The gulf between us

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. - Carl Sagan

True, but only when no evidence would be expected.

The absence of expected evidence is evidence of absence. If nobody remembers seeing you at work yesterday, and your time card is not stamped, don't expect to be paid for the day.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Obviously after my first response the OP asked why I believe logic without emotion is as bad as emotion without logic. The op like you I guess believes logic is superior to emotion and we can do without emotion.

Personally I believe we need a combination of both (evolution seems to agree) and that a Person completely void of emotion or logic is an impossibility except maybe in some mentally distressed state.

I never said I believe logic is superior to emotion. Not sure I even hinted at that. I only ever tried to fill in gaps where I felt you were misrepresenting the things that a purely logical mind might take into consideration - emotional responses being one of them, which that logical mind could easily have picked up on based on previous encounters - regardless its understanding of the root of such emotion.

I too believe that it is best to have/utilize both in some moderated measure, and I also doubt that there is anyone alive on the earth today who is wholly logical (devoid of emotion) or wholly emotional (devoid of logic).

 

[bobhikes]

I never said I believe logic is superior to emotion. Not sure I even hinted at that. I only ever tried to fill in gaps where I felt you were misrepresenting the things that a purely logical mind might take into consideration - emotional responses being one of them, which that logical mind could easily have picked up on based on previous encounters - regardless its understanding of the root of such emotion.

I too believe that it is best to have/utilize both in some moderated measure, and I also doubt that there is anyone alive on the earth today who is wholly logical (devoid of emotion) or wholly emotional (devoid of logic).

You seem to not grasp how much emotions play in logic. How do you know when you solved a problem right, endorphin's make you feel good about it. You could spend days years logically working out a complex problem and rechecking it and never get satisfied without emotions. How do you know how fast to react to a threat (catecholamines, especially norepinephrine and epinephrine.[4] The hormones estrogen, testosterone, and cortisol, as well as the neurotransmitters dopamine and serotonin, also affect how organisms react to stress.) Wilkapedia all driving emotions. I know we like to think we are extremely logical but the truth is that most stuff is handled by emotions and automatic routines because they are faster and in life fast is often the priority.

Logic works great in a school or relaxed environment, it tends to even fail under extreme pressure.

 

[idav]

I am finding that I cannot communicate with theists here, the same pattern I have experienced elsewhere. We are simply so different that discussion is all but impossible. What am i doing wrong? Logic does not move these people, I have no other way of thinking. So we are at an impasse. How can I talk to these people in terms they will understand? It is frustrating because I wish to understand religious belief and religious people, if I am to judge religion and religious belief fairly and to treat religious believers less contemptuously and dismissively. As I have been tasked to do by RL persons.

I don't normally find logic to be an issue, a faulty premise can logically follow to lots of absurdisms. What religion does is cheat by claiming unflasifiable premises as truth.

 

[Ponder This]

You can't reason someone out of a belief if their belief in the belief is stronger than their belief in your reason. Belief wins. People have to convince themselves. You can't do it for them.

"It is not logical, but it is often true." - Spock, Star Trek, Season 2, episode 1 ("Amok Time," 1968)

 

[Corvus]

It is literally impossible for a person lacking empathy or compassion to be moral, and such a person is far more likely to be criminals than the general population.

Then you do not understand that thousands of people in positions of authority, in any nation you care to mention, are sociopaths/psychopaths. Notably lawyers, CEOS, surgeons, police officers, politicians, special forces and many other professions. Many sociopaths are entirely functional. Who do not commit crimes because they are law abiding. As for morality, who is to say what is and what isn't moral? That is highly subjective.



I recommend this book.

 

[Corvus]

Here's an idea, if you're at an impasse, why not leave this forum? Get a little more free time and let us sheep suffer for the sake of the gospel.

Your thoughts?

I would violate this forum's terms and conditions if I openly expressed my thoughts about your little comment.

 

[Corvus]

Now, I have reasons to be a shining example of the love of Christ on forums.

I am feeling the love. Get thee behind me.

 

[Corvus]

Asking for help to understand others while claiming that it is their fault that you cannot understand them.

I made no such claim. The rest of your post is scarcely concealed hostility. Which I choose not to respond to.

 

[Corvus]

I think it's obvious that you've already judged religion and found it to be lacking. And in so doing, you dismiss the thought processes of everyone that disagrees with you. So I don't understand why you want to discuss the matter further as you sound very sure of your beliefs.

It's not my beliefs that are the problem. I am not discussing any uncertainty on my part. I am simply trying to work out what makes people believe in God, what makes them choose faith over fact. How else does one learn about things that one doesn't understand? For you it might be obvious. For me it is not. I do not understand how it works. Some people have helped, such as LUIS who explained that for many people it is a sense of belonging to something greater and belonging to a like minded circle of people. Inclusion, acceptance. That attracts people. This is not obvious to someone like myself, who has no need of belonging, my natural number is 1. This information is beneficial, it helps understanding. It means for example I can see that for some people, faith and a church/temple/mosque community, can be beneficial. Logically it is hard to argue against that basic premise. Even if the nature and content of the belief system itself is questionable.
It seems you and some people are questioning my motivation and intent. Well my position is crystal clear, I dislike theism intensely, I think it is harmful overall. However I am not going to preach and have no intention of doing so, but if this forum permits the challenging of claims I will surely do so. If that is unacceptable to you then that is your problem. This forum is still a lot better than FB, in which I am usually told to burn in hell.

 

[Corvus]

Sorry to hear. I think science can show you which religion is the correct one is. Follow scientific principles since they govern reality, and then see which religious traditions match those principles most closely.

I would have to create a religion that embraces scientific principles then. Since no mainstream religion that does