Although an atheist myself, it gives me some pause for thought when considering that evidence of an advanced sense of the divine, the supernatural, the spiritual, exists only among even the earliest settlements of the species Homo Sapiens. No such evidence of this advanced sense is found at any settlement of our species’ closest (and once coexisting) relatives within the human genus group.

It seems that this advanced sense of the divine (or the numinous) is the clearest and earliest manifestation of Homo Sapiens’ unique nature and ultimately superior intellect over its, now all extinct, closest relatives.

Probably it is this religious instinct, innate in our species, which causes us to reach out beyond the self and beyond the mundane and sensibly evident, which now manifests itself in our worship of reason.

Our genetic need to worship, therefore, has not been denied, only its object, for many, has morphed.

It is the need to worship something beyond the boundaries of manifested self and beyond its immediate and simplest relationship to the other, which ultimately reconciles (by dissolving the abyss of diametric opposition) the priest and the scientist.

Intriguing that the acts of intense worship (both religious and secular) imitate the affectations of the autistic...

Or is it that the way out of the self (essential for the act of worship) manifests as apparent autistic absorption into the self?

Is a degree of autism a prerequisite for intense worship?

We do not have a need to worship and you are not an atheist.

We have a need to learn and some have a need to explain things.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 9:37am:

We do not have a need to worship and you are not an atheist. We have a need to learn and some have a need to explain things. SOB

The act of inquiring into the manifestation of religiosity and its possible relationship to secular pursuits, is beyond the necessarily specific acts of theism or atheism, it is the specific act of one who inquires without prejudice.

Consider the scientist who gives up all in pursuit of his discipline and the priest or pilgrim who does the same. The genesis of both, I believe, is one, and deeply innate in our species alone.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 9:18am:

Intriguing that the acts of intense worship (both religious and secular) imitate the affectations of the autistic... Or is it that the way out of the self (essential for the act of worship) manifests as apparent autistic absorption into the self? Is a degree of autism a prerequisite for intense worship?

How do you figure that?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 9:46am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 9:18am: Intriguing that the acts of intense worship (both religious and secular) imitate the affectations of the autistic... Or is it that the way out of the self (essential for the act of worship) manifests as apparent autistic absorption into the self? Is a degree of autism a prerequisite for intense worship? How do you figure that?

Compare the affectations of religious pilgrims or the eccentricities of many secular intellectuals with the ritualistic and highly focussed acts of the autistic.

It is now generally accepted that Einstein had a form of high functioning autism - Asperger's syndrome.

Is this the worship you are talking about?

Because if you feel an innate need to worship then you are not an atheist.

Saying that everyone has this innate need is just projection from yourself or whoevers writing you are getting it from.

Why would this be in the atheism section?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 10:04am:

Is this the worship you are talking about? Because if you feel an innate need to worship then you are not an atheist. Saying that everyone has this innate need is just projection from yourself or whoevers writing you are getting it from. Why would this be in the atheism section? SOB

I am using the term 'worship' in a generic sense beyond the specific reference to adoration of a deity.

Even antitheists such as the late Hitchens admitted to having a sense of 'the numinous' and a love for it.

It is true that not everyone necessarily manifests a sense of wonder or overtly worships anything (some of us are dull of mind but who may yet betray a need to worship through non-intellectual or non-religious pursuits)... I'm referring to those who do either through secular pursuits or driven by a sense of the religious and I'm suggesting that the need which drives both may be the same.

A degree of autism isn't a prerequisite for intense worship. How does intense worship differ from any other kind of obsessive behaviour at the most basic level?

Ritualistic behaviours in people with Autism are usually a manifestation of anxiety or are caused by sensory issues. When my daughter was little she could spin to music in a circle for ages if we allowed it - she could have gone on for hours.

Is withdrawal necessarily an absorption into the self? I'm not convinced about that.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 10:12am:

A degree of autism isn't a prerequisite for intense worship. How does intense worship differ from any other kind of obsessive behaviour at the most basic level?

I wonder how pilgrims crawl on all fours for years to a religious site or the scientist who pursues a theory over decades manages to maintain such extreme focus... The only other personality types capable of this kind of intense focus are those with some degree of autism.


Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 10:12am:

Is withdrawal necessarily an absorption into the self? I'm not convinced about that.

Into where else would they be withdrawing?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 10:12am:

Is withdrawal necessarily an absorption into the self? I'm not convinced about that.

Also, what I believe the autistic discovers (often - at least initially - to their horror) is that withdrawal into the self ultimately leads to the dissolution of the self... That the existential experience of complete absorption into the self leads ultimately not to a sense of separation, but to union.

How do you explain sudden religious conversion? I can't think of a case of autism that has suddenly developed in an otherwise typical adult as a result of stimuli.

Some of the most intensely religious devotees are converts. In these cases, does the degree of autism associated with intense worship lie dormant until there is some kind of trigger?



Quote:

Into where else would they be withdrawing?

I don't think people with Autism are necessarily withdrawing into anything.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 10:21am:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 10:12am: Is withdrawal necessarily an absorption into the self? I'm not convinced about that. Also, what I believe the autistic discovers (often - at least initially - to their horror) is that withdrawal into the self ultimately leads to the dissolution of the self... That the existential experience of complete absorption into the self leads ultimately not to a sense of separation, but to union.

Would you mind dumbing this down for me - I'm not sure what you mean.

A union with what? Self?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 10:27am:

How do you explain sudden religious conversion? I can't think of a case of autism that has suddenly developed in an otherwise typical adult as a result of stimuli. Some of the most intensely religious devotees are converts. In these cases, does the degree of autism associated with intense worship lie dormant until there is some kind of trigger?

I don't know, but I'm intrigued that the phenomenological manifestations of autism and intense devotion to either religious or secular pursuits are the same. Does autism stimulate parts of the brain that are in tact and are those parts of the brain so stimulated the same as deployed within the mind of the non-autistic intensely focussed?


Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 10:27am:

Quote: Into where else would they be withdrawing? I don't think people with Autism are necessarily withdrawing into anything.

And yet it is separation from the world and from the other that they intensely desire, which is the exact same desire of those who pursue a subject (religious or secular) with intense focus.

You're on to something here, NorthOfNorth.
The need to believe, or worship, or pursue something, whether it be religious or secular in nature, springs from the same instinct. An intimate dialectical relationship between the self and world.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 10:29am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 10:21am: Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 10:12am: Is withdrawal necessarily an absorption into the self? I'm not convinced about that. Also, what I believe the autistic discovers (often - at least initially - to their horror) is that withdrawal into the self ultimately leads to the dissolution of the self... That the existential experience of complete absorption into the self leads ultimately not to a sense of separation, but to union. Would you mind dumbing this down for me - I'm not sure what you mean. A union with what? Self?

A union with what eastern religions would call 'the one'... That which is beyond self and non-self (in the eastern context).

Experimenters with LSD stepped into that realm (without any requisite training of the experience) by the effects of the drug's inhibition of the mind's ability to distinguish boundaries between self and other.

Some find this experience terrifying, others find it liberating.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 10:37am:

You're on to something here, NorthOfNorth. The need to believe, or worship, or pursue something, whether it be religious or secular in nature, springs from the same instinct. An intimate dialectical relationship between the self and world.

Maybe in some. Some have a "need" to worship maybe. Most do not have any such "need". I dont have any need to "worship" any deity or "believe" anything in particular. Generalisations.

The human is born with a need to learn. Not believe or worship or obsess.

SOB

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 10:37am:

You're on to something here, NorthOfNorth. The need to believe, or worship, or pursue something, whether it be religious or secular in nature, springs from the same instinct. An intimate dialectical relationship between the self and world.

Yes. I believe the experience of the possibility of union (where it is assumed by the devotee - secular or religious - that truth will be revealed) is what lies at the heart of our species' innate sense of the need to worship... We are in fact worshipping a sense of knowing truth, even if we also intuit that we can never achieve it.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 10:42am:

The human is born with a need to learn. Not believe or worship or obsess.

What is that need?

How does it manifest when its objective is great?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 10:46am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 10:42am: The human is born with a need to learn. Not believe or worship or obsess. What is that need? How does it manifest when its objective is great?

By not knowing anything. Have you ever seen a baby? They have to learn not to stick their hand on the hotplate. Not just humans either.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 10:48am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 10:46am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 10:42am: The human is born with a need to learn. Not believe or worship or obsess. What is that need? How does it manifest when its objective is great? By not knowing anything. Have you ever seen a baby? They have to learn not to stick their hand on the hotplate. Not just humans either. SOB

You haven't answered my questions.

Quote:

And yet it is separation from the world and from the other that they intensely desire, which is the exact same desire of those who pursue a subject (religious or secular) with intense focus.

Aren't people who pursue a religious or secular goal focusing on some kind of outcome? There is a method to their madness. What happens when they achieve their goal? I don't think this is the same with autistic people. They are withdrawing from disturbing stimuli, not intensely focused on an end point.

The common denominator is the ability of human beings to work with abstract concepts. It's a consequence of a highly developed cerebral cortex.

It comes at the cost of instability. There can be parallels with withdrawal in thinkers and autism, but a very small proportion of autistic people, known as autistic savants have enhanced cognitive ability. The type of autism known as Asperger's Syndrome is particularly associated with  savants.

Some of the most influential thinkers in history were bordering on that condition. Einstein is a prime example.

Stephen Hawking did not suffer from autism, but had no choice but to withdraw into the workings of his mind as a result of his motor neuron disease.

The common element is the cerebral cortex, and the use of it, and like any other body part, the more you use it, the more developed it becomes. With the brain, it's the neural pathways that become defined as opposed to muscles. Also in general terms,  the body tends to compensate for  malfunction of an organ or part of an organ by improved function in other senses.  With Hawking, the brain no longer performs the task of controlling a wide range of bodily functions, and consequently abstract thought processes were enhanced. I think that is the key.   

Just for laughs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdI_MmN-Lp4

Annie Anthrax wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 10:52am:

Quote: And yet it is separation from the world and from the other that they intensely desire, which is the exact same desire of those who pursue a subject (religious or secular) with intense focus. Aren't people who pursue a religious or secular goal focusing on some kind of outcome? There is a method to their madness. What happens when they achieve their goal? I don't think this is the same with autistic people. They are withdrawing from disturbing stimuli, not intensely focused on an end point.

Wouldn't their end point be determined by an intense desire for separation from the other?

Isn't their goal the ultimate and complete separation from the other? Bearing in mind they don't intellectualise their goal, they are just instinctively drawn to it. What they 'worship' as it were (in the form of intense desire) is the need for absolute separation.

muso wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 10:58am:

The common element is the cerebral cortex, and the use of it, and like any other body part, the more you use it, the more developed it becomes. With the brain, it's the neural pathways that become defined as opposed to muscles. Also in general terms,  the body tends to compensate for  malfunction of an organ or part of an organ by improved function in other senses.  With Hawking, the brain no longer performs the task of controlling a wide range of bodily functions, and consequently abstract thought processes were enhanced. I think that is the key.

