although, "look at how dumb I can act," is actually a pretty good common denominator for humans, in this situation it doesn't prove your point. Just because you make random choices and call them a "relationship", has no bearing on what other, more careful, interpreters might do. By the way, if a point was ever really made on this website, I think it would create a fatal error in the database. I hope you don't think you proved a point about bible contradictions, just because you are still holding on to an incorrect assumption or two.
? There is no talking to you. You are not paying attention at all, and you have no clue what I am talking about.
Your idea of "interpretation" is simply absurd. To correct you, would take to go with you through a course of linguistics and general philosophy. I am not prepared to do that here, it would take too much effort.
My idea of interpretation? I'll ask this question... have you ever said something to someone and they completely misunderstood?
A careful interpreter is unnecessary when clear language is used. A careful interpreter is required when things are not clear or if a desire to alter meaning exists (as in the case of the bible). I demonstrated Genesis contradicting itself. The only way to resolve the contradiction is to reinterpret the meaning to a point where the contradiction doesn't matter. If you're looking for a scientific contradiction then that's an easy one. Paleantological, geological, and astronimical evidence shows that life on Earth, the planet, and the cosmos have always been part of life-death cycles. This contradicts the immortality notion in Genesis.
Well well. You have given a few examples of the different modes of prayer and that is very good. But. You maintain also that these things are not necessarily external. Let us then resolve this issue with a simple test: Could these people have known what prayer was without being told (that is, being in a society)? Could these people have prayed on their own initiative (using any of the possible modes, such as the one you have described), without having first been in a human society where they would have learned about prayer from other humans? If you answer "yes" to these, please provide example or demonstrate; if "no", then we find that prayer is only external. That is to say, any improvisation or variation of the "normal" mode of prayer (such as the ones you have described), is still based on the knowledge of what the particular society has taught these people about prayer. At the very least, at the core of their praying habits, in the 'inner circle', is an axiom which is not of their making, but rather of the society's. ['Society' in this context is used to describe the collection of people who have contributed (in any way) to our test person's knowledge of prayer] For this reason, prayer is indeed external. Our test individual does not understand it by himself; but rather is aided by what he has learned about it (no matter how radically he improves upon it). As with thinking, he has no knowledge of prayer; he prays in ignorance. Did your cherries taste good? Science stays in business by being profitable for business. Reductionism just may be the starting point to discovering the big picture. You are indeed being very mysterious but you can rephrase later for me. You claim there is a realization "that something is". Could you please tell me how you came by this realization and also if it is possible to come by this realization sans human society? (I assume this "something" refers to God but it shouldn't really matter for this particular question). To have a belief in "something else". That SCREAMS to me: ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE! I should love to use this method of logic to disprove morality and God. Do you yet see the implications of such a statement? I too find it possible that those outside of human society realize that there is no "God". Even if they did, how would you know if they can't communicate this belief? It is certainly possible, after all, that protozoa and amoeba have a knowledge of God and don't communicate it in a manner we could understand. The same goes for rocks and atoms and quarks and leptons. Hey, maybe the universe has a knowledge of God? As an empiricist, you must understand that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If not, then you are weaving a cocoon for yourself and your theories in order to keep yourself comfortable. Doesn't phlogiston still possibly exist? What about the Piltdown man? It is certainly possible that Tom Cruise is really a one eyed T-Rex. After all, we have no way of proving otherwise. -- Sorry, I can barely restrain myself when you bare your arguments so. It is in my callous nature and I try to change. Really I do. And what would these interpretations be, praytell? After all, you claim the interpretations of the feral outside of human society vary. I am not sure how you know this, but as a "good empiricist" I am sure you can enlighten me with your observations (or lack thereof). I'm not able to differentiate since I am part of the society. Remember what I said? A knife cannot cut itself. Lemme guess.. insecure? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I am not threatened by the existence of man. Oh no. It is the society's pervasive effect which bothers so. There are those who would rather not, you know. The various etymologies of 'creator' are not pertinent here. We both know that the definition is circular and that disqualifies it from being useful for personal knowledge. Circular definitions are only good for groupthink. And golly gosh darn, isn't that what society is there for? Besides, there are those who maintain the veracity of Scripture regardless of translation (inerrantists). Besides that, we are talking about getting a "perfect translation" of an imperfect copy. Maybe if you had the original documents I am sure you could accomplish this great task. We can't prove that the Bibles we have today are not all inerrant, inspired versions after all.. so that means they all must be inerrant and inspired. I'm an asshole. Sorry. Paul's imaginary friend? Haha. In