General musing about Christianity and idolatry

[popsthebuilder]

Many will laugh at me being the one to say it, but you need to work on brevity.  I got about 3/4 of the way through that story before I "had the gist of it" and called it good.

I couldn't help but notice that Chrissy had nothing to do with the scientific process.  I still don't know your point.

It wasn't to show a scientific process friend. It was to attempt to explain through example what I mean when I say emotion dictates significance in a person's individual life.

Peace

[popsthebuilder]

A great example of something, I suppose.  But what?  You tend to rattle on and on, yet say nothing.  Did you have a point in all of this drivel????

Just that the things that are significant to us are known as such via emotion. If one didn't use emotion on some level then they would be totally indifferent to literally everything.

peace

[Baruch]

Most posters here are men ... and most men do everything they can to avoid being emo.

[Mike Cl]

Just that the things that are significant to us are known as such via emotion. If one didn't use emotion on some level then they would be totally indifferent to literally everything.

peace

I have never disputed that emotion is significant: without a doubt.  So what?  Emotion proves there is a god?  Jesus was real because in the fictional account of his life he was emotional???  You really are sifting through the dregs here, aren't you?!   

[popsthebuilder]

I have never disputed that emotion is significant: without a doubt.  So what?  Emotion proves there is a god?  Jesus was real because in the fictional account of his life he was emotional???  You really are sifting through the dregs here, aren't you?!   

Not at all. Was just making sure that people understand that emotion is important, and actually causal to chemical reactions in the brain in cases. Making it an actual cause that isn't physical but is effectual in ones life. You just can't limit what can or can't be, based on limited or physically percievable things. There are slight correlations between the conscience, emotionally percievable significance in ones own life, and the will of existence to exist or rather life to live. Survival of the fittest had been misconstrued into vain competition as opposed to the capacity for all to live peaceably in an exponentially more harmonious state within creation or existence as a whole.

I'm sorry you think I'm long winded. It do attempt to be concise. Not that it works.

peace

[Mike Cl]

Not at all. Was just making sure that people understand that emotion is important, and actually causal to chemical reactions in the brain in cases. Making it an actual cause that isn't physical but is effectual in ones life. You just can't limit what can or can't be, based on limited or physically percievable things. There are slight correlations between the conscience, emotionally percievable significance in ones own life, and the will of existence to exist or rather life to live. Survival of the fittest had been misconstrued into vain competition as opposed to the capacity for all to live peaceably in an exponentially more harmonious state within creation or existence as a whole.

I'm sorry you think I'm long winded. It do attempt to be concise. Not that it works.

peace

You are correct--concise (or even talking to a particular point) and you don't go along well. 

Of course emotion is an elemental and basic fact of human existence.  We are not human without them.  But a strong emotional feeling is not evidence of fact; only that something is significant to you, if to nobody else.  That is the same for being sincere; one can be sincere about something and not have that something be a fact.  A person can be sincerely wrong.  And a person can be so full of emotion that clear thinking goes out the window. 

And yes, survival of the fittest is largely misunderstood.  All it means is that the creature/species that adapts to it's environment best is the most likely to survive.  It has little, if anything, to do with strength, but adaptability.  It does not help us live more peacefully, but it does help us live. 

[popsthebuilder]

You are correct--concise (or even talking to a particular point) and you don't go along well. 

Of course emotion is an elemental and basic fact of human existence.  We are not human without them.  But a strong emotional feeling is not evidence of fact; only that something is significant to you, if to nobody else.  That is the same for being sincere; one can be sincere about something and not have that something be a fact.  A person can be sincerely wrong.  And a person can be so full of emotion that clear thinking goes out the window. 

And yes, survival of the fittest is largely misunderstood.  All it means is that the creature/species that adapts to it's environment best is the most likely to survive.  It has little, if anything, to do with strength, but adaptability.  It does not help us live more peacefully, but it does help us live.

Again we seem to be on the same page.

[Baruch]

Mike, since you accept what your eyes can see ... do you accept the unconscious mind?  And if you do, how do you do that, since you can't possibly see it?

[Mike Cl]

Mike, since you accept what your eyes can see ... do you accept the unconscious mind?  And if you do, how do you do that, since you can't possibly see it?

What do you mean 'unconscious mind'?  We cannot see 'thoughts'; but we can see the results of thoughts.  We can see the electrical activity of the brain.  I cannot see an atom or and electron, but I don't doubt that they are real for they can be measured.  And I don't always believe what my eyes tell me; or disbelieve the false info my eyes send to my brain.  Optical illusions are real and actual.  But not according to my eyes.  So, everything needs to be questioned and analysed. 

