Intelligent people cannot be 'believers'

[wildsweetone]

Re: Re: Intelligent people cannot be 'believers'

Whatever anyone believes to be true is true, whether it's arrived at intellectually through reason and logic, faith or a combination of those.

I'd change that slightly to read,

Whatever anyone believes to be true is true for them...

amicus said: I would puport that no one who claims to be an 'intellectual' with reason, truth and logic as the basis of that claim, can at the same time embrace a faith based on belief.

Do you consider 'intellectual' to be experience based wisdom?

 

[minsue]

That debate is actually a fun one. I used to love that one before Matrix made it old hat. Is reality real or just an illusion? In what ways can we prove that existence does in fact exist beyond all shadows of doubt? Is everything possible, nothing possible? Stoner philosophy without the weed. Sigh, you're making me all nostalgic.

I don't just miss the philosophy, I miss the weed too. Is that wrong?

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Edward Teach...


"I am, therefore I think..."

Descartes got it backwards



amicussable...

Ugh, Descartes. Such a shitty shitty job of philosophy and so-called reason. Assuming the existence of the thinker is such an arrogant illogic.

Sorry, threadjacked.

And Joe. Yipe, it was a joke. I take it back if you want. I wasn't trivializing, but recognizing (incorrectly as it turns out) that given your viewpoints and unwillingness to budge and his viewpoints and unwillingness to budge, that you would engage in a metaphorical cat fight over the whole thing. I suspected that his labeling it as a product of one of your threads would be like the accusation of betrayal in a lover's spat. And yes...mocking both of your inabilities to accept even tangental homoeroticisms, in essence a petty jest at your expenses.

Sorry, threadjacked again. Back to the debate on what was it? Intelligence and faith? I have no real interest in either side of the argument at this time. That settled, back to the show.

 

[Couture]

I'm sure you haven't.... what you have seen is someone ask that his potential arguing with someone else, especially someone as opinionated as amicus, not be regarded as a "spat" because he feels it sort of condescends the endeavor entirely. And then get labeled a "homophobe" for it.

I guess it doesn't feel good to have someone trivialize you based on your homophobic tendencies.

Sorry about that Joe. That was wrong of me. Please accept my apologies. You are as much of a contribution to society as anyone else.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I don't just miss the philosophy, I miss the weed too. Is that wrong?

I was actually (surprisingly to some) clean. But I used to engage in the type of other-worldly discussions that are incorrectly attributed to stoners. I was addicted to creativity. Much harder substance and harder to wean off from.

 

[amicus]

Mr. Teach...

you said...in part, "...Assuming the existence of the thinker is such an arrogant illogic...."


To doubt one's own existence places you back in the times of Jean Paul Sartre, Kieregarde and some other damned fool Existentialist...get over it my friend, you really do exist.

protoplasm and all..

 

[minsue]

I was actually (surprisingly to some) clean. But I used to engage in the type of other-worldly discussions that are incorrectly attributed to stoners. I was addicted to creativity. Much harder substance and harder to wean off from.

Yes, I understand. I gave up the pot years ago, but I've yet to be able to give up the questions.

 

[Couture]

To doubt one's own existence places you back in the times of Jean Paul Sartre, Kieregarde and some other damned fool Existentialist...get over it my friend, you really do exist.

Oh, I know I exist. It's other people I'm worried about.

 

[LadyJeanne]

[BI would puport that no one who claims to be an 'intellectual' with reason, truth and logic as the basis of that claim, can at the same time embrace a faith based on belief.

The two are mutually exclusive and diamtrically opposed. You can be one or the other, but not both at the same time.

There is no God.

As they say on West Wing, "What's next?" [/B]

That's just it ami. We always do ask what's next.

I believe love is the force that gives meaning to my life, and I have an unquestioning faith in its power. For me, there's enough reason, truth and logic in the basis of that claim to embrace it, both as an intellectual and a human.

 

[minsue]

Oh, I know I exist. It's other people I'm worried about.

Ah, but are you worried they don't exist or are you worried they do?

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Mr. Teach...

you said...in part, "...Assuming the existence of the thinker is such an arrogant illogic...."