that case, it would be the Jesus who is accredited for the way things go by the faithful. Let me know if I'm wrong, but Mowgli wasn't afraid of no tigers! Except Sher Kahn maybe, but that was just an adrenaline rush plus a clever acting job. Well let's see. If a feral child, who had never seen a tiger, saw a tiger, he would not run. (Afterall, he does not know what a tiger is) He would not run if he saw bananas either. Let's assume his animal family feeds him bananas. He's obviously not going to run from it (learning from the group already). If his animal family does not run from tigers, he's not going to run either (kids have been raised by wolves after all). Now if the tiger did try to attack him, he's obviously not going to get very far and he's going to get eaten. So that leaves no Mowgli to interpret tigers as 'good' or 'bad'. But what of his wolf family? They gain a new respect for this tiger and begin to give him his space. Now that was an anal attempt to demonstrate how members of a group learn from each other and why your example in no way shows that feral children know "good" and "bad". I'll try a simpler scenario: Let's say Mowgli is walking down the forest (not minding where he trods) and gets bitten by an angry snake he steps on. Let's also ignore evolutionary psychology which tells us that we are naturally afraid of snakes because of what happened millions of years ago because I can't think of a better example right now. Now Mowgli previously saw snakes, but he was not afraid at all of them. By coincidence, he never encountered them physically until the biting incident. After recovery, what do you think he does as he walks through the forest? He is more careful of where he treads of course. (This is also assuming we are in a semi-real world where kids learn after touching the stove the first time and puppies don't repeatedly nuzzle against a sadist after he kicks them the first time. In other words, Mowgli is 'smart' just like you and me and cats and dogs and snakes and bears and he too like all these, can learn something from past experiences. Mowgli knows why he had better be damn careful, just like animals and us. BUT. BUT. Is Mowgli responsible for being careful? Is Mowgli the one who triggers the fear response when he sees a snake in the foliage? Is Mowgli the one who spontaneously comes up with the idea that he had better be more careful to avoid snakes in the forest whenever he decides to take a walk? If yes, please demonstrate how so using your own experience if necessary. If no.. then we see that it is not 'Mowgli' who differentiates between 'good' and 'evil'. If you insist that it is he who does so, then you will be pressed to show how without another argument from ignorance. This scenario can of course be altered but the concluding questions will still be as revealing. We now see that even in the most basic of scenarios, it is biology which differentiates between good and evil. At the next level, it is the group which helps the one differentiate between good and evil. But it is never the one himself who does so. If you insist otherwise, I only ask you to demonstrate. I'll get to it.
Hello colegrey I did not realize that you had replied to me so I apologize for the late response. You can probably join water to form the Argument from Ignorance Society. It is also possible that the child thought the lightning in the sky was a fish in the ocean, or that fairies existed on the moon, or maybe the sound of lightening was the sound of his stomach growling for food, or that Jesus was a caterpillar etc etc. These arguments from ignorance only serve to comfort one's own ideology and confidence therein. You can obviously see how I can expand your vein in order to support any claim I want. I speak to water about this more extensively in the previous reply and I treat her a little more harshly. Aaah. The argument from ignorance never ceases to amaze me. Firstly, since you claim that this child has a "possible unformed feeling" about an "other" being, could you please demonstrate the means by which you arrived at the conclusion that this is at all a 'possibility' and not just speculation? If you can't, it doesn't matter, but that's just the beginning. Also, for the record, I never claimed that any "possible unformed feeling" was "any less meaningful". Nothing of the sort whatsoever. But I am delighted as I type this, especially because water has lauded you for using an argument from ignorance - just as she did. Do you now begin to see how this groupthink works itself? As for the sheep being not just in Church, but in all places, I agree with that but I have unfortunately not yet written properly on the subject, save for a few informal conversations with water. I will get back to you on that if my writer's block leaves me. [Oh and for the record again, I never once did 'pretend' "the sheep are just in church". Far from it, as you will soon see it.] Just a little more on your argument from ignorance.. 1)What makes you think the feral child has a "possible unformed feeling about an "other" being"? Is there any reason for this? 2)What makes you think the feral child's "innermost feelings" can be "re-explained and translated"? Have you witnessed any of these innermost feelings? If not, what is the reason for your claim? If yes, please list. 3)What excites me most is your meandering on what the feral child thinks about God through various forms in nature. What makes you think at all that the feral child interprets things like lightning as having connection to God? 4)Secondly, what do you mean when you speak of 'God' in connection to the feral child? That is, when you say 'God' in this context, I assume you mean what the child thinks of God, and not what you think of God. In that case, what does the feral child think of God? If you don't know, then return to the question: What makes you believe at all that the feral child thinks of God? [Note: These are only designed to show you why the argument from ignorance can get us into more trouble than we would like. It is not meant as any sort of belligerence. A lot of people get defensive rather quickly these days..]