And it is apparent that the advanced development of the cerebral cortex which occurred in homo sapiens and much less so in other humanoid species is that which distinguished us from those other species. One manifestation of this is the desire to reach out beyond the self and its simple interactions with the world and the other, to a greater (even counter-intuitive) reality. What drives our species to believe such a reality exists? An intense sense of wonder, that quickly manifests as worship of 'the numinous', the supernatural or 'the divine'?

By the way, re the connection with worship and religiosity, this is just another example of the use of abstract concepts, and most religious leaders are very intelligent.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 10:50am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 10:48am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 10:46am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 10:42am: The human is born with a need to learn. Not believe or worship or obsess. What is that need? How does it manifest when its objective is great? By not knowing anything. Have you ever seen a baby? They have to learn not to stick their hand on the hotplate. Not just humans either. SOB You haven't answered my questions.

Uhhh yes i did. What is that need? The need to learn because they dont know anything.

How does it manifest? by putting their hand on the hotplate and learning not to because it burns them.

Oh I guess i didnt address the "objective" well the objective is to stay alive isnt it.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 11:10am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 10:50am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 10:48am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 10:46am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 10:42am: The human is born with a need to learn. Not believe or worship or obsess. What is that need? How does it manifest when its objective is great? By not knowing anything. Have you ever seen a baby? They have to learn not to stick their hand on the hotplate. Not just humans either. SOB You haven't answered my questions. Uhhh yes i did. What is that need? The need to learn because they dont know anything. How does it manifest? by putting their hand on the hotplate and learning not to because it burns them. Oh I guess i didnt address the "objective" well the objective is to stay alive isnt it. SOB

You're going to get bogged down here... How do they know they don't know anything?

What is that need?

How does it manifest when its objective is great?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 11:10am:

muso wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 10:58am: The common element is the cerebral cortex, and the use of it, and like any other body part, the more you use it, the more developed it becomes. With the brain, it's the neural pathways that become defined as opposed to muscles. Also in general terms,  the body tends to compensate for  malfunction of an organ or part of an organ by improved function in other senses.  With Hawking, the brain no longer performs the task of controlling a wide range of bodily functions, and consequently abstract thought processes were enhanced. I think that is the key.    And it is apparent that the advanced development of the cerebral cortex which occurred in homo sapiens and much less so in other humanoid species is that which distinguished us from those other species. One manifestation of this is the desire to reach out beyond the self and its simple interactions with the world and the other, to a greater (even counter-intuitive) reality. What drives our species to believe such a reality exists? An intense sense of wonder, that quickly manifests as worship of 'the numinous', the supernatural or 'the divine'?

SOME of our species. Not all.

SOB

muso wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 11:10am:

By the way, re the connection with worship and religiosity, this is just another example of the use of abstract concepts, and most religious leaders are very intelligent.

If worship can be defined as the manifestation of intense desire or intense love, then its use transcends religiosity in the theistic sense of the term.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 11:12am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 11:10am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 10:50am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 10:48am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 10:46am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 10:42am: The human is born with a need to learn. Not believe or worship or obsess. What is that need? How does it manifest when its objective is great? By not knowing anything. Have you ever seen a baby? They have to learn not to stick their hand on the hotplate. Not just humans either. SOB You haven't answered my questions. Uhhh yes i did. What is that need? The need to learn because they dont know anything. How does it manifest? by putting their hand on the hotplate and learning not to because it burns them. Oh I guess i didnt address the "objective" well the objective is to stay alive isnt it. SOB You're going to get bogged down here... How do they know they don't know anything? What is that need? How does it manifest when its objective is great?

What? A baby doesnt know anything. I dont know if it knows it doesnt know anything but prolly not since it doesnt know anything.

Perhaps since you cant wrap your head around my answer you should rephrase the question.

What do you mean im going to get bogged down? You are the one thats bogged down asking the same questions over and over and not reading the answers.

SOB

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 11:15am:

muso wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 11:10am: By the way, re the connection with worship and religiosity, this is just another example of the use of abstract concepts, and most religious leaders are very intelligent. If worship can be defined as the manifestation of intense desire or intense love, then its use transcends religiosity in the theistic sense of the term.

But that isnt the commonly used definition of worship is it. Its used as a religious term in relation to deities.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 11:13am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 11:10am: muso wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 10:58am: The common element is the cerebral cortex, and the use of it, and like any other body part, the more you use it, the more developed it becomes. With the brain, it's the neural pathways that become defined as opposed to muscles. Also in general terms,  the body tends to compensate for  malfunction of an organ or part of an organ by improved function in other senses.  With Hawking, the brain no longer performs the task of controlling a wide range of bodily functions, and consequently abstract thought processes were enhanced. I think that is the key.    And it is apparent that the advanced development of the cerebral cortex which occurred in homo sapiens and much less so in other humanoid species is that which distinguished us from those other species. One manifestation of this is the desire to reach out beyond the self and its simple interactions with the world and the other, to a greater (even counter-intuitive) reality. What drives our species to believe such a reality exists? An intense sense of wonder, that quickly manifests as worship of 'the numinous', the supernatural or 'the divine'? SOME of our species. Not all. SOB

Yes, some of us are intellectually incapacitated or dull. But, I believe, even they will in some form express an instinct towards a need to worship something (in the form of intense desire for metaphysical meaning)... The insufficient sense of which is primarily the lament of those afflicted with severe depression and despair.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 11:16am:

What? A baby doesnt know anything. I dont know if it knows it doesnt know anything but prolly not since it doesnt know anything. Perhaps since you cant wrap your head around my answer you should rephrase the question. What do you mean im going to get bogged down? You are the one thats bogged down asking the same questions over and over and not reading the answers. SOB

No, you're completely missing the point...

If a baby is not born with an innate, a priori, intense desire to apprehend truth or meaning, (or if born with a severe intellectual deficit) it would not be motivated to learn beyond sating its most primal needs and, without intense intervention by the other, it would most likely die.

Have you seen the series about the chimpanzees in the Japanese research organisation that can identify the location and order of nine numbers in something like 30 milliseconds?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 11:19am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 11:13am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 11:10am: muso wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 10:58am: The common element is the cerebral cortex, and the use of it, and like any other body part, the more you use it, the more developed it becomes. With the brain, it's the neural pathways that become defined as opposed to muscles. Also in general terms,  the body tends to compensate for  malfunction of an organ or part of an organ by improved function in other senses.  With Hawking, the brain no longer performs the task of controlling a wide range of bodily functions, and consequently abstract thought processes were enhanced. I think that is the key.    And it is apparent that the advanced development of the cerebral cortex which occurred in homo sapiens and much less so in other humanoid species is that which distinguished us from those other species. One manifestation of this is the desire to reach out beyond the self and its simple interactions with the world and the other, to a greater (even counter-intuitive) reality. What drives our species to believe such a reality exists? An intense sense of wonder, that quickly manifests as worship of 'the numinous', the supernatural or 'the divine'? SOME of our species. Not all. SOB Yes, some of us are intellectually incapacitated or dull. But, I believe, even they will in some form express an instinct towards a need to worship something (in the form of intense desire for metaphysical meaning)... The insufficient sense of which is primarily the lament of those afflicted with severe depression and despair.

Intellectually incapacitated or dull? lol. An "intense desire for metaphysical meaning" is not anything to do with intellect according to you. You are saying it is an innate need. In which case I can only assume you are trying to insult me.

the word worship is primarily used as a religious term. Its the way ppl understand the word. Trying to change the meaning and context just confuses the issues but its still a religious term and we are not born with any need for religion. Nor are any other animals.

SOB

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 11:15am:

muso wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 11:10am: By the way, re the connection with worship and religiosity, this is just another example of the use of abstract concepts, and most religious leaders are very intelligent. If worship can be defined as the manifestation of intense desire or intense love, then its use transcends religiosity in the theistic sense of the term.

Agreed. In another thread, I brought up the subject of religious naturalism.

muso wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 11:24am:

Have you seen the series about the chimpanzees in the Japanese research organisation that can identify the location and order of nine numbers in something like 30 milliseconds?

No, but I've seen similar films... Of course no chimpanzee displays any need to worship the banana god, nor manifests an intense desire to apprehend the meaning of banananess or the cause of their existence.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 11:26am:

Intellectually incapacitated or dull? lol. An "intense desire for metaphysical meaning" is not anything to do with intellect according to you. You are saying it is an innate need. In which case I can only assume you are trying to insult me. SOB

In a way, I agree with both of you. A baby has a very receptive and "plastic" brain, but it requires input or it will atrophy and probably die.  Intelligence is a combination of nature and nurture. Any brain will benefot from exercise, but some brains are more receptive than others.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 11:26am:

Intellectually incapacitated or dull? lol. An "intense desire for metaphysical meaning" is not anything to do with intellect according to you. You are saying it is an innate need. In which case I can only assume you are trying to insult me.

Just having a little dig, sorry... But I'd question your claim to not having a desire to believe anything. You're contradicted by your need to defend your beliefs on this forum which, I'm sure, will become more intense as this enquiry develops.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 11:21am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 11:16am: What? A baby doesnt know anything. I dont know if it knows it doesnt know anything but prolly not since it doesnt know anything. Perhaps since you cant wrap your head around my answer you should rephrase the question. What do you mean im going to get bogged down? You are the one thats bogged down asking the same questions over and over and not reading the answers. SOB No, you're completely missing the point... If a baby is not born with an innate, a priori, intense desire to apprehend truth or meaning, (or if born with a severe intellectual deficit) it would not be motivated to learn beyond sating its most primal needs and, without intense intervention by the other, it would most likely die.

A baby is born concerned with survival. the need to learn comes from that need to survive. Until they learn enough to actually survive that is pretty much the only need. In nature this is as far as it goes because then they would learn to fend for themselves and stay alive in a hostile environment. However in these times of civilisation most of that is taken away and some develop interests in other things.

I am not sure what you mean by a need for "truth" since a baby or a young child have no concept of "truth" or meaning. They learn that as they go along and find out that touching the hotplate means intense pain.

Some ppl get curious or even obsessed with "meanings" or "truth" and some get mixed up in religions and stuff in their quest. Some do not. Since we are taught in school @ a young age now where we came from it isnt that much of a mystery.

SOB

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 11:27am:

muso wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 11:24am: Have you seen the series about the chimpanzees in the Japanese research organisation that can identify the location and order of nine numbers in something like 30 milliseconds? No, but I've seen similar films... Of course no chimpanzee displays any need to worship the banana god, nor manifests an intense desire to apprehend the meaning of banananess or the cause of their existence.

