I was using the term to help 'specify' (less loosely!) the term 'reality', which IMO opinion you were using way more loosely. Had you not noted?



You implied so (confused, collapsed) in your earlier statement:

'... physics in fact does accept the existence of not only our reality, but many others as well...'

That is so profoundly inaccurate, it is totally incorrect. Physics does no such thing as establish the existence of 'realities'!!!

It scientifically demonstrates the 'existence' of 'objects' (descriptive, used to specify that which science attempts to demonstrate: prove or disprove); observable objects (internalism), as well as non-observable objects (externalism).

So while you never 'said' that reality and existence are the same, you did much worse by confusing the science was proving the existence of 'realities'. NEVER!!! The existence of non-observable objects which are very much part of our reality: YES!!!





No I won't replace any such thing with reality. I would suggest however that YOU replace all such terms with 'observably in existence', or 'non-observably in existence'. It is only then that 'objects' enter into 'OUR REALITY'.




Before concluding that it is far reaching, you might invest some time in understanding what the claim 'really' says, rather than what you interpret it to say.

Obviously, you're struggling with that one, and I don't know if you will allow me to help you.

But here goes nothing.

If you are ignoring the context for reality provided by 'observable' and 'non-observable objects', which we have named into reality, I can understand how you would completely miss my point and deliver the misinterpretation that you have.

Two simple 'objects' our ancestors have named into existence for us, a fair time ago: PAST, FUTURE and INFINITE along with KNOWN and UNKNOWN should help you understand that my claim isn't so far fetch.

If you have a problem with including in our 'named existence', which is part of OUR REALITY, that which came before 'us', and will come long after us (maybe), inside of that which are partly observable and that which are non-observable objects, I can't help you.

It would appear to me, that Daniel, and now you, are confusing or rather collapsing the very distinct concepts of 'REALITY', the larger concept, and 'SCIENTIFIC REALISM', its subordinated concept.

I also notice that you 'jasonpfaff' take huge liberty of interpretation when granting science the responsibility of establishing what 'reality' is or is not. You claimed earlier :

'... physics in fact does accept the existence of not only our reality, but many others as well...'

Existence and reality are very much distinct, so are reality and scientific realism.

If I may propose a more appropriate perspective for the point of view you were trying to make above, I would first suggest that you may specify to you are talking about the scientific perspective of reality, and more specifically that you are referring to scientific realism. Only then could we meet your intention of installing a context of intelligent dialogue, based on mutual respect and open mindedness, leading to constructive and mind broadening exchanges.

Allow me to expand on the context you wish to establish with respect to this specific exchange.

It could be said, generally speaking, that this scientific perspective of reality focuses on determining 'observable existence' on the one hand (micro or applied science), and some 'non-observable existence' on the other hand (the eventual broader 'ideal state' science in general seeks to achieve).

Furthermore, science or scientific realism, do not 'EXIST' in a vacuum. IT (science) doesn't pretend or claim to define what reality is!!! It very humbly, modestly and rigorously seeks to contribute 'ELEMENTS' of reality to the already 'existing' pool, while respecting the already existing 'CONTEXT' for reality.

The perspective of scientific realism is very much subordinated to the field of epistemology, a cousin of ontology and metaphysics it could said, and children of 'Aristotolian' philosophy.

With respect to epistemology, the whole matter of observable existence made through scientific realism would belong to the school of thought known as 'epitemological internalism', while the non-observable existence would belong to the school of thought of 'epistemological externalism'.

That being said, all of it is part and parcel of the larger 'human defined' and 'consensus derived' concept and notions of 'reality'.

Until man, through thinking, distinguishing and 'languaging', NAMES particular 'objects', along with its demonstrable relation to others, there is no existence, as far as man is concerned.

The fact that man, through the scientific process, and subsequently through scientific realism, has NAMED into relative existence such objects (observable or not) as 'nothingness', 'infinite universes', 'the unknown', etc., fully supports the premise that nothing outside of 'our reality' exists!!! Including that which you refer as '... outside of our reality...' !!!

As a closing statement 'jasonpfaff', I am not out to 'get' science or anything, or anyone for that matter.

Furthermore, I would be extremely surprised that 'science would be out to GET ME'?!?!?!
Sort of a juvenile premise wouldn't you agree!