Crunchy Cat, Possibly, yes. Like you, who makes cats out of dogs, red out of blue, two out of five -- what is one to do? And you claim to know the truth? Unless you come up with some gliggling Buddha argument, the way you present interpretation is just absurd. That is, it is impossible to talk to you. You, of all people, talk about clear language?! You do not know the last thing about translation, inner built-up of languages and theory of meaning, do you? * * * My dear Mowgli-wannabe, What is your motive to use this argument, individual vs. society? Delicious! I just did. It was not me who gave me life, that I am alive is due to someone or something else -- and this is the primary motivator for us to think in terms of an other. Without being raised in a human society, one has no language to communicate with humans. Thus, humans can't know what goes on in Mowgli's mind. We're left with a blank here. Then everyone is religious. No. Unless you wish to join M*W and claim to have proven a negative ... If absence of evidence were evidence of absence, if humans would cling on to this, then they would still live in the savannah. Go tell this to scientists. Science functions by the principle that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is an assumption, a hypothesis. Unless we first set a hypothesis, we have nothing to work with. You are bieng silly. Oh. And society is somehow ... completely different from what man is? They are not etymologies, and they are pertinent inasmuch as they show it is not clear what exactly God's attributes are, and that further study is needed before we can make ex positivo definitions. Scientific pursuits are pointless if we have no ex positivo definitions. If thus, it is not clear what God's attributes are, how then can scientists say that there is no evidence to support "biblical claims"? A lingering teenage angst. And? What are they to you, and what are you to them? You are, sometimes. Beware of Richard Gere and gerbils. Thank you! This is the best laugh I've had in months! We're again at the authorship problem and its implications. Mowgli did not invent himself, he did not give himself life, he did not decide how the chemical reactions in his body would take place, he did not decide that that snake would show up, what he experiences and learns is not up to him etc. etc. So what exactly is *his* doing? If you say "nothing", then there is no Mowgli. If you say "everything", then there is no other entities in the universe. So? These "arguments from ignorance" are what enables us to make hypotheses in the first place. Of course, some people indeed use arguments from ignorance to keep themselves comfortable. But think: If you insist only on what you presently know, is this not yet another argument from ignorance? You, my dear boy, fail to see that cooperation (which you dub "groupthink") is so far the best way of improvement. If you do not allow for an alternative explanation, if you do not allow for a "But let's hypothesize XY is possible, and test this hypothesis", then you will never discover or learn anything.
Then possibly, yes, you have experienced the result of misinterpretation. People do it... I think the research by Satori Systems placed the average truth:interpretation ratio at 1:9. Those substitutions were part of an extreme and ludicrous scenario. They were used to show that any meaning can be interpreted differently. Realistic scenarios are merely an afterthought when evidence exists that people do it AND that it can be done; however, let's bring a real scenario into the picture. Every have a salesman present information in a way that influenced you to choose the wrong interpretation? For example: "Act now and I'll give you that car for $10,000!" The interpretation the sales person is trying to influence is: "If I don't act now then it will cost me more." In reality, the longer that car stays on the lot the lower the price will go. In the case of Genesis, MarkAC and that dog fellow have chosen an interpretation that resolves the contradictions of Genesis 1 and 2. The motive for doing this is to ensure the religion can adapt. I do, me of all people. I spend a good chunk of my career translating. My success is evidence that I know a thing or two about translation. Inner build-up of languages... that's a subject I haven't officially explored. Theory of meaning? Yes of course... in case it was missed I defined it somewhere in this thread (I think... the memory fades when you're an old man like me... who are you? who am i?).
I do wonder how the first human(s) came up with prayer (maybe better stated as when it first appeared within "human society")... maybe it was learnt from, I don't know God(?), some aliens who stopped by or the dog(s) who became man's best friend.
Mar[who?]AC? As you have realised it really doesn't make sense to be immortal in this human form (as far as any human can process) - it just doesn't work. Look at Cris again, he's pursuing the godly ideal of becoming immortal in mind - jumping from Cristianity [Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!] to... Imminism (?)... he should change his name to Imm... anyway... The motive for accepting that interpretation is due to the simple fact that it is the most sensible - you most definitely cannot disagree with that. Come on CCitten, that position can't work, as with what Cole Grey stated it could all amount to everyone here stating let's swim (comedic genius might I add). Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Mar"c"AC... heh sorry about that. I am in agreement. Cris is a freakin' lunatic. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I disagree. I think the motive for accepting that interpretation is to make things fit. Calling it 'sensible' rationalizes it. MarcAirConditioner? The position is what it is and it does work. The position of 'we agree and become authority by numbers' is a deprecated tactic to gain acceptance. Who'se kidding who now?