I think that a lot of the dualist concepts in humans arise from the fact that we essentially have a primitive brain (which some call the heart) and a cerebral cortex. The "primitive" brain is just as capable of enhanced development as the cerebral cortex, and in a chimpanzee, there is far less "backchatter" so that speed of processing is enhanced.

Our perceptual inputs come via the primitive brain, and the connection via the hypothalamus is baud limited, leading to what's known as reaction time. If processing is conducted at the primitive brain levels, reaction times are reduced.

Also Google muscle memory.   

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 11:37am:

However in these times of civilisation most of that is taken away and some develop interests in other things.

Why is that? Why does civilisation exist? How did it come to be?


Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 11:37am:

I am not sure what you mean by a need for "truth" since a baby or a young child have no concept of "truth" or meaning. They learn that as they go along and find out that touching the hotplate means intense pain.

Even non-humans manifest that degree of learning.


Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 11:37am:

Some ppl get curious or even obsessed with "meanings" or "truth" and some get mixed up in religions and stuff in their quest. Some do not.

If you did not have a desire towards knowing the truth, or defending what you believe to be true, why are you contributing to this forum?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 11:36am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 11:26am: Intellectually incapacitated or dull? lol. An "intense desire for metaphysical meaning" is not anything to do with intellect according to you. You are saying it is an innate need. In which case I can only assume you are trying to insult me. Just having a little dig, sorry... But I'd question your claim to not having a desire to believe anything. You're contradicted by your need to defend your beliefs on this forum which, I'm sure, will become more intense as this enquiry develops.

I am not defending any "beliefs" I am having discussions that keep degrading to meanings of words. I have opinions not beliefs anyway. Although I do have some knowledge in a couple particular fields which i am educated in and you will know if those come up anywhere haha.

As for my opinions they change with the wind. Generalisations piss me off. Sorry but they do. Thats why i keep getting in arguemnts instead of discussions. Because ppl generalise and try to put whole groups of ppl or even everyone into a box.

SOB

muso wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 11:40am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 11:27am: muso wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 11:24am: Have you seen the series about the chimpanzees in the Japanese research organisation that can identify the location and order of nine numbers in something like 30 milliseconds? No, but I've seen similar films... Of course no chimpanzee displays any need to worship the banana god, nor manifests an intense desire to apprehend the meaning of banananess or the cause of their existence. I think that a lot of the dualist concepts in humans arise from the fact that we essentially have a primitive brain (which some call the heart) and a cerebral cortex. The "primitive" brain is just as capable of enhanced development as the cerebral cortex, and in a chimpanzee, there is far less "backchatter" so that speed of processing is enhanced. Our perceptual inputs come via the primitive brain, and the connection via the hypothalamus is baud limited, leading to what's known as reaction time. If processing is conducted at the primitive brain levels, reaction times are reduced. Also Google muscle memory.

All true, no doubt... No one could (nor should) deny that biology underlies our capacity to even have innate desires. The manifestation of worship (as defined above) of truth, is only evident in homo sapiens, however.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 11:43am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 11:36am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 11:26am: Intellectually incapacitated or dull? lol. An "intense desire for metaphysical meaning" is not anything to do with intellect according to you. You are saying it is an innate need. In which case I can only assume you are trying to insult me. Just having a little dig, sorry... But I'd question your claim to not having a desire to believe anything. You're contradicted by your need to defend your beliefs on this forum which, I'm sure, will become more intense as this enquiry develops. I am not defending any "beliefs" I am having discussions that keep degrading to meanings of words. I have opinions not beliefs anyway. Although I do have some knowledge in a couple particular fields which i am educated in and you will know if those come up anywhere haha. As for my opinions they change with the wind. Generalisations piss me off. Sorry but they do. Thats why i keep getting in arguemnts instead of discussions. Because ppl generalise and try to put whole groups of ppl or even everyone into a box. SOB

You don't believe your own opinions? I doubt that.

If you detest generalisations, then you're admitting to a desire (perhaps an intense desire) for something beyond them. Or, if that is only your opinion for now, will you be arguing for them when the wind changes?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 11:43am:

I am not defending any "beliefs" I am having discussions that keep degrading to meanings of words. I have opinions not beliefs anyway. Although I do have some knowledge in a couple particular fields which i am educated in and you will know if those come up anywhere haha.

They always will. It's quite amusing to watch debates between "atheists" and Christians being fully aware that they are each operating under different definitions.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 11:41am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 11:37am: However in these times of civilisation most of that is taken away and some develop interests in other things. Why is that? Why does civilisation exist? How did it come to be? Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 11:37am: I am not sure what you mean by a need for "truth" since a baby or a young child have no concept of "truth" or meaning. They learn that as they go along and find out that touching the hotplate means intense pain. Even non-humans manifest that degree of learning. Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 11:37am: Some ppl get curious or even obsessed with "meanings" or "truth" and some get mixed up in religions and stuff in their quest. Some do not. If you did not have a desire towards knowing the truth, or defending what you believe to be true, why are you contributing to this forum?

1) We learned how to make tools to survive. As our lives got easier from the use of those tools we had more time to pursue other things.

3) I dont care much for objective "truth". Facts are facts and truth is opinion. I am here @ this time to engage in social discourse because i like this forum. Maybe I will learn stuff and maybe I wont. I am not looking for anything to "believe" though.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 11:51am:

1) We learned how to make tools to survive. As our lives got easier from the use of those tools we had more time to pursue other things.

Neanderthals didn't pursue other things (at least there's no evidence that they did much else than cater for immediate survival). There is, however, evidence that early homo sapiens did. Why was that?


Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 11:51am:

3) I dont care much for objective "truth". Facts are facts and truth is opinion. I am here @ this time to engage in social discourse because i like this forum. Maybe I will learn stuff and maybe I wont. I am not looking for anything to "believe" though.

So you wouldn't be too concerned about cliff edges then?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 11:49am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 11:43am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 11:36am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 11:26am: Intellectually incapacitated or dull? lol. An "intense desire for metaphysical meaning" is not anything to do with intellect according to you. You are saying it is an innate need. In which case I can only assume you are trying to insult me. Just having a little dig, sorry... But I'd question your claim to not having a desire to believe anything. You're contradicted by your need to defend your beliefs on this forum which, I'm sure, will become more intense as this enquiry develops. I am not defending any "beliefs" I am having discussions that keep degrading to meanings of words. I have opinions not beliefs anyway. Although I do have some knowledge in a couple particular fields which i am educated in and you will know if those come up anywhere haha. As for my opinions they change with the wind. Generalisations piss me off. Sorry but they do. Thats why i keep getting in arguemnts instead of discussions. Because ppl generalise and try to put whole groups of ppl or even everyone into a box. SOB You don't believe your own opinions? I doubt that. If you detest generalisations, then you're admitting to a desire (perhaps an intense desire) for something beyond them. Or, if that is only your opinion for now, will you be arguing for them when the wind changes?

Opinions are not beliefs @ least not in the context I am using the word. As much as you want them to be they are not. Opinions are judgments on things with insufficient evidence to make them facts. My opinions change.

i dont really understand that last question. I get the feeling I already answered it and you are asking again using different words.

What is your point? What are you trying to say? Enough of this manipulative wordy crap. Tell me your point.

SOB

muso wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 11:49am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 11:43am: I am not defending any "beliefs" I am having discussions that keep degrading to meanings of words. I have opinions not beliefs anyway. Although I do have some knowledge in a couple particular fields which i am educated in and you will know if those come up anywhere haha. They always will. It's quite amusing to watch debates between "atheists" and Christians being fully aware that they are each operating under different definitions.

Yeah

SOB

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 11:55am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 11:51am: 1) We learned how to make tools to survive. As our lives got easier from the use of those tools we had more time to pursue other things. Neanderthals didn't pursue other things (at least there's no evidence that they did much else than cater for immediate survival). There is, however, evidence that early homo sapiens did. Why was that? Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 11:51am: 3) I dont care much for objective "truth". Facts are facts and truth is opinion. I am here @ this time to engage in social discourse because i like this forum. Maybe I will learn stuff and maybe I wont. I am not looking for anything to "believe" though. So you wouldn't be too concerned about cliff edges then?

1) How should I know?

2) Cliff edges are facts not truths or beliefs.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 12:01pm:

Opinions are judgments on things with insufficient evidence to make them facts. My opinions change.

That is precisely a definition of belief.


Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 12:01pm:

i dont really understand that last question. I get the feeling I already answered it and you are asking again using different words. What is your point? What are you trying to say? Enough of this manipulative wordy crap. Tell me your point.

You said: "Generalisations piss me off".

I say "If they piss you off, then they must piss you off for a reason". i.e. For them to piss you off, you must have a (perhaps intense) desire for something beyond generalisations.

muso wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 11:49am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 11:43am: I am not defending any "beliefs" I am having discussions that keep degrading to meanings of words. I have opinions not beliefs anyway. Although I do have some knowledge in a couple particular fields which i am educated in and you will know if those come up anywhere haha. They always will. It's quite amusing to watch debates between "atheists" and Christians being fully aware that they are each operating under different definitions.

That's true only where those arguing cannot accept plasticity of meaning... That words must have an absolute meaning that cannot be transcended. Were that the case in reality words like 'awful' would still mean 'full of awe' and 'happy' would still mean 'lucky'. 'Hoodwink' wouldn't exist and calling someone 'naughty' would have your head kicked in.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 12:07pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 12:01pm: Opinions are judgments on things with insufficient evidence to make them facts. My opinions change. That is precisely a definition of belief. Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 12:01pm: i dont really understand that last question. I get the feeling I already answered it and you are asking again using different words. What is your point? What are you trying to say? Enough of this manipulative wordy crap. Tell me your point. You said: "Generalisations piss me off". I say "If they piss you off, then they must piss you off for a reason". i.e. For them to piss you off, you must have a (perhaps intense) desire for something beyond generalisations.

Okay @ belief but belief has connotations. I will use my word thanks.

I wouldn't go that far with generalisations. I certainly wouldn't call it "intense". Its just that they are wrong in most cases and nearly all cases where I have seen them used in this forum. Ppl dont fit in those boxes.

SOB

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 12:14pm:

muso wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 11:49am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 11:43am: I am not defending any "beliefs" I am having discussions that keep degrading to meanings of words. I have opinions not beliefs anyway. Although I do have some knowledge in a couple particular fields which i am educated in and you will know if those come up anywhere haha. They always will. It's quite amusing to watch debates between "atheists" and Christians being fully aware that they are each operating under different definitions. That's true only where those arguing cannot accept plasticity of meaning... That words must have an absolute meaning that cannot be transcended. Were that the case in reality words like 'awful' would still mean 'full of awe' and 'happy' would still mean 'lucky'. 'Hoodwink' wouldn't exist and calling someone 'naughty' would have your head kicked in.