To doubt one's own existence places you back in the times of Jean Paul Sartre, Kieregarde and some other damned fool Existentialist...get over it my friend, you really do exist.

protoplasm and all..

I thought I said that one. Damn.

Back in my agnostic days I used to hold that there were the infinite stretches of the possible and then there was the probable which was similar to what you began the thread with, without the disdain for believers.

Still didn't stop me from exploring the possible which is probably why I'm no longer an agnostic yet have not given up the scientific pursuit that agnostic path began. And that's about as far as I'm going about my religion. I try to keep my promises.

 

[Couture]

.... or are you worried they do?

Nah, I'm pretty sure those bastards are real.

 

[minsue]

Nah, I'm pretty sure those bastards are real.

*shudder*

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Yes, I understand. I gave up the pot years ago, but I've yet to be able to give up the questions.

Questions are always the best parts. Probably why I'm a scientist and writer. I've always been more fascinated with the questions than the answers.

 

[bearlee]

and...'bearlee' "...Whatever anyone believes to be true is true, whether it's arrived at intellectually through reason and logic, faith or a combination of those...."

you are so wrong my friend, that I will not even begin a comment, but thank you for your input.

Also on the news this evening, a complaint that many chain stores across the nation have dropped, "Merry Christmas" as an advertising logo and have switched to Seasons Greetings and Happy Holidays as a replacement.

The reason given, "In a mutli-cultured society such as ours we do not wish to offend non Christians..."

Goodbye yellow brick road and Santa Clause...and oh yes, it has become standard practice that children are not permitted to sit on Santa's lap anymore, but rather sit next to 'Santa' as they verbalize their wish lists...

sighs....thanks Bob Dylan, "The times they are a'changin'..."


amicus the intolerable...

Well, thanks for intellectually raping me here but sitting on Santa's lap-I'm kinda holding out for that one

I was talking about matters of faith-not water turning into ice when put in the freezer. If you believe the virgin birth, etc. you believe it and there is no persuasive evidence against it. If you don't believe it, unless you come to by faith, all the argument in the world isn't going to change that opinion. When this thread gets to page 50 without resolution-I'll repeat what I said because the argument of faith is a matter of futility and so far you've made statements of faith througout this thread(assuming I can sub the word belief for faith here). Interesting discussion though. But Dylan was right, but that doesn't necessarily make it right-but then I'm an old fuck with limited time so I don't really care.

 

[bearlee]

Re: Re: Re: Intelligent people cannot be 'believers'

I'd change that slightly to read,

Whatever anyone believes to be true is true for them...



Do you consider 'intellectual' to be experience based wisdom?

Thanks-I guess I thought it was implied but you're right

 

[Kassiana]

I would puport that no one who claims to be an 'intellectual' with reason, truth and logic as the basis of that claim, can at the same time embrace a faith based on belief.

The two are mutually exclusive and diamtrically opposed.

Incorrect. They are mutually exclusive in the area of the person's faith ONLY. A person can be (and in many cases IS) a religious believer and read deep, thought provoking novels; understand difficult topics like the true nature of the second law of thermodynamics, and so on.

It is contrary to established reality that no religious believer can be an intellectual. Where would you put Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State? Is he a moron simply because he's a religious believer, despite his extensive legal knowledge? How about Rev. William Sinkford, current president of the Unitarian Universalist Association?

Think about this. Please. Think about it before you post it. From a purely pragmatic standpoint: There are numerous intellectual religious believers out here, and seeing that more than likely we'll agree with you on other issues, does it make sense to distort reality and antagonize us simply because we have a belief in at least one deity?

I don't think so. I don't say atheists are idiots or ignoring reality. I don't want secular humanists or agnostics to stop being the wondrous people they are. I understand the desire for acceptance, for all people to give up what you consider unnecessary or undesirable. However, I also understand that what you consider to be trash, I consider to be treasure.

