, the Roman in charge of Jerusalem, looking straight at his prisoner, Jesus, who had said that he is Truth, who will set you free. You usually don't think in terms of a person being truth, but I noticed that Jesus doesn't even say that he knows truth. We know of many people who claimed to know truth, but he is the only one who claimed to embody truth. In the Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe, it was declared satirically as a number, but it left an empty feeling even though on the TV show, "Numbers" mathematics has been shown to be quite useful even to predict human action/behavior. Well, it appears that Jesus has backed up his claims, but in essence each person has to face the question: Is Jesus a lunatic, a liar, or the Lord of lords, the Truth.

[analogbear]

[dchd1130]

Originally Posted by BDA116

2+2=4 It's true. Try it.

http://www.wpri.org/WIInterest/Vol10No1/Vukmir10.1.pdf

[leelover]

Originally Posted by @cbr1000

Its all b.s

What's all b. s.?
Or more importantly, what isn't?