The reason I am not accepting your "plasticity" is because you claimed to be an atheist and yet you are using the jargon of a religious nut. you are not accepting my definitions but expect me to accept yours and yours all have religious connotations.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 12:23pm:

The reason I am not accepting your "plasticity" is because you claimed to be an atheist and yet you are using the jargon of a religious nut. you are not accepting my definitions but expect me to accept yours and yours all have religious connotations.

Yes, I'm reclaiming terms from religiosity as the most forefront atheist thinkers, such as Hitchens, Dawkins and Dennett, have done.

I can easily accept your definitions, where you make them. However, the one in this thread you have made, is that for 'opinion', which you then define exactly as 'belief'. How am I to differentiate what you mean by 'opinion' with what I define as 'belief'?
All you say is that belief "has connotations", by that I'm guessing you mean religious connotations. I can accept that 'belief' (as you would define it) does not mean 'religious belief'. So far, though, all you've done is give me a synonym for belief.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 12:21pm:

I wouldn't go that far with generalisations. I certainly wouldn't call it "intense". Its just that they are wrong in most cases and nearly all cases where I have seen them used in this forum. Ppl dont fit in those boxes.

OK. So when you say "X pisses me off", you are not expressing a strong feeling. How would you express a strong (intense) feeling for or against a concept?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 10:42am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 10:37am: You're on to something here, NorthOfNorth. The need to believe, or worship, or pursue something, whether it be religious or secular in nature, springs from the same instinct. An intimate dialectical relationship between the self and world. Maybe in some. Some have a "need" to worship maybe. Most do not have any such "need". I dont have any need to "worship" any deity or "believe" anything in particular. Generalisations. The human is born with a need to learn. Not believe or worship or obsess. SOB

Human beings believe all sorts of things. It's impossible not to without conducting day to day affairs.
Our "need to learn" quickly morphs into the "belief in things." The more these beliefs are believed as true, the more "objective" they become.

Northern answer my question:

What is your point? What are you trying to say? Enough of this manipulative wordy crap. Tell me your point.

SOB

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 12:35pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 12:21pm: I wouldn't go that far with generalisations. I certainly wouldn't call it "intense". Its just that they are wrong in most cases and nearly all cases where I have seen them used in this forum. Ppl dont fit in those boxes. OK. So when you say "X pisses me off", you are not expressing a strong feeling. How would you express a strong (intense) feeling for or against a concept?

More wordy crap.

Do you not dislike it when ppl make assumptions about you? Hmmm? Thats what generalisations do. They make assumptions that everyone or all of a particular group are the same.

I dont know @ intense feeling brought on by a concept. It is yet to happen here. It has prolly happened sometime in the past I dunno but I dont remember it. Hasnt happened in this forum.

When are you going to answer my question?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 12:48pm:

Northern answer my question: What is your point? What are you trying to say? Enough of this manipulative wordy crap. Tell me your point. SOB

Read the OP and my following 2 posts.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 12:53pm:

Do you not dislike it when ppl make assumptions about you? Hmmm? Thats what generalisations do. They make assumptions that everyone or all of a particular group are the same. SOB

Good point. It annoys me a lot that when I state that I understand the science of global warming, they automatically assume that I'm left wing. Hopefully I've corrected that misconception now. 

"Atheists" can get similar assumptions, especially if they're dealing with Americans, who obviously work under a different definition.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 12:53pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 12:35pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 12:21pm: I wouldn't go that far with generalisations. I certainly wouldn't call it "intense". Its just that they are wrong in most cases and nearly all cases where I have seen them used in this forum. Ppl dont fit in those boxes. OK. So when you say "X pisses me off", you are not expressing a strong feeling. How would you express a strong (intense) feeling for or against a concept? More wordy crap.

;D

Reminds me of Kevin Kline's character Rod McCain in "Fierce Creatures".


Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 12:53pm:

Do you not dislike it when ppl make assumptions about you? Hmmm? Thats what generalisations do. They make assumptions that everyone or all of a particular group are the same.

I might not like it, but I wouldn't say it pisses me off.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 1:02pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 12:48pm: Northern answer my question: What is your point? What are you trying to say? Enough of this manipulative wordy crap. Tell me your point. SOB Read the OP and my following 2 posts.

Ahh yeah I remember now. You think we have an innate need to worship. Whatever word you use I still dont agree with that concept and you havent provided any alternative words without religious connotations anyway.

If we all have an innate need to worship - what do you worship?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 1:16pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 1:02pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 12:48pm: Northern answer my question: What is your point? What are you trying to say? Enough of this manipulative wordy crap. Tell me your point. SOB Read the OP and my following 2 posts. Ahh yeah I remember now. You think we have an innate need to worship. Whatever word you use I still dont agree with that concept and you havent provided any alternative words without religious connotations anyway.

I defined worship as the manifestation of intense desire.


Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 1:16pm:

If we all have an innate need to worship - what do you worship? SOB

Truth.

Gawd. I hate to ask this but i have to. How do you define "truth" ?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 1:24pm:

Gawd. I hate to ask this but i have to. How do you define "truth" ? SOB

I thought you only like one syllable answers to complex questions. (i.e. "no wordy crap") ;D

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 1:24pm:

Gawd. I hate to ask this but i have to. How do you define "truth" ? SOB

Anyway, How do I define "truth" ?... The immutable.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 1:24pm:

Gawd. I hate to ask this but i have to. How do you define "truth" ? SOB

The same way we [individually] decide 'what is white', and 'what is black' ?

Duh.

Yadda wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 1:30pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 1:24pm: Gawd. I hate to ask this but i have to. How do you define "truth" ? SOB The same way we [individually] decide 'what is white', and 'what is black' ? Duh.

And how do we decide?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 1:33pm:

Yadda wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 1:30pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 1:24pm: Gawd. I hate to ask this but i have to. How do you define "truth" ? SOB The same way we [individually] decide 'what is white', and 'what is black' ? Duh. And how do we decide?

I believe that my mother must have shown me examples of black, and white.

And i accepted her definition, AS MY OWN [for future reference].



But yes, [throughout life] we experience the world, AND, we make judgements, based upon our experiences.

Don't we ???

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 1:25pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 1:24pm: Gawd. I hate to ask this but i have to. How do you define "truth" ? SOB I thought you only like one syllable answers to complex questions. (i.e. "no wordy crap") ;D

Sometimes we all have to do things we dont particularly want to do. In this case I need to know what you mean.

SOB

Yadda wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 1:38pm:

I believe that my mother must have shown me examples of black, and white. And i accepted her definition, AS MY OWN [for future reference]. But yes, [throughout life] we experience the world, AND, we make judgements, based upon our experiences. Don't we ???

We do in the first instance... Notwithstanding that there are a myriad of probable truths that are counter-intuitive.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 1:28pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 1:24pm: Gawd. I hate to ask this but i have to. How do you define "truth" ? SOB Anyway, How do I define "truth" ?... The immutable.

You mean facts? Since "truth" seems to be subjective and mean different things to different ppl?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 1:44pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 1:25pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 1:24pm: Gawd. I hate to ask this but i have to. How do you define "truth" ? SOB I thought you only like one syllable answers to complex questions. (i.e. "no wordy crap") ;D Sometimes we all have to do things we dont particularly want to do. In this case I need to know what you mean. SOB

OK... here goes :

Truth is that which is immutable being contingent on nothing other than itself.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 1:46pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 1:28pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 1:24pm: Gawd. I hate to ask this but i have to. How do you define "truth" ? SOB Anyway, How do I define "truth" ?... The immutable. You mean facts? Since "truth" seems to be subjective and mean different things to different ppl? SOB

So truth is relative?

To quote Roger Scruton "People who tell you that truth is relative are asking you not to believe them... So don't" ;D

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 9:02am:

It is the need to worship something beyond the boundaries of manifested self and beyond its immediate and simplest relationship to the other, which ultimately reconciles (by dissolving the abyss of diametric opposition) the priest and the scientist.

Mankind, just look at our history
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1313024041/0#0

Quote:

Mankind, just look at our history Look, at the behaviour of mankind throughout history. Is our human behaviour, historically, indicative of 'something', about us which we innately can feel is true, even while we have no tangible evidence, of what many of us can feel ??? It is a fact, that for all of recorded human history [as an expression of man's desire to 'commune' with the 'gods'], man has built temples. And on a purely psycho-logical level, WHY is that? And to all of you 'rationalists' and 'scientists' out there!, ....even if you are an atheist, ....doesn't that behaviour say something about us [mankind] ? MANKIND'S FASCINATION WITH BUILDING TEMPLES [a house, for a 'god', to dwell in]...... ....Can i suggest, that mankind's compulsive behaviour in this regard, flows from an inner need, a subconscious need? [within physical man], to acknowledge another 'reality' which [indeed] many of us sense, ....i.e the existence of a [spiritual] God. Or, is mankind's inclination to 'temple building' a reflection of a flaw in our psyche ?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 1:51pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 1:46pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 1:28pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 1:24pm: Gawd. I hate to ask this but i have to. How do you define "truth" ? SOB Anyway, How do I define "truth" ?... The immutable. You mean facts? Since "truth" seems to be subjective and mean different things to different ppl? SOB So truth is relative? To quote Roger Scruton "People who tell you that truth is relative are asking you not to believe them... So don't" ;D

Heh. Well how can the "truth" be different for different ppl if its not "relative"? look @ a case of law. 2 witnesses and they each saw different things from their own perspectives. Which is the truth? Well usually it turns out both or neither and the "facts" are what can be proven.

SOB

Quote:

Look, at the behaviour of mankind throughout history

Thing is thats history. When we didnt know anything and assumed things were magical because we didnt know.

SOB

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 1:51pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 1:46pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 1:28pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 1:24pm: Gawd. I hate to ask this but i have to. How do you define "truth" ? SOB Anyway, How do I define "truth" ?... The immutable. You mean facts? Since "truth" seems to be subjective and mean different things to different ppl? SOB So truth is relative? To quote Roger Scruton "People who tell you that truth is relative are asking you not to believe them... So don't" ;D

Yes!

;D

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 1:58pm:

Heh. Well how can the "truth" be different for different ppl if its not "relative"? look @ a case of law. 2 witnesses and they each saw different things from their own perspectives. Which is the truth? Well usually it turns out both or neither and the "facts" are what can be proven. SOB

I think you answered your own question!

They all believe what they saw, but which is the truth? Implying that truth is beyond what we believe it to be. the best we can do is to hope we have apprehended the truth, with no expectation that we can ever be certain.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 2:03pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 1:58pm: Heh. Well how can the "truth" be different for different ppl if its not "relative"? look @ a case of law. 2 witnesses and they each saw different things from their own perspectives. Which is the truth? Well usually it turns out both or neither and the "facts" are what can be proven. SOB I think you answered your own question! They all believe what they saw, but which is the truth? Implying that truth is beyond what we believe it to be. the best we can do is to hope we have apprehended the truth, with no expectation that we can ever be certain.