Thanks for denouncing the pathetic 'fundamentalists' 'tanyaann'.
They are way beyond 'out of line'.
They are a national threat to the mental health of future generations of Americans!!!

AlbionCrusader,

While I respect your legitimate right to believe what you may, why would you '...firmly believe God uses natural catastrophies in Judgment...' ??? I am genuinely wondering about that. Why believe in such a wicked god? Why believe in such a divisive and vengeful god?

And when you suggest that New Orleans was hit by god because because there were too many wicked parties?!?!? Hasn't god heard of Las Vegas, or Los Angeles, or New York, etc. ??? How does New Orleans beat dozens of more deserving cities in the area of 'wicked parties', and get hit by god for it???

Obviously, god doesn't seem to use any kind of logic, or as they say, he works in mysterious ways. So I truly question your use of logic, in founding your belief: '... to firmly believe that god uses natural catastrophies in judgment...'.

As for the comment you make about Pat Robertson: '... don't care too much for what he says...', it is fully contradicted by the very similar comments you make youeself: same essential belief in a vengeful, jealous and divisive god. Same view, different words.

Truly wonder!

As for the main topic 'Bullies and logic', and with all due respect to the host, a little and very simple logic here would go a long way in clarifying the false premise (IMO) of this thread.

False premise in the sense that he host is either imposing himself as some sort of false moderator, or moralizer-in-chief (impostor in either case) by isolating and correcting a certain group of people, whom do not live up to some nebulous code of civility for which our host holds the key.

It would appear, from all the moral 'should be's' that the host is listing, that there is a serious misinterpretation of what this 'blog' is all about.

It is not because this 'place' is loosely called a 'forum', with so-called 'moderators', and 'disciplinary rules' to observe, that it should be approached, or be expected to live up to the promises of some official 'debating society' !!! Which seems to be the expectations of our host (official debating society, or some sort of formal schooling context).

The local 'tavern', or local 'diner' would appear to be a more fitting alternate metaphor when it comes to approaching these blogs !!!
A place where any quidam can 'walk-in', and all 'opinions' have equal value.
The 'moderators', as is the case here in these blogs, are nothing other than the peace keeping force, ensuring the integrity of the 'place' (namely the mingle2 site in this case), against potential prejudices from its patrons.

Learning the laws of 'tavern' or 'diner' talk, magically makes all 'presumed' bullies disappear from the blogs. Character and color, like the local tavern, inoffensive 'schoolyard bullies' maybe, but 'bullies' NO.

Once expectations are adjusted to the 'tavern' and 'diner' metaphors, all you'll find in here are people stating their opinions, in whatever form they do (moderators will come down on abuse, other than that, it's free form).

That being said, when some confuse or lace their opinions with too large a dose of moral or correcting judgment, others almost automatically come out and call the 'bull' as they 'sees' it !!!

Such is the 'ecology' of these 'tavern and diner' blogs !!!

When one gets with the program, the blogs work just fine.

Daniel wrote above:

'...If, God forbid, all of the beings that make up your consensus of reality are wiped out what is reality then? Is it any more or less real? Is its simple truth any different?...'

Daniel, you seem to propose a premise from which we can only deduct that as far as you are concerned, there is a 'reality' out there, independent of human beings' ability to fully access it. As though 'reality' EXISTED, and humanity is trying to uncover more and more of it.

Nothing in science, philosophy, psychology, neurology, much less theology or religion allows us to establish such premise.

It leaves us with our personal sense of conviction, mixed with the seriously faulted inherited myth that 'there is a reality out there'.

From everything that we can observe, reality is 100% man made. From the world of neuro-science, we've learned that the neo-cortex, our thinking, rationalizing, and so-called conscious piece of brain equipment, is 100% made-up of mimicking neurons, a feature we (humans) share with all primates.

The only difference between humans and other primates, is nothing other than a natural evolutionary ACCIDENT. Humans have billions more mimicking neurons than any other primates. This accidental phenomenon gives humans the unique 'ILLUSION-MAKING' context of 'SELF-AWARENESS'!!!

We, humans, are by default of nature, first and foremost SELF-AWARE beings, through a complex web of 'real' illusions. Of course WE are not ready to face the fact that it could be as INSIGNIFICANT AS THAT!!! But it is.