[Mike Cl]

Again we seem to be on the same page.

Well, good.  But where does that leave us with your assertion that god exists????

[Cavebear]

Have you been asleep since the first Clinton administration, and just woke up?  That is where the bi-partisans send enemies of the State.  Like Osama's car driver.  Oooo ... be afraid, very afraid!

The question was about Carrier moving jobs to Mexico and you interpret that as something about Guantanamo? 

One sign of intelligence is keeping on topic.  Another is making basic sense.  Please try either or both for our mutual good on the Board.

[popsthebuilder]

Well, good.  But where does that leave us with your assertion that god exists????

I would like to think that we might never conclude such between us but that conversation, however slow in movement has made an iota of progress. You agree that not all is technically physical or a product of the material. You agree that things that cannot be "seen" can exist and are verifiable to some extent with tests. You agree that the tests or controls or understanding of all existence isnt ours by any means. So that leaves you admitting that there are things that aren't material (the very composing parts of all existence) and that cannot accurately be tested for, that therefore, must not exist. See any problem with that logic yet? What about self deception?

Hope it was blunt enough for you
And no; this isn't proof or evidence of anything but your own inner deceit to conform your reality to what you want it to be.

peace friend.

[Cavebear]

I would like to think that we might never conclude such between us but that conversation, however slow in movement has made an iota of progress. You agree that not all is technically physical or a product of the material. You agree that things that cannot be "seen" can exist and are verifiable to some extent with tests. You agree that the tests or controls or understanding of all existence isnt ours by any means. So that leaves you admitting that there are things that aren't material (the very composing parts of all existence) and that cannot accurately be tested for, that therefore, must not exist. See any problem with that logic yet? What about self deception?

Hope it was blunt enough for you
And no; this isn't proof or evidence of anything but your own inner deceit to conform your reality to what you want it to be.

peace friend.

You seem to be seeing things in Mike CL's post that I don't see.  Is it possible that you are extending his thoughts to your own?

[popsthebuilder]

You seem to be seeing things in Mike CL's post that I don't see.  Is it possible that you are extending his thoughts to your own?

Not sure what you mean.

[Mike Cl]

I would like to think that we might never conclude such between us but that conversation, however slow in movement has made an iota of progress. You agree that not all is technically physical or a product of the material. You agree that things that cannot be "seen" can exist and are verifiable to some extent with tests. You agree that the tests or controls or understanding of all existence isnt ours by any means. So that leaves you admitting that there are things that aren't material (the very composing parts of all existence) and that cannot accurately be tested for, that therefore, must not exist. See any problem with that logic yet? What about self deception?

Hope it was blunt enough for you
And no; this isn't proof or evidence of anything but your own inner deceit to conform your reality to what you want it to be.

peace friend.

Hmmmm...............you and I are reading a different Mike Cl. 

1.  You say--'You agree that not all is technically physical or a product of the material.'  Let me be clear.  Everything is physical or a product of the material world.  Everything.     
2.  You say--'You agree that things that cannot be "seen" can exist and are verifiable to some extent with tests.'  Everything that exists can be verifiable with tests; even the creation of emotions, to some extent, can be shown to be of a physical source.  To the extent that we don't know the source of emotions is simply an 'unknown' and at some point will be known as our knowledge grows.  The word 'seen' is a bit slippery.  There are millions of things the human eye cannot see, that our ears cannot hear, that our taste buds cannot taste, or our noses cannot smell.  That does not mean those things are not in existence or real.  Just ask a dog.   

3.  You say............'You agree that the tests or controls or understanding of all existence isnt ours by any means. '  I really don't know what it is you are saying here.

4.  You say................'So that leaves you admitting that there are things that aren't material (the very composing parts of all existence) and that cannot accurately be tested for, that therefore, must not exist. '  That is an awkwardly worded statement.  This is what I think---everything that exists is material or comes from a material source.  Love is not material; but it comes from a material source.  Fear is not material, but it comes from a material source.  These sources can be tested; we do not know all these is to know about how emotions are created, but we do know that they are from sources within each of us.  The things we cannot accurately test for is because we don't have the knowledge to do so yet.  It does not mean we will not be able to test for it in the future.  Nothing is supernatural. 

Pops, you really do want me to agree with you and that desire causes you to misread what I write.  I have clearly said that all is material, all is natural, that there is no supernatural; and that we do not have all the answers, but the gaps in our knowledge does not prove any unnatural occurrences or things in this universe.  God in all forms is a construct of humans.  Try to take your blinders off when you read what I say.