To each his own. I just try to stick to facts then I dont have to worry about whose perspective of truth is right.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 2:06pm:

To each his own. I just try to stick to facts then I dont have to worry about whose perspective of truth is right.

By that statement you confirm that truth is not relative.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 2:00pm:

Quote: Look, at the behaviour of mankind throughout history Thing is thats history. When we didnt know anything and assumed things were magical because we didnt know. SOB

There is nothing, that is 'magical'.

Something is either real, or, it isn't!



Just like truth.

If something is not >> truth <<, then it is NOT truth.

And, it could be a falsehood.

Who decides what truth is ???

You do.

And i do.



AND, we all live our lives, based upon what >> we << hold to be true.

Don't we ???

Yadda wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 2:10pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 2:00pm: Quote: Look, at the behaviour of mankind throughout history Thing is thats history. When we didnt know anything and assumed things were magical because we didnt know. SOB There is nothing, that is 'magical'. Something is either real, or, it isn't! Just like truth. If something is not >> truth <<, then it is NOT truth. And, it could be a falsehood. Who decides what truth is ??? You do. And i do. AND, we all live our lives, based upon what >> we << hold to be true. Don't we ???

You start by stating that truth is absolute and end by stating that truth is relative.

Which is it?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 2:08pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 2:06pm: To each his own. I just try to stick to facts then I dont have to worry about whose perspective of truth is right. By that statement you confirm that truth is not relative.

I must have said it wrong then,

SOB

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 2:12pm:

Yadda wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 2:10pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 2:00pm: Quote: Look, at the behaviour of mankind throughout history Thing is thats history. When we didnt know anything and assumed things were magical because we didnt know. SOB There is nothing, that is 'magical'. Something is either real, or, it isn't! Just like truth. If something is not >> truth <<, then it is NOT truth. And, it could be a falsehood. Who decides what truth is ??? You do. And i do. AND, we all live our lives, based upon what >> we << hold to be true. Don't we ??? You start by stating that truth is absolute and end by stating that truth is relative. Which is it?

Truth is absolute.


In the same way that light, is absolutely light, and not darkness.

And like darkness, is absolutely darkness, and not light.




Like black is black.

And like white, is white.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 2:18pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 2:08pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 2:06pm: To each his own. I just try to stick to facts then I dont have to worry about whose perspective of truth is right. By that statement you confirm that truth is not relative. I must have said it wrong then, SOB

have another shot.

Quote:

There is nothing, that is 'magical'. Something is either real, or, it isn't!

Where exactly did I say there were magical things?


Quote:

Just like truth. If something is not >> truth <<, then it is NOT truth. And, it could be a falsehood. Who decides what truth is ??? You do. And i do. AND, we all live our lives, based upon what >> we << hold to be true. Don't we ???

No. You may. We all dont live or think the same.

Myself I try to stick to facts and let truth held by those who "need" to. One persons truth is not always anothers.

SOB

Quote:

Truth is absolute. In the same way that light, is absolutely light, and not darkness. And like darkness, is absolutely darkness, and not light. Like black is black. And like white, is white.

No. If you arent going to read my posts I am not going to bother retyping it all but different ppl may see different things. Most of us have an agreement with each other which color is red and which is green so we can use traffic lights but you cant be sure another persons red looks the same as yours. I say most because there are exceptions. Ppl who are blind or determined "colorblind" by others. They may see colors but what they see is too far removed from what most consider "normal". It doesnt make them wrong just different.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 2:22pm:

Myself I try to stick to facts and let truth held by those who "need" to. One persons truth is not always anothers.

Are facts not truths, by definition?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 2:22pm:

Quote: There is nothing, that is 'magical'. Something is either real, or, it isn't! Where exactly did I say there were magical things? [quote]Just like truth. If something is not >> truth <<, then it is NOT truth. And, it could be a falsehood. Who decides what truth is ??? You do. And i do. AND, we all live our lives, based upon what >> we << hold to be true. Don't we ???

No. You may. We all dont live or think the same.

Myself I try to stick to facts and let truth held by those who "need" to.


One persons truth is not always anothers.


SOB

[/quote]



No.

The truth, is the truth,  ......absolutely, and always.




But those who claim to be true, are often found to be liars.

But that circumstance, does not discredit what truth is [or even what >> the << truth is].

Does it ?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 2:19pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 2:18pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 2:08pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 2:06pm: To each his own. I just try to stick to facts then I dont have to worry about whose perspective of truth is right. By that statement you confirm that truth is not relative. I must have said it wrong then, SOB have another shot.

Geez.

I just try to stick to facts then I dont have to worry about different perspectives of truth.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 2:30pm:

Geez. I just try to stick to facts then I dont have to worry about different perspectives of truth. SOB

Aren't facts truths?

Yadda

You obviously missed this post


Quote:

Heh. Well how can the "truth" be different for different ppl if its not "relative"? look @ a case of law. 2 witnesses and they each saw different things from their own perspectives. Which is the truth? Well usually it turns out both or neither and the "facts" are what can be proven.

SOB

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 2:33pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 2:30pm: Geez. I just try to stick to facts then I dont have to worry about different perspectives of truth. SOB Aren't facts truths?

Only if you want to be semantic.

I draw the distinction that facts can be proved with evidence.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 2:34pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 2:33pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 2:30pm: Geez. I just try to stick to facts then I dont have to worry about different perspectives of truth. SOB Aren't facts truths? facts can be proved with evidence.

In an effort to determine... ?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 2:34pm:

Yadda You obviously missed this post Quote: Heh. Well how can the "truth" be different for different ppl if its not "relative"? look @ a case of law. 2 witnesses and they each saw different things from their own perspectives. Which is the truth? Well usually it turns out both or neither and the "facts" are what can be proven. SOB

SOB,

You missed my point [too].         ;)



Yadda wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 2:10pm:

Who decides what truth is ??? You do. And i do. AND, we all live our lives, based upon what >> we << hold to be true. Don't we ???

My point is, that truth does not change, due to our [human] perception  [  <------ which is always imperfect].

Again, the truth, is always, the truth.

Truth is absolute.



p.s.
And re those two witnesses......which one of the two witnesses testimony was proven to be closer to the 'truth' by the cctv footage ???        ;)

Hmmm ?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 2:36pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 2:34pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 2:33pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 2:30pm: Geez. I just try to stick to facts then I dont have to worry about different perspectives of truth. SOB Aren't facts truths? facts can be proved with evidence. In an effort to determine... ?

Picking on the words I use this time of day is just anal.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 2:47pm:

Picking on the words I use this time of day is just anal. SOB

Do you have a time slot for truth?

We're now at the core of what sets us apart, not only from all animals but (evidently) from all other hominids...

As a species, we have an innate belief that truth exists and an innate desire to know it - to be one with it - that is all pervading. Everything that defines us as unique is subject to it.

We seek it, we venerate it, we honour it, we worship it.

Why is it that a species is so afflicted?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 2:54pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 2:47pm: Picking on the words I use this time of day is just anal. SOB Do you have a time slot for truth? We're now at the core of what sets us apart, not only from all animals but (evidently) from all other hominids... As a species, we have an innate belief that truth exists and an innate desire to know it - to be one with it - that is all pervading. Everything that defines us as unique is subject to it. We seek it, we venerate it, we honour it, we worship it. How is it that a species can be so afflicted?

Absolutely!        ;D






John 18:37
......Jesus answered,......To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Yadda wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 3:00pm:

Absolutely!        ;D John 18:37 ......Jesus answered,......To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Well, that's where you and I part... That an ancient Palestinian can arrogate truth to himself, or to make himself truth in itself, is to make truth contingent upon being, less than what it is.

“So where can I find truth”? He asked.

“You must go north”, the tortoise replied.

“How far north”? He asked.

“As far north as you can go and then some”.

“What? North of North?”

“Yes”

“You mean… south”?

“No, I mean north of north”.

“Well how do I get there?”

“Just keep travelling north as far as it is possible to go, then head north from there”.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 3:02pm:

Yadda wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 3:00pm: Absolutely!        ;D John 18:37 ......Jesus answered,......To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Well, that's where you and I part... That an ancient Palestinian can arrogate truth to himself, or to make himself truth in itself, is to make truth contingent upon being, less than what it is.

All true.

IF, Jesus was merely a man.

You believe that.

I know that that belief is mistaken.

BUT, i can not prove that that is the truth.






Quote:

Conviction is the art of being certain

            ;)

Yadda wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 3:08pm:

I know that that belief is mistaken.

Define 'To know'.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 3:05pm:

“So where can I find truth”? He asked. “You must go north”, the tortoise replied. “How far north”? He asked. “As far north as you can go and then some”. “What? North of North?” “Yes” “You mean… south”? “No, I mean north of north”. “Well how do I get there?” “Just keep travelling north as far as it is possible to go, then head north from there”.

"But how will I know I've arrived?"

The tortoise replied, "Because you will know the truth".

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 3:11pm:

Yadda wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 3:08pm: I know that that belief is mistaken. Define 'To know'.

"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness."


NoN,

Everyone has 'to go' with their own experience.

I have no problem with that.

We all base our worldview, upon our own experiences.

IMO, that is a good, and valid 'position' to base our perceptions upon.



If you want more, you will have to search for it.


Read my sig line.

Yadda wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 3:19pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 3:11pm: Yadda wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 3:08pm: I know that that belief is mistaken. Define 'To know'. "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness." NoN, Everyone has 'to go' with their own experience. I have no problem with that. We all base our worldview, upon our own experiences. IMO, that is a good, and valid 'position' to base our perceptions upon. If you want more, you will have to search for it. Read my sig line.

"For we know in part and we prophesy in part".

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 3:11pm:

Yadda wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 3:08pm: I know that that belief is mistaken. Define 'To know'.

Define 'define'.

Soren wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 8:15pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 3:11pm: Yadda wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 3:08pm: I know that that belief is mistaken. Define 'To know'. Define 'define'.

It’s like Switzerland… They’re both not Belgium.

Quote:

“So where can I find truth”? He asked. “You must go north”, the tortoise replied.

Funny, I have never bothered to listen to what a frikin' tortoise has to say   :D
At least it is a physically existent object...even if people do have delusions of it speaking  ;D

You gotta make things like that clear to me y'know?
Otherwise I might take it as "gospel", like the real voices from the sky and stuff

Amadd wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 2:52am:

Quote: “So where can I find truth”? He asked. “You must go north”, the tortoise replied. Funny, I have never bothered to listen to what a frikin' tortoise has to say   :D At least it is a physically existent object...even if people do have delusions of it speaking  ;D You gotta make things like that clear to me y'know? Otherwise I might take it as "gospel", like the real voices from the sky and stuff

its tortoises all the way down.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 9:19pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 8:15pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 3:11pm: Yadda wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 3:08pm: I know that that belief is mistaken. Define 'To know'. Define 'define'. It’s like Switzerland… They’re both not Belgium.