I've been a theist since age 13. My experiences of the Gods are too real for me to be anything else. Even when I deconverted from fundamentalist Christianity, I remained a faithful person. That doesn't make me anti-intellectual. I accept all findings of science and believe in more (and better) education for all Americans. I have a law degree. I am not stupid because I have a faith, and I am genuinely hurt and angry that someone who doesn't know me would say such an obviously untrue thing (from my perspective...please grant me that) about me, especially when I don't deserve it.

 

[mismused]

A telling point my friend. Consider: A rational person discovering a lack of conclusive evidence to support a theory, must put the concept aside until such rational, provable evidence is discovered.

==========================

ami cus,

May I be allowed to say otherwise?

Consider Holye. No, not the card guy, the scientist.

In the face of insupportable evidence, he had the belief, faith, that he knew how to find how the carbon atom, of which we are composed, came into being, and despite all the computers, and all the others who had preceded him, he carried on, and refused to "put the concept aside."

"He sat down, and with paper and pencil calculated exactly where that resonance [in the rarest of the berylliums, that died rather quickly] had to be, by insisting it match with the known energies of the helium and beryllium nuclei.

"In the entire history of science this is the only example I know of in which something was actually predicted on basis of reasoning. . . Finding resonances is usually a difficult task, something like looking for needles in a haystack." (Quoted from George Greenstein, B.S., Stanford, Ph.D., Yale). It was all reasoning based on his belief, unswerving faith, that it was there.

It was also stipulated that none, save one friend at, I believe, Cal Berkeley, would help him, but only because he was imposed upon by friendship. All others said Hoyle was being unreasonable, and, perhaps, looking for a needle in a haystack.

Life, ami cus, just doesn't seem to be what we think it is, and we don't really know what we are.

There is, scientists believe, something that lives/goes on, after these corporeal bodies die, and I've yet to see you say, or stipulate what it is. Would you do so now?

Yes, I'm quite serious.

mismused

 

[Couture]

I am not stupid because I have a faith, and I am genuinely hurt and angry that someone who doesn't know me would say such an obviously untrue thing (from my perspective...please grant me that) about me, especially when I don't deserve it.

Kass, go read Fountainhead and Atlas shrugged a few dozen times. Then and only then will you realize that you probably need to let this one go.

 

[amicus]

Hello LadyJeanne...

you said....in part..."...That's just it ami. We always do ask what's next.

I believe love is the force that gives meaning to my life, and I have an unquestioning faith in its power. For me, there's enough reason, truth and logic in the basis of that claim to embrace it, both as an intellectual and a human...."

What a lovely statement...


ahhh..love...perhaps the reason we all write and muse...

I think few would question that we all possess a rational and an emotional side to our existence.

I tend to think the ladies tend a bit more to the emotional, but they hold my toes to the fire whenever I say that.

Romantic love between a man and a woman is natures highest achievement in this thing we call life.

If emotions can be described as an automatic response to a previously made value judgment, then we can take a peek at the inner workings of the libido and that grand and varied emotion we call love.

I originally came to Literotica to be able to express some of my thoughts about love and relationships more freely than what was possible at allpoetry, from which I was banned, bad man that I am.

I have not made any friends here, in over a year, but I have met some very sharp minds. Unfortunately, most of those minds have been corrupted by one form of 'faith/belief' or another and it truly detracts from a true exchange of thoughts. I mourn that.

I do not question nor criticize your lovely opening statement for it surely sets the stage for wider thoughts of familial love and love of an ideal, such as 'veritas' or truth.

So, thank you for your contribution...I wish you well


amicus...

 

[jtmalone70]

**********

 

[Couture]

Hello LadyJeanne...

I do not question nor criticize your lovely opening statement for it surely sets the stage for wider thoughts of familial love and love of an ideal, such as 'veritas' or truth.

So, thank you for your contribution...I wish you well


amicus...

Holy shitburgers batman. Amicus, that was a sweet thing to say. I've changed my mind. There is a God. Or at the very least the ghost of Christmas past has been to visit you, you old cuss.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

amicus, it's not often you make a decent post. I thank you for doing so. The composition of chaos and logic in our lives, minds, and lifestyles has its battles and climes. Chaos has its beauty in empathy and creativity. Logic in every in-depth look at a cell's composition or in the massive framework and activity required to create most organic chemicals. It's just a shame they must battle so bitterly and be attributed to standard prejudices.