Our fundamental, inescapable and perpetual job in life, our 'job' of 'existing', is nothing other than convincing ourselves that we exist, without ever realizing that that is what is going on!!!

Over several million years of experiencing (DNA), we have built a rather rich dialectic 'code' of existence. A very rich web of languaging, symbols and master 'meanings' with which we all agree: this is the underlying overwhelming human 'consensus' I think 'Jane1' referred to earlier.

That consensus IS our only 'reality' !!! Nothing out there other than what we can name, give meaning to, and all agree with. The 'reality' if it is, IS WITHIN!!! ... NOT OUT THERE!!!

If 'god' (as though that existed!) had wiped out humans and their then consensus that the earth was FLAT, and was THE CENTER OT THE UNIVERSE, are you suggesting that that would have had anything to do with a reality other than man-made?!?!?

That's what was 'really' real for humans back then. They killed those whom didn't agree!!! Are you suggesting that just because it happens to be 'our generation', that OUR REALITY today is more real??? Are you suggesting nothing other than there would be this unknown 'thinking' out there, other than 'humans', that would oppose ITS reality against against ours???

I think the next breakthrough humans have yet to make collectively, is to move our ability to think beyond this circular, neo-cortex given, 'self-centric' exclusive, human paradigm.

This 'truth', this 'reality', this 'god of gods', this 'place' OUT THERE that holds it all!!! ... is part of the cheap, limiting, and delusional paradox we keep holding as 'reality', when in fact, all leads us to observe there is nothing other then OUR REALITY!!!

You're now just GOOFIN' AROUND!!!

Turning in circles of your own making, looking for a way out!!!

I NEVER presented a definition as the truth!!! What kind of unfounded and absurd claim is that?!?!?

Stop the 'GOOFIN' and fess up. You shuffle words around, take liberties in altering the sense and meaning of simple sentences, and rant on with your internal monologues!!!

Other than your personal fabulations, show me where I have written that a definition in the Webster is the truth for all!!!

Consensual meaning and understanding of a word ...

... WILL NEVER BE A PRETENSE IMPLYING 'THE TRUTH FOR ALL' !!!

If you don't agree with the Webster definition of 'faith' I provided, just provide an alternative definition. If it is founded, and we both agree with it, this insipid exchange will have found a happy ending.

If you don't have an alternative definition (no belief, no religion, no holy book, and no 'truth for all' required), then just move on to the your next preferred battle. You've cooked the life out of this one a long time ago.

N O !





'...shared understanding...' , consensual agreement on meaning, is what can be found in the old Webster. It's called a dictionary, and belongs to the category of reference books. It provides references. It is used in referencing.

For what you are looking for: '... THE truth for all...', there is no reference, no source, no book, no 'god', no 'one', etc., that has ever provided 'proof', 'facts', or any other form of certainty that there even might be such a thing as 'THE truth for all'!!!

To insist in seeking '... The truth for all...' is the ultimate delusional trek!!! And that statement is NOT meant to imply in any way shape or form, that it is 'the truth for all', but certainly what is true for me!!!

funches!!! ... stop popping those pills!!!

Your redundant question was answered in the very post to which you replied, ... asking for an answer


What part of:

'...shared understanding...' (consensual agreement on meaning)
DOES NOT TRANSLATE INTO:
'... the truth for all...'

... do you not understand???

Caught in a hotspot?!?!? Sounds like a clear case of projection.

As for your redundant questions, which I take the time to address because I find you sympathetic, they would be totally avoidable if it weren't for your bad habit of misreading, and mistranslating other people's words and intent.

If there is an underlying issue you care to settle with me, spit it out, get it over with, stop beating around the bush, and let's move on.

You are making an embarrassment of yourself, ... and I won't tolerate seeing you tarnishing your good repute so.

Such a fine lad you are! (No sarcasm intended)

Again funches, you'll have to tone down the monologue and read the words written on the posts:

'...shared understanding...' (consensual agreement on meaning)
DOES NOT TRANSLATE INTO:
'... the truth for all...'

If you don't agree with the consensual meaning of faith, and I don't agree with the alternative meaning you propose, WE SIMPLY WON'T BE ABLE TO HAVE A COHERENT OR CONSTRUCTIVE DIALOGUE ON A GIVEN TOPIC.