The Swiss are just an educated version of the Belgians (not my joke)

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 2:54pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 2:47pm: Picking on the words I use this time of day is just anal. SOB Do you have a time slot for truth?

I see. Well its morning now. Your "truth" with its vague definitions (unless I am confusing you with yadda) sounds like your name for a deity. You are welcome to your god but take it out of the atheist section.

SOB

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 2:56pm:

We're now at the core of what sets us apart, not only from all animals but (evidently) from all other hominids... As a species, we have an innate belief that truth exists and an innate desire to know it - to be one with it - that is all pervading. Everything that defines us as unique is subject to it. We seek it, we venerate it, we honour it, we worship it. Why is it that a species is so afflicted?

Sorry - atheists dont believe in a deity.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 8:36am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 2:54pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 2:47pm: Picking on the words I use this time of day is just anal. SOB Do you have a time slot for truth? I see. Well its morning now. Your "truth" with its vague definitions (unless I am confusing you with yadda) sounds like your name for a deity. You are welcome to your god but take it out of the atheist section. SOB

Sorry to disabuse you, but atheists (atheist scientists at least like, yes, Dawkins) do believe in the existence of objective truth.

Do a google.

Many Religious Naturalists don't believe in Atheists either.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 8:37am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 2:56pm: We're now at the core of what sets us apart, not only from all animals but (evidently) from all other hominids... As a species, we have an innate belief that truth exists and an innate desire to know it - to be one with it - that is all pervading. Everything that defines us as unique is subject to it. We seek it, we venerate it, we honour it, we worship it. Why is it that a species is so afflicted? Sorry - atheists dont believe in a deity. SOB

Correct. Atheists disbelieve the proposition that god exists. However, atheists (as much as any other group) often given up their lives in the pursuit of truth... Just not religious 'truth'.

muso wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 9:40am:

Many Religious Naturalists don't believe in Atheists either.

Religious Naturalism... Always sounded to me like nudism for god.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 9:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 8:37am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 2:56pm: We're now at the core of what sets us apart, not only from all animals but (evidently) from all other hominids... As a species, we have an innate belief that truth exists and an innate desire to know it - to be one with it - that is all pervading. Everything that defines us as unique is subject to it. We seek it, we venerate it, we honour it, we worship it. Why is it that a species is so afflicted? Sorry - atheists dont believe in a deity. SOB Correct. Atheists disbelieve the proposition that god exists. However, atheists (as much as any other group) often given up their lives in the pursuit of truth... Just not religious 'truth'.

Yeah but you are making out that they are the same thing. giving the impression that they are the same thing. Just to justify your belief. You cant say what anyone else "believes" because you dont know. Changing the meanings of words does not make an atheist religious.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 10:16am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 9:40am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 8:37am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 2:56pm: We're now at the core of what sets us apart, not only from all animals but (evidently) from all other hominids... As a species, we have an innate belief that truth exists and an innate desire to know it - to be one with it - that is all pervading. Everything that defines us as unique is subject to it. We seek it, we venerate it, we honour it, we worship it. Why is it that a species is so afflicted? Sorry - atheists dont believe in a deity. SOB Correct. Atheists disbelieve the proposition that god exists. However, atheists (as much as any other group) often given up their lives in the pursuit of truth... Just not religious 'truth'. Yeah but you are making out that they are the same thing. giving the impression that they are the same thing. Just to justify your belief. You cant say what anyone else "believes" because you dont know. Changing the meanings of words does not make an atheist religious. SOB

No. What I am saying is that our species, probably alone on earth out of every species that has ever existed (including our hominid cousin species), has an instinct to believe. This belief manifests as worship (being intense desire) of its object, (or at the very least an acknowledgement that truth exists and is ubiquitous) be that religious or just truth itself (as in scientific or philosophical truth and NOT... that is NOT... religious 'truth').

There is a difference between (apparent) 'truth' revealed by religious belief as opposed to that revealed by the deployment scientific or philosophical or mathematical tenets. They are not all the same.

The common denominator in all instances, however, is the concept of truth.

Members of the species homo sapiens have the unique capacity (in fact a species sine-qua-non) to believe that truth(s) exist(s).

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 11:01am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 10:16am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 9:40am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 8:37am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 2:56pm: We're now at the core of what sets us apart, not only from all animals but (evidently) from all other hominids... As a species, we have an innate belief that truth exists and an innate desire to know it - to be one with it - that is all pervading. Everything that defines us as unique is subject to it. We seek it, we venerate it, we honour it, we worship it. Why is it that a species is so afflicted? Sorry - atheists dont believe in a deity. SOB Correct. Atheists disbelieve the proposition that god exists. However, atheists (as much as any other group) often given up their lives in the pursuit of truth... Just not religious 'truth'. Yeah but you are making out that they are the same thing. giving the impression that they are the same thing. Just to justify your belief. You cant say what anyone else "believes" because you dont know. Changing the meanings of words does not make an atheist religious. SOB No. What I am saying is that our species, probably alone on earth out of every species that has ever existed (including our hominid cousin species), has an instinct to believe. This belief manifests as worship (being intense desire) of its object, (or at the very least an acknowledgement that truth exists and is ubiquitous) be that religious or just truth itself (as in scientific or philosophical truth and NOT... that is NOT... religious 'truth'). There is a difference between (apparent) 'truth' revealed by religious belief as opposed to that revealed by the deployment scientific or philosophical or mathematical tenets. They are not all the same. The common denominator in all instances, however, is the concept of truth. Members of the species homo sapiens have the unique capacity (in fact a species sine-qua-non) to believe that truth(s) exist(s).

Yeah why do you have this intense need to define atheists as theists?

So an acknowledgment that truth exists is enough huh? Just shows my feeling of entrapment was right there.

So your god isnt the jesus or the allah or the vishnu. yours is the "true" god isnt it. the "truth".

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 11:21am:

Yeah why do you have this intense need to define atheists as theists? So an acknowledgment that truth exists is enough huh? Just shows my feeling of entrapment was right there. So your god isnt the jesus or the allah or the vishnu. yours is the "true" god isnt it. the "truth". SOB

I'd suggest you let this thread go... It looks like you're never going to comprehend the difference between religious 'truth' and truth.

As for non-theists and atheists pursuing truth... Stories are legion of those disbelievers in god (that's DISBELIEVERS in god), who give up their lives in pursuit of truth via their chosen discipline. And no, they are not religious.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 11:46am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 11:21am: Yeah why do you have this intense need to define atheists as theists? So an acknowledgment that truth exists is enough huh? Just shows my feeling of entrapment was right there. So your god isnt the jesus or the allah or the vishnu. yours is the "true" god isnt it. the "truth". SOB I'd suggest you let this thread go... It looks like you're never going to comprehend the difference between religious 'truth' and truth. As for non-theists and atheists pursuing truth... Stories are legion of those disbelievers in god (that's DISBELIEVERS in god), who give up their lives in pursuit of truth via their chosen discipline. And no, they are not religious.

And you consider them to be "worshiping" their chosen fields because everyone has an innate need to "worship"?

You say "truth" isnt religious yet all your explanations of it say it is. Ohhh  maybe wrong word? Not religious but "spiritual"? I bet thats it isnt it?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 12:18pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 11:46am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 11:21am: Yeah why do you have this intense need to define atheists as theists? So an acknowledgment that truth exists is enough huh? Just shows my feeling of entrapment was right there. So your god isnt the jesus or the allah or the vishnu. yours is the "true" god isnt it. the "truth". SOB I'd suggest you let this thread go... It looks like you're never going to comprehend the difference between religious 'truth' and truth. As for non-theists and atheists pursuing truth... Stories are legion of those disbelievers in god (that's DISBELIEVERS in god), who give up their lives in pursuit of truth via their chosen discipline. And no, they are not religious. And you consider them to be "worshiping" their chosen fields because everyone has an innate need to "worship"? You say "truth" isnt religious yet all your explanations of it say it is. Ohhh  maybe wrong word? Not religious but "spiritual"? I bet thats it isnt it? SOB

Yes, I contend that the innate need to worship is part of our species' chemistry.

No, my explanations state my belief that truth is objective and that religious 'truth' is not scientific truth. I know you can read, can you comprehend what you read?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 9:44am:

muso wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 9:40am: Many Religious Naturalists don't believe in Atheists either. Religious Naturalism... Always sounded to me like nudism for god.

LOL. That would be Religious Naturists. My first impression was more like David Attenborough worshipping nature.

LOL, don't worry SOB,  all "religious" terms have been hijacked. Why should traditional theists have the monopoly on words like "religion", "god", "spirituality" or even "worship", although the latter seems a bit contrived. All these words are rubbery, as is "atheism". We won't offend the traditional religions by hijacking their terminology - but if you would prefer to offend, go for it.

It's the AYBABTU syndrome recycled.  ;D (All your god are belong to us?)

I have always maintained that knowledge is "sacred", so I guess I can see where you're coming from wrt worship. From a Naturalistic Pantheistic point of view (nature=God=nature), the best way to appreciate the universe that we live in (including ourselves) is to study it. Is that worship? Could be.

muso wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 2:41pm:

LOL. That would be Religious Naturists.

Ah... yes


muso wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 2:41pm:

My first impression was more like David Attenborough worshipping nature.

Just not in the buff.


muso wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 2:41pm:

I have always maintained that knowledge is "sacred", so I guess I can see where you're coming from wrt worship. From a Naturalistic Pantheistic point of view (nature=God=nature), the best way to appreciate the universe that we live in (including ourselves) is to study it. Is that worship? Could be.

Maybe 'Worship' ain't ready to be wrenched from the gnarly hands of religiosity yet, particularly where it may lend itself to the sense of "blind intense desire" or an act of "blind faith".

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 12:18pm:

And you consider them to be "worshiping" their chosen fields because everyone has an innate need to "worship"? You say "truth" isnt religious yet all your explanations of it say it is. Ohhh  maybe wrong word? Not religious but "spiritual"? I bet thats it isnt it? SOB

I always find that it helps to make a cross with the index fingers of both hands when using such terms.   ;D

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 11:01am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 10:16am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 9:40am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 8:37am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 2:56pm: We're now at the core of what sets us apart, not only from all animals but (evidently) from all other hominids... As a species, we have an innate belief that truth exists and an innate desire to know it - to be one with it - that is all pervading. Everything that defines us as unique is subject to it. We seek it, we venerate it, we honour it, we worship it. Why is it that a species is so afflicted? Sorry - atheists dont believe in a deity. SOB Correct. Atheists disbelieve the proposition that god exists. However, atheists (as much as any other group) often given up their lives in the pursuit of truth... Just not religious 'truth'. Yeah but you are making out that they are the same thing. giving the impression that they are the same thing. Just to justify your belief. You cant say what anyone else "believes" because you dont know. Changing the meanings of words does not make an atheist religious. SOB No. What I am saying is that our species, probably alone on earth out of every species that has ever existed (including our hominid cousin species), has an instinct to believe. This belief manifests as worship (being intense desire) of its object, (or at the very least an acknowledgement that truth exists and is ubiquitous) be that religious or just truth itself (as in scientific or philosophical truth and NOT... that is NOT... religious 'truth'). There is a difference between (apparent) 'truth' revealed by religious belief as opposed to that revealed by the deployment scientific or philosophical or mathematical tenets. They are not all the same. The common denominator in all instances, however, is the concept of truth. Members of the species homo sapiens have the unique capacity (in fact a species sine-qua-non) to believe that truth(s) exist(s).