Hello MarcAC I know you are being sarcastic but I don't mind Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! We will get to this later although I will say your statement is a bit presumptuous in premise. The rest is just fun. This is a good comment anyhow and I will explain shortly.
Hi Dido Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Must there necessarily be motive? To show a few things: 1) People don't just come up with the idea of God on their own. 2) Society is the last stronghold against nihilism, which is the wing of the feral child, the individual. This of course means that nihilism is 'natural', as opposed to being induced by societal influences. I will elaborate on this natural property towards the end of the post. 3) To explain why free will can only be supported by arguments from ignorance, circularity, and groupthink. (That is to say, the notion of 'responsibility' is instilled by human society and is absent by default in the individual) There may be others but I can't think of them right now because I'm hungry and hungry men don't think about these things. I'll add any that I think of. And "an other" means (a) God? If so, just come out and say it so I can go to work already. Matthew 7 16You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Therefore by their fruits you will know them. Now now. I'm using "something else" in the same vein you are. To be more specific: To be religious is to employ the knowledge of the numinous acquired from society in a personal manner (whether in its original form or modified). As follows, the degree of religiousness is proportional to the extent to which this knowledge is applied personally. That's as narrow a description as is possible without mistakenly excluding certain cultures. Then you know that humans are not empiricists by default (I don't think I need to tell you what leads man to rely so heavily on empiricism). But for an empiricist, as the definition requires, this is the mantra - to do as doubting Thomas did. Like I said, humans are obviously not empiricists by default. If we were to be as the rationalists insist we ought to be then there would be no religion. Testing of theories requires this sort of rigid empiricism. Expansion of theories however allows for 'creativity' but testing of the hypothesis reverts to the same standard. Without a way to test your hypothesis you have nothing to work with. Since you have no way to test your self serving hypothesis, let us know them by their fruits. Cherries, in particular. Is that an empirical observation? Depends on what you mean by 'man'. Searching for (an) ex positivo definition(s) is absurd. It is not clear what "exactly" God's attributes are because they vary from society to society. This assumption of yours that there are definitions of God, implying that He is immutable, is simply fallacious and will prove unworkable and will give you much grief. The God you know about today is not the same as the God you knew of years ago; as your knowledge of God changes, God changes too. And for this reason does science have no business with God: the immutable and transcendent and mysterious God is only found in society and (gasp!) changes along with society. As for the lack of evidence to support Biblical claims, I will give you a few examples which we would expect to be of magnitudinous order: Noah's Ark: There's the question of how he got all the animals on there, how he fed all of them, how he kept the ark from being smelly, how he kept all the food from going bad, how he got rid of waste.. etc. Ressurection of the Saints: The author of Matthew claims that "at the moment of Jesus' death "the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they entered into the holy city and appeared unto many" Now I don't know about you, but an event like this going utterly unrecorded by ANY historian, not even the authors of Mark, Luke, John, or even Paul or Jude? Believing this is an actual historical events were resurrected saints entered the city and were yet utterly unnoticed by history takes faith. Did I mention the legend says our good friends Noah and Adam and Eve were among those wakened? I suppose you could argue from ignorance and say that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Same goes for Elvis' face appearing on the moon. The sun stops for Joshua Now be realistic. The sun does NOT revolve around the earth no matter what the Flat Earth Society says. Neither does the earth stop suddenly in its tracks without any catastrophes (tsunamis for example) occuring and NO ONE ON EARTH apart from the Hebrews remember to record it. Then again, for all these you could say "Goddidit" or "so? that doesn't prove it couldn't have happened". Same goes for the Native American creation story. Now you wonder why scientists are insouciant concerning these things? Something you have long forgotten, old woman. I am their former comrade. And to me, they represent a society based on a larger society (similar to circles). Huh? (As for my assholery, I am here to learn from the best. Slimy scum that I am) And.. you are laughing with me? You are only having this problem because of your understanding of what Mowgli is, which is tied to your understanding of what (or who) you are, which is in turn founded on your experiences in society. Leave this circular definition in order to better understand Mowgli as a conglomerate. There is no "one" called Mowgli. 