It reminds me of Darwin in the cold, a scientist and a believer being condemned by the one because now it was possible that Earth wasn't created in seven days when letting that fallacy go doesn't destroy anything for a believer and praised by the other for proving the survival of the fittest when he hadn't done so. Science versus Religion is a violent divide which needn't be.

And again, beautiful post. I knew you had it in you somewhere.

 

[amicus]

Mismused...

I think your post was important enough to paste intoto...hope you do not mind...


"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by amicus


A telling point my friend. Consider: A rational person discovering a lack of conclusive evidence to support a theory, must put the concept aside until such rational, provable evidence is discovered.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



==========================

ami cus,

May I be allowed to say otherwise?

Consider Holye. No, not the card guy, the scientist.

In the face of insupportable evidence, he had the belief, faith, that he knew how to find how the carbon atom, of which we are composed, came into being, and despite all the computers, and all the others who had preceded him, he carried on, and refused to "put the concept aside."

"He sat down, and with paper and pencil calculated exactly where that resonance [in the rarest of the berylliums, that died rather quickly] had to be, by insisting it match with the known energies of the helium and beryllium nuclei.

"In the entire history of science this is the only example I know of in which something was actually predicted on basis of reasoning. . . Finding resonances is usually a difficult task, something like looking for needles in a haystack." (Quoted from George Greenstein, B.S., Stanford, Ph.D., Yale). It was all reasoning based on his belief, unswerving faith, that it was there.

It was also stipulated that none, save one friend at, I believe, Cal Berkeley, would help him, but only because he was imposed upon by friendship. All others said Hoyle was being unreasonable, and, perhaps, looking for a needle in a haystack.

Life, ami cus, just doesn't seem to be what we think it is, and we don't really know what we are.

There is, scientists believe, something that lives/goes on, after these corporeal bodies die, and I've yet to see you say, or stipulate what it is. Would you do so now?

Yes, I'm quite serious.

mismused


__________________
"Knowledge is insidious! It vanquishes darkness, and gives you sudden understanding of all that it encompasses."



~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am always suspicious of those who post complex scientific theorums in order to debunk the very concept of science. It is usually chicanery of the lowest sort, like those who enjoy the benefits of our modern society but decry the apparent isolation from nature that it has brought about.

I think Einstein also made a prediction based on a lack of evidence, but a preponderance of reason, concerning his assertion that light wave would be bent as they passed a high mass object. He too, was later justified, when science could indeed prove his theorem.

to repeat the last part of your post:

"Life, ami cus, just doesn't seem to be what we think it is, and we don't really know what we are.

There is, scientists believe, something that lives/goes on, after these corporeal bodies die, and I've yet to see you say, or stipulate what it is. Would you do so now?

Yes, I'm quite serious.

mismused
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I would say and stipulate without reservation, that when these corporeal bodies die that nothing lives/goes on.

To believe or to even hope otherwise, is to demean the very concept of the value of life. What we have and identify as 'life' is all we have, there is nothing beyond the grave.

It is important to say that and to insist that I truly mean that, in order to place the proper ultimate value upon using this life we have in the best way possible.

Institutionalized religion used the carrot and the stick method to promise an afterlife and in so doing detracted from mankind considering what the true value of life (outside immortality) might really mean.

A few, over just a few hundred years, have finally begun to question the nature of our existence outside the box of religion.

We find ourselves alone in a vast and uncaring universe. We look within and most do not like what they see.

But we are capable of marvelous and magnificent things and we are poised to leave these earthly surly bonds and venture forth. I only wish I could live 10,000 years...or at least keep an awareness to know that future...


amicus...

 

[Kassiana]

go read Fountainhead and Atlas shrugged

Do I have to? :: pouts:: I already read Anthem in high school, and not as an assignment...

Rand doesn't do much for me, actually. I understand that others like her writings, but I find her characterizations ... odd, to say the least. She forces far too much, I think. I prefer a subtler touch.

(unrelated rant) Fragging board that won't let me put a : and a P together without combining them into a freaking smilie... (/unrelated rant)