'Disconnected', parallel monologues perhaps!!! But no possible dialogue.

funches,

If you wish to enter into a dialogue with others, you need to interrupt the monologue you are having with yourself.

When you claim that I have contradicted myself AGAIN, failing to demonstrate a first contradiction, I would be happy to admit so this time around, but are still failing to bring up the infamous contradiction you accuse me of having committed.

Once more, it is you whom are confusing, or again mistranslating what I wrote and what you read, or interpreted from your reading.

Your are confusing 'experience of faith', and its 'definition' or 'meaning'.

The experience of faith, very much part of the personal and even intimate domains, need not even be discussed, much less justified or proven to others, ... and neither can it be imposed on others (public domain)!!!

I have only referred to the DEFINITION, or consensually agreed upon meaning of faith, which I shared in the post where I refer to the public accepted meaning of faith.

The DEFINITION of faith,
... its shared understanding or 'official meaning', as the good old 'webster', among others, establishes,
... IS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.

Without an agreed upon common understanding of the words we use in our communications, no coherent exchanges could ever take place between any of us.

So, by our general agreed upon definition of faith: not based on fact nor reason, faith is instrumental in representing what is 'personally' true for each one of us, but faith was never meant (no basis in faith) to represent THE (SAME) TRUTH FOR ALL OF US!!!

And that last part is what protestant fundamentalists are transgressing permanently: their truth is the truth for all. It is the illegitimacy of discourse that I am pointing to here. And it is ultimately what this thread points to as a virus, ... that may have have found a cure!!!

Sorry!!! 'premature' posting!

You really seem to be struggling with this one 'funches'!

FAITH:
belief NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY PROOF;
spiritual acceptance of truth or realities NOT CERTIFIED BY REASON; which apply to BELIEF IN 'GOD';
BELIEF IN THE DOCTRINES OR TEACHINGS OF A RELIGION.

That's what faith is. That is the consensual understanding we share when it comes to the public accepted meaning of faith.
While some may have a different personal interpretation, personal meaning, etc., it is irrelevant outside of the private and personal domains. In the public domain, FAITH IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY PROOF, and NOT CERTIFIED BY REASON.

When one comes up with statements such as : '... What is FACT is what the bible claims within it's writings...', ONE THEN ENGAGES IN AN ILLEGITIMATE DISCOURSE! (... not rightly deduced or inferred, ILLOGICAL).

So, faith, as it understood in the public domain, is a perfectly legitimate experience.

What becomes illegitimate, is suggesting that YOUR faith is substantiated by fact, through 'claims' within 'writings', of a 'book' that is the source of your faith, which, even if it is your faith, it is still part of faith: beliefs unsubstantiated by proof!!!

... NO!!!

For 0,5 second straight, I thought you had an epiphany!!! And then my brain kick-in!

You are suggesting that that the 'claims' within the writings of the book are facts : '... What is fact is what the bible claims within it's writings...'.

I said: '... The only facts about your comment above, is that there is this 'book', which some people a while back called the 'bible', which contains a bunch of words, over which words people have a lot of heated and diverging opinions. That's about it on the fact front...'.

Claims are not facts, and 'writings' in a book, do not make 'claims' facts!!!

All there is as 'fact', is a 'book' used by a lot of people to base their personal beliefs upon through personal faith. The beliefs are based on faith. The claims are based on faith. And 'one's' interpretation of the writings as the true word of one's god' is again based on faith.

The claims are not facts!!! Through faith, YOU Eljay BELIEVE them to be true for YOU!!! And that is just you. When you imply that it is true period, that becomes an illegitimate statement: incorrectly derived, illogical.

True for YOU: yes!!! Just plain true as you keep implying: NO!!!

So, I'll send this message, close my eyes, and hope that you will have had a real epiphany when I open my eyes and read your reply.

Dear Eljay, if you sincerely suggest that your comment above is 'FACT', I rest my case in the matter of confusing fact and faith. And you win the title of Master Prestigitator!!!

The only facts about your comment above, is that there is this 'book', which some people a while back called the 'bible', which contains a bunch of words, over which words people have a lot of heated and diverging opinions. That's about it on the fact front.

With respect to the 'claims' the 'book' has been making for some 1700 odd years, well they're just that: CLAIMS!!! And all rational people can tell the difference between a claim and a fact.

The meaning(s) or the the claim(s) of the 'book' are not 'magically' factual, just because the material form of the 'book' is!!! That is prestidigitation my friend!!!

Besides the fact that the 'book' of a bunch of words exists, the other fact I would agree with, is that you Eljay,
- have interpreted some of the claims made in the 'book',
and through faith, and exclusively for YOURSELF,
- have elevated those claims to the special and personal domain of BELIEFS: that which constitutes something to be TRUE FOR YOU.

To jump the line and call the claims of the 'book' 'FACTUAL', implying that it should be accepted as 'FACT' by all, is seriously illegitimate, as I pointed out in an earlier post.

No need to go much further at this point.

Back to you my master magician friend. :)

MSHARMONY WROTE:



msharmony, you keep insisting in being part of the problem when in fact you're not.

The virus is 'christian fundamentalism', ...
(when christianity takes a radical, fanatical or extremist turn, and it does)
... a specific and isolated component of christianity, and not all of christianity and every christian in it!!!

This thread is about radicalism, fundamentalism, and extremism and its relation with all religions, and with christianity in particular because it is the dominant religion in North America. The harm done when religion, christian in our case, turns radical.

And yes, it is the religion that turns radical and appeals to a minority of its more fanaticism prone adherents.
An individual mind doesn't live in a vacuum! As the 'protestant fundamentalism code' would have them all 'believe'!!!

All 'individual minds' are 'fed' and influenced by surrounding mentalities. When that mentality takes the form of religious dogma, litteralism, fundamentalism, some of the more vulnerable or fragile 'individual minds' have been known to adopt it without question.

'protestant fundamentalism' perfectly fits this kind of 'individual mind feeding' radical and harmful mentality.

Can you not see the difference between a radical, fanatical, and fundamentalist christian and yourself?

There is no possible dialogue with a fundamentalist of any kind, which includes CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS; the hardcore 'litteralist' fringe of the christian 'family'.

You're not one of them! Stop insisting on denying that fact.

Nothing is being said in this thread about christians WHOM HAVE NOT BEEN 'zombified' by the 'protestant fundamentalism' dogma.

Stop defending yourself msharmony.

We're metaphorically talking about a cousin of yours that is hit by a serious mental disorder. Nowhere does that imply that YOU are also a victim of this mental disorder, ... just because you share the same family name!!!

What say you msharmony?!?!?

These are some of the most refreshing and hopeful words I have read in these religious forums in the couple of years I've been around.

The luminous side of human nature seems to be fighting back the 'virus'!!!

Great finds 'middelearthing'.

It could have been made clearer perhaps, but taking only part of the sentence as you do, loses it all together.

What the whole sentence implies, is that it is perfectly illegitimate to suggest that what is true for oneself, is THE TRUTH FOR ALL.

Illegitimate here, as in : not rightly deduced or inferred, ILLOGICAL.

While certain individuals' personal faith and beliefs can very well bring them to hold certain pieces of christian dogma as what is true for them, it is 'illegitimate' for those same people to derive that 'what is true for them' is THE TRUTH for all.

Eljay wrote earlier:


'Inspired of god' and 'men moved by the holy spirit', is by no means true or 'THE TRUTH' as it seems to be implied above.
It is strictly what 'some' hold as true for themselves through faith and a certain system of beliefs. In reality, those statements belongs to myths, religious doctrine and BELIEFS, and religious dogma. None of it has ever been validated, nor should it be!!!

To keep insisting that 'INSPIRED OF GOD' has to be true, so that it can conveniently make 'THE WORD' of the bible infallibly 'THE WORD OF ALL WORDS, THE TRUTH OF ALL TRUTHS', is self-serving and grossly ILLEGITIMATE.

Statements from Eljay's previous post:


Illegitimate. Trickery!!! IMHO.

You can't discuss faith as though it were fact! We'll end-up with 'creationists' operating on brain tumors with psalms and hymns!

Some can't pretend a factual 'god', with infallible words, who inspired certain men to write a 'book', simply to satisfy their insatiable need for certainty!!!

Stop confusing faith and fact. Leave faith in the 'personal faith' domain. Don't illegitimately carry it to the PUBLIC domain of fact and logic. Ultimately, simply don't take faith 'litterally', and everything will be fine and dandy!!!