'Mowgli' is not some automaton. You can not point to Mowgli and say "here he is" or "there he is". Groupthink fostered by society's indoctrination, which makes us all 'reason' that we have things called culpability and responsibility, has also led us to believe in an "I", a "you", a "Mowgli", who can be held responsible. Without a society's encouragements, feral children simply do not come up with the notion of responsibility. As you watch wolf packs and observe monkies, you will notice specialization - 'responsibilities' assigned to each member. But do you see a snake exhibit any sense of responsibility? Do tell me this: do you see any non social animal exhibit any sense of responsibility on its own? (On the other hand, I do not view instincts such as maternity as being responsibilities; these become responsibilities - requirements - upon indoctrination into a human society. Another one of the 'natural properties' is nihilism, which is never espoused by society but most propably germinates and approaches fruition, much like a calculus limit, by virtue of entropy. That is to say, nihilism in society, like limits in mathematics, is never fully reached that we might say, "here lies a nihilistic society." And this is how Jesus and the Apostles were wrong. Christian eschatology incorrectly envisages a final period of ultimate decadence whereas we find this to be false. At best, there is a sort of life-and-death cycle to flush out nihilism from society by way perhaps of religious revival or scientific breathrough or catastrophe such as September 11th. This cycle bonds society ever stronger, always concluding in the victimization of the nihilist - the 'oddball' is left standing outside society's huddle with a target on his head) If we renounce this circular doctrine of responsibility, it becomes exceptionally difficult to find any reasonable justification for claiming the existence of an 'I' or a person. There is therefore no need to talk about a Mowgli as if there is a "he"; we need not fret over the apparent 'difficulties' of free will and responsibility, parasites which have their fangs only in society. Unless, of course, you are able to show me the "person" who is doing the experiencing or the thinking or the believing or the praying. Probably not;we don't need to. That is an excellent question you have brought up. I was not prepared to bring this up since this tackles my theories on epistemology, whereas the knowledge of God is a mere tributary. My knowledge is already circular as a result of not knowing it on my own but rather from a society. This means all arguments can be demonstrated to be arguments from ignorance. A famed example: - Don't say the f-word! Why? Because its a bad word! Why is it a bad word? Don't ask me stupid questions, you know its bad! Given this admission, you probably want to know why I lambasted your argument. If I insist on what I don't know, like you have, then I no longer have a 'stable foundation' for my claims. Contrary to your rebuttals, scientists do not rally and support hypothesis; they support tested experiments. On the other hand, if my claim rests on what I have learned from a society, then I have that society for a 'stable ground' (by virtue of groupthink). This is not to say the former is 'better' than the latter, but sticking to what is empirically verifiable gives us the largest 'stable foundation', for therein we have an entire society to verify our claims and reassure us that we are 'correct'. The Victor is thus the one who can demonstrate his claim to be truer than the rest. The only way to do this is of course to use a method accepted by the larger society. In our case, the larger society disapproves of illogical claims and yours is less grounded than mine. In my case, I give examples which are verifiable by experience and testing (such as a dog who gets kicked will begin to cower from its owner) in order to support my explanation while you appeal to ignorance (resting your case not only on that which we do not know, but can not know). This quasi-'majority vote' system is of course a horrid way of determining any truth, but that's just the way it is. As you can expect, if you were in an intensely religious society, the burden of proof (illogical as it may seem today) would have been squarely on me. As Conway's game of life would have it however, our society (which, for simplification purposes, is sciforums only) is far more receptive to testable information than what appears to be simple speculation. How dejecting that I should struggle futiley against society by relying on it's variable moods! Although there are some who will believe if told the Bible is true, their faith is made more firm by being shown that the Bible is true. Because of this, I suspect your appeal from ignorance is not as satisfactory and satiating as you would hope. It is hard to hold up such an argument to sociological examples from the animal kingdom and human civilization as well as from observations of feral children. Even Thomas wanted to see for himself. I refuse to say cooperation is the "best way" to improve since I am part of society, that 'cooperative effort'. But when I look yonder, to the outskirts where feral children prance unfettered, I see hope that I may know for myself and be content by myself. Such a statement argues - from ignorance - that a feral child envies our 'civilization', our decadence, this excess. This appeal is full of hope by one in a society, saying that society is the best way of progress. But you have never been feral. So how do you know. Not ignorance? If there is no way to test your 'hypothesis', then it becomes self serving. But it will only be a lesson in futility; and you will groan and labor with pangs of uncertainty until you too can place your fingers in those nail-scarred palms and your faith is made whole. Instead, know them by their fruit. ---------- (So howzat for teenage angst, eh?)
Oh shit... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ... can I frame that statement?
There's a little joke behind that; water and I often have good camaraderie. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