Nietzsche called it The will to power: Man's intense drive to impose his will on the world.
Religious or scientific, this is man imposing his view on the world.
Nietzsche claimed, at bottom, man was an artist. All interpretations of phenomena is an artform.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 4:10pm:

Nietzsche called it The will to power: Man's intense drive to impose his will on the world. Religious or scientific, this is man imposing his view on the world. Nietzsche claimed, at bottom, man was an artist. All interpretations of phenomena is an artform.

With "will to power", that drive is evident in higher order male animals... None, however, shows any evidence of intense desire to know truth nor be an artist for art's sake or for the sake of truth's apprehension.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 4:16pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 4:10pm: Nietzsche called it The will to power: Man's intense drive to impose his will on the world. Religious or scientific, this is man imposing his view on the world. Nietzsche claimed, at bottom, man was an artist. All interpretations of phenomena is an artform. With "will to power", that drive is evident in higher order male animals... None, however, shows any evidence of intense desire to know truth nor be an artist for art's sake or for the sake of truth's apprehension.

Will to power is all encompassing for Nietzsche; it covers "truths" regardless of methodology.
However, Nietzsche was known to dabble in naturalism, but also claims that knowing "things in-themselves" is impossible due to the continual flux of phenomena and varying psychological "types" of human beings there are.
There's still debate over whether he was a naturalist or a "concept-engineer."

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 4:10pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 11:01am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 10:16am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 9:40am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 8:37am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 2:56pm: We're now at the core of what sets us apart, not only from all animals but (evidently) from all other hominids... As a species, we have an innate belief that truth exists and an innate desire to know it - to be one with it - that is all pervading. Everything that defines us as unique is subject to it. We seek it, we venerate it, we honour it, we worship it. Why is it that a species is so afflicted? Sorry - atheists dont believe in a deity. SOB Correct. Atheists disbelieve the proposition that god exists. However, atheists (as much as any other group) often given up their lives in the pursuit of truth... Just not religious 'truth'. Yeah but you are making out that they are the same thing. giving the impression that they are the same thing. Just to justify your belief. You cant say what anyone else "believes" because you dont know. Changing the meanings of words does not make an atheist religious. SOB No. What I am saying is that our species, probably alone on earth out of every species that has ever existed (including our hominid cousin species), has an instinct to believe. This belief manifests as worship (being intense desire) of its object, (or at the very least an acknowledgement that truth exists and is ubiquitous) be that religious or just truth itself (as in scientific or philosophical truth and NOT... that is NOT... religious 'truth'). There is a difference between (apparent) 'truth' revealed by religious belief as opposed to that revealed by the deployment scientific or philosophical or mathematical tenets. They are not all the same. The common denominator in all instances, however, is the concept of truth. Members of the species homo sapiens have the unique capacity (in fact a species sine-qua-non) to believe that truth(s) exist(s). Nietzsche called it The will to power: Man's intense drive to impose his will on the world. Religious or scientific, this is man imposing his view on the world. Nietzsche claimed, at bottom, man was an artist. All interpretations of phenomena is an artform.

Nietzsche was mad.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 9:44am:

muso wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 9:40am: Many Religious Naturalists don't believe in Atheists either. Religious Naturalism... Always sounded to me like nudism for god.

The naked truth...

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 4:16pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 4:10pm: Nietzsche called it The will to power: Man's intense drive to impose his will on the world. Religious or scientific, this is man imposing his view on the world. Nietzsche claimed, at bottom, man was an artist. All interpretations of phenomena is an artform. With "will to power", that drive is evident in higher order male animals... None, however, shows any evidence of intense desire to know truth nor be an artist for art's sake or for the sake of truth's apprehension.

Nor some humans.

SOB

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 1:21pm:

Yes, I contend that the innate need to worship is part of our species' chemistry. No, my explanations state my belief that truth is objective and that religious 'truth' is not scientific truth. I know you can read, can you comprehend what you read?

If worship is in our chemistry then religious truth must be also a 'scientific' truth. Or scientific 'truth', I forget which, perhaps because it doesn't really matter.


That is, the random deployment of scare quotes doesn't alter the meaning of words, it just adds elision (hints at what is not said.) But 'argument from what is not said' is not quite a position.

Soren wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 5:06pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 1:21pm: Yes, I contend that the innate need to worship is part of our species' chemistry. No, my explanations state my belief that truth is objective and that religious 'truth' is not scientific truth. I know you can read, can you comprehend what you read? If worship is in our chemistry then religious truth must be also a 'scientific' truth. Or scientific 'truth', I forget which, perhaps because it doesn't really matter. That is, the random deployment of scare quotes doesn't alter the meaning of words, it just adds elision (hints at what is not said.) But 'argument from what is not said' is not quite a position.

Not random and used in this thread to ease the fears of those who imagine (inanely) that truth is an exclusively religious concept.

Chemistry/ cerebral physiology, but it's not that simple. Our cerebral physiology is also a result of our environment, and we can "work out" our brains to improve our neural pathways.  Throughout the millennia, we have been doing just that. So to say that it's just a result of our chemistry is not the whole truth. We can change our chemistry.  ;)

Some suggest that intelligence developed as a result of long winter nights during the last ice age. Men who were intelligent were better company and more likely to reproduce.  :)
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupid?key=olbp13505

Getting back to truth, everything is perception based, but perception is also biased by our preconceptions and prejudices. 

I think North was using "Worship" and "Religion" in a much broader sense. "Science" is a similarly rubbery concept. For example, theology is the science of religion. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

taking back our words is one thing but "worship" and "sin" and prolly several others have always been theirs. Without religion those words wouldn't have existed. We cant take back what was never ours. Some countries need to learn that.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 8:22am:

taking back our words is one thing but "worship" and "sin" and prolly several others have always been theirs. Without religion those words wouldn't have existed. We cant take back what was never ours. Some countries need to learn that. SOB

Words evolve as language evolves. There is no word that must remain static throughout the life of usage.

Do a google to find how many words meanings have altered over the centuries.

'Spirituality' is a very good example of a word that not so many years ago would have been exclusively used in the context of orthodox religiosity. Recently that word can be used in the context of 'wondrous (or enthralling) sense of the numinous' without any intended reference to the religious or god.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30^th, 2012 at 4:58pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 4:16pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 4:10pm: Nietzsche called it The will to power: Man's intense drive to impose his will on the world. Religious or scientific, this is man imposing his view on the world. Nietzsche claimed, at bottom, man was an artist. All interpretations of phenomena is an artform. With "will to power", that drive is evident in higher order male animals... None, however, shows any evidence of intense desire to know truth nor be an artist for art's sake or for the sake of truth's apprehension. Nor some humans. SOB

Wait until you really need to know the truth... You'll see then what lengths you'll go to.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 10:20am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 4:58pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 4:16pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 30th, 2012 at 4:10pm: Nietzsche called it The will to power: Man's intense drive to impose his will on the world. Religious or scientific, this is man imposing his view on the world. Nietzsche claimed, at bottom, man was an artist. All interpretations of phenomena is an artform. With "will to power", that drive is evident in higher order male animals... None, however, shows any evidence of intense desire to know truth nor be an artist for art's sake or for the sake of truth's apprehension. Nor some humans. SOB Wait until you really need to know the truth... You'll see then what lengths you'll go to.

Wait until? So this innate need establishes itself randomly through your life? LOL

SOB

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 9:44am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 8:22am: taking back our words is one thing but "worship" and "sin" and prolly several others have always been theirs. Without religion those words wouldn't have existed. We cant take back what was never ours. Some countries need to learn that. SOB Words evolve as language evolves. There is no word that must remain static throughout the life of usage. Do a google to find how many words meanings have altered over the centuries. 'Spirituality' is a very good example of a word that not so many years ago would have been exclusively used in the context of orthodox religiosity. Recently that word can be used in the context of 'wondrous (or enthralling) sense of the numinous' without any intended reference to the religious or god.

You can probably blame movements like the Unitarian Universalist Church and Religious Naturalists (nude or otherwise) for that.

Gods Rest Ye, Unitarians (With thanks to Garrison Keillor)


Quote:

Gods rest ye, Unitarians, let nothing you dismay; Remember there’s no evidence there was a Christmas Day; When Christ was born is just not known, no matter what they say, O, Tidings of reason and fact, reason and fact, Glad tidings of reason and fact. Our current Christmas Customs come from Persia and from Greece, From solstice celebrations of the ancient Middle East. This whole darn Christmas spiel is just another pagan feast, O, Tidings of reason and fact, reason and fact, Glad tidings of reason and fact. There was no star of Bethlehem, there was no angels’ song; There could not have been wise men for the trip would take too long. The stories in the Bible are historically wrong, O, Tidings of reason and fact, reason and fact, Glad tidings of reason and fact!

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 10:29am:

Wait until? So this innate need establishes itself randomly through your life? LOL

Through circumstance, often... Like after a tragedy.

muso wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 10:49am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 9:44am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 8:22am: taking back our words is one thing but "worship" and "sin" and prolly several others have always been theirs. Without religion those words wouldn't have existed. We cant take back what was never ours. Some countries need to learn that. SOB Words evolve as language evolves. There is no word that must remain static throughout the life of usage. Do a google to find how many words meanings have altered over the centuries. 'Spirituality' is a very good example of a word that not so many years ago would have been exclusively used in the context of orthodox religiosity. Recently that word can be used in the context of 'wondrous (or enthralling) sense of the numinous' without any intended reference to the religious or god. You can probably blame movements like the Unitarian Universalist Church and Religious Naturalists (nude or otherwise) for that.

And New Age spruikers.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 11:11am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 10:29am: Wait until? So this innate need establishes itself randomly through your life? LOL Through circumstance, often... Like after a tragedy.

You are serious huh. Well if its innate it shouldn't have to be triggered should it. If it was innate everyone would have it wouldnt they. For most it never happens so it isnt innate. Some ppl have what they think is a "need" for some things. For some its a "search for truth". It doesnt mean everyone has.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 11:22am:

You are serious huh. Well if its innate it shouldn't have to be triggered should it. If it was innate everyone would have it wouldnt they. For most it never happens so it isnt innate. Some ppl have what they think is a "need" for some things. For some its a "search for truth". It doesnt mean everyone has. SOB

A sense of hunger is innate... Should it be triggered all the time or just when you need to eat?

If someone injured a close relative, what lengths would you go, to learn the truth about what happened?

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 11:36am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 11:22am: You are serious huh. Well if its innate it shouldn't have to be triggered should it. If it was innate everyone would have it wouldnt they. For most it never happens so it isnt innate. Some ppl have what they think is a "need" for some things. For some its a "search for truth". It doesnt mean everyone has. SOB A sense of hunger is innate... Should it be triggered all the time or just when you need to eat? If someone injured a close relative, what lengths would you go, to learn the truth about what happened?

Thats not worship.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 11:48am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 11:36am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 11:22am: You are serious huh. Well if its innate it shouldn't have to be triggered should it. If it was innate everyone would have it wouldnt they. For most it never happens so it isnt innate. Some ppl have what they think is a "need" for some things. For some its a "search for truth". It doesnt mean everyone has. SOB A sense of hunger is innate... Should it be triggered all the time or just when you need to eat? If someone injured a close relative, what lengths would you go, to learn the truth about what happened? Thats not worship. SOB

Your post was disputing the manifestation of innate traits.

What would you do if a close relative was injured and was unable to tell you who  injured them?

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 11:59am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 11:48am: NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 11:36am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 11:22am: You are serious huh. Well if its innate it shouldn't have to be triggered should it. If it was innate everyone would have it wouldnt they. For most it never happens so it isnt innate. Some ppl have what they think is a "need" for some things. For some its a "search for truth". It doesnt mean everyone has. SOB A sense of hunger is innate... Should it be triggered all the time or just when you need to eat? If someone injured a close relative, what lengths would you go, to learn the truth about what happened? Thats not worship. SOB Your post was disputing the manifestation of innate traits. What would you do if a close relative was injured and was unable to tell you who  injured them?

Leave it to the police. Its happened. Thats what I did.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 12:23pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 11:59am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 11:48am: NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 11:36am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 11:22am: You are serious huh. Well if its innate it shouldn't have to be triggered should it. If it was innate everyone would have it wouldnt they. For most it never happens so it isnt innate. Some ppl have what they think is a "need" for some things. For some its a "search for truth". It doesnt mean everyone has. SOB A sense of hunger is innate... Should it be triggered all the time or just when you need to eat? If someone injured a close relative, what lengths would you go, to learn the truth about what happened? Thats not worship. SOB Your post was disputing the manifestation of innate traits. What would you do if a close relative was injured and was unable to tell you who  injured them? Leave it to the police. Its happened. Thats what I did. SOB

If the police were unable to uncover the truth, what would you do? How would you feel about not knowing what happened.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 11:22am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 11:11am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 10:29am: Wait until? So this innate need establishes itself randomly through your life? LOL Through circumstance, often... Like after a tragedy. You are serious huh. Well if its innate it shouldn't have to be triggered should it. If it was innate everyone would have it wouldnt they. For most it never happens so it isnt innate. Some ppl have what they think is a "need" for some things. For some its a "search for truth". It doesnt mean everyone has. SOB

A historical perspective on this issue wouldn't go astray.
For at least two millennia truth was understood through Platonic metaphysics. About 300 years ago the methodology began to change. Truth was still the goal, only how this was to be attained morphed. The natural scientists which arose in Europe during the Renaissance and Enlightenment era took over from the Platonists: No longer was there a perfect "intelligible realm" where truth stood still waiting to be intuited by the mind, truth was to be found through observation, data collection, experiment, hypothesis.
The same fire that ignited the Platonists to find truth ignited the natural scientists, and still ignites us today. Truth, therefore, comes from the same instinct, only the methodology changes.

It is also interesting and important to note that scientists too try and find "things in-themselves," that is, they try and pin down absolute conclusions to phenomena under investigation. Such an endeavour reverts back to a form of Platonism.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 12:27pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 11:22am: NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 11:11am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 10:29am: Wait until? So this innate need establishes itself randomly through your life? LOL Through circumstance, often... Like after a tragedy. You are serious huh. Well if its innate it shouldn't have to be triggered should it. If it was innate everyone would have it wouldnt they. For most it never happens so it isnt innate. Some ppl have what they think is a "need" for some things. For some its a "search for truth". It doesnt mean everyone has. SOB A historical perspective on this issue wouldn't go astray. For at least two millennia truth was understood through Platonic metaphysics. About 300 years ago the methodology began to change. Truth was still the goal, only how this was to be attained morphed. The natural scientists which arose in Europe during the Renaissance and Enlightenment era took over from the Platonists: No longer was there a perfect "intelligible realm" where truth stood still waiting to be intuited by the mind, truth was to be found through observation, data collection, experiment, hypothesis. The same fire that ignited the Platonists to find truth ignited the natural scientists, and still ignites us today. Truth, therefore, comes from the same instinct, only the methodology changes.

Still doesnt mean everyone worships it or has a need to worship it.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 12:30pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 12:27pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 11:22am: NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 11:11am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 10:29am: Wait until? So this innate need establishes itself randomly through your life? LOL Through circumstance, often... Like after a tragedy. You are serious huh. Well if its innate it shouldn't have to be triggered should it. If it was innate everyone would have it wouldnt they. For most it never happens so it isnt innate. Some ppl have what they think is a "need" for some things. For some its a "search for truth". It doesnt mean everyone has. SOB A historical perspective on this issue wouldn't go astray. For at least two millennia truth was understood through Platonic metaphysics. About 300 years ago the methodology began to change. Truth was still the goal, only how this was to be attained morphed. The natural scientists which arose in Europe during the Renaissance and Enlightenment era took over from the Platonists: No longer was there a perfect "intelligible realm" where truth stood still waiting to be intuited by the mind, truth was to be found through observation, data collection, experiment, hypothesis. The same fire that ignited the Platonists to find truth ignited the natural scientists, and still ignites us today. Truth, therefore, comes from the same instinct, only the methodology changes. Still doesnt mean everyone worships it or has a need to worship it. SOB

Then don't.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 12:27pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 11:22am: NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 11:11am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 10:29am: Wait until? So this innate need establishes itself randomly through your life? LOL Through circumstance, often... Like after a tragedy. You are serious huh. Well if its innate it shouldn't have to be triggered should it. If it was innate everyone would have it wouldnt they. For most it never happens so it isnt innate. Some ppl have what they think is a "need" for some things. For some its a "search for truth". It doesnt mean everyone has. SOB A historical perspective on this issue wouldn't go astray. For at least two millennia truth was understood through Platonic metaphysics. About 300 years ago the methodology began to change. Truth was still the goal, only how this was to be attained morphed. The natural scientists which arose in Europe during the Renaissance and Enlightenment era took over from the Platonists: No longer was there a perfect "intelligible realm" where truth stood still waiting to be intuited by the mind, truth was to be found through observation, data collection, experiment, hypothesis. The same fire that ignited the Platonists to find truth ignited the natural scientists, and still ignites us today. Truth, therefore, comes from the same instinct, only the methodology changes.

And, of course, religion itself has its genesis in the same fire...

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 12:36pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 12:27pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 11:22am: NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 11:11am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 10:29am: Wait until? So this innate need establishes itself randomly through your life? LOL Through circumstance, often... Like after a tragedy. You are serious huh. Well if its innate it shouldn't have to be triggered should it. If it was innate everyone would have it wouldnt they. For most it never happens so it isnt innate. Some ppl have what they think is a "need" for some things. For some its a "search for truth". It doesnt mean everyone has. SOB A historical perspective on this issue wouldn't go astray. For at least two millennia truth was understood through Platonic metaphysics. About 300 years ago the methodology began to change. Truth was still the goal, only how this was to be attained morphed. The natural scientists which arose in Europe during the Renaissance and Enlightenment era took over from the Platonists: No longer was there a perfect "intelligible realm" where truth stood still waiting to be intuited by the mind, truth was to be found through observation, data collection, experiment, hypothesis. The same fire that ignited the Platonists to find truth ignited the natural scientists, and still ignites us today. Truth, therefore, comes from the same instinct, only the methodology changes. And, of course, religion itself has its genesis in the same fire...

Yes, sorry, I should have stated that. Christianity is a form of neo-Platonism.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 12:30pm:

Still doesnt mean everyone worships it or has a need to worship it. SOB

Although for someone who claims he believes in nothing, and does not acknowledge the central role the concept of truth plays within the human psyche, you've just spent your time reading through and contributing to the current 11 pages of this topic defending what you believe to be true.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 1:04pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 12:30pm: Still doesnt mean everyone worships it or has a need to worship it. SOB Although for someone who claims he believes in nothing, and does not acknowledge the central role the concept of truth plays within the human psyche, you've just spent your time reading through and contributing to the current 11 pages of this topic defending what you believe to be true.

That is not worship.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 1:07pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 1:04pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 12:30pm: Still doesnt mean everyone worships it or has a need to worship it. SOB Although for someone who claims he believes in nothing, and does not acknowledge the central role the concept of truth plays within the human psyche, you've just spent your time reading through and contributing to the current 11 pages of this topic defending what you believe to be true. That is not worship. SOB

You'd have to admit though, that your sense of what you believe to be true and your need to defend it is acute.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 1:14pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 1:07pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 1:04pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 12:30pm: Still doesnt mean everyone worships it or has a need to worship it. SOB Although for someone who claims he believes in nothing, and does not acknowledge the central role the concept of truth plays within the human psyche, you've just spent your time reading through and contributing to the current 11 pages of this topic defending what you believe to be true. That is not worship. SOB You'd have to admit though, that your sense of what you believe to be true and your need to defend it is acute.

No. I dont have to admit anything of the sort. I post here cause it gives me something to do. If I went to do soemthing else I would not give you another thought.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 2:11pm:

No. I dont have to admit anything of the sort. I post here cause it gives me something to do. If I went to do soemthing else I would not give you another thought. SOB

I'm sure that I'm not the reason you post here... And, yes, you could have chosen to do something else... But you chose to post here over a number of days defending what you believe to be true.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 2:57pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1st, 2012 at 2:11pm: No. I dont have to admit anything of the sort. I post here cause it gives me something to do. If I went to do soemthing else I would not give you another thought. SOB I'm sure that I'm not the reason you post here... And, yes, you could have chosen to do something else... But you chose to post here over a number of days defending what you believe to be true.

What is your point? You keep assigning motives to me and you think you know what I am thinking but i assure you i am not worshiping anything. You are not that important. I have posted in 3 forums over the last few weeks and I have made a lot of posts. Most of them not very serious even. I tend to not just piss off and not answer a question though and you keep asking them.

Having an opinion is not "worshiping truth". I disagree that we have any innate need to worship. You may have such a need though. Some may I dont know.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 1^st, 2012 at 3:13pm:

What is your point?

My point is you spend a lot of time defending what you believe to be true for someone who claims he believes in nothing, his opinions are superficial, absent of truth and change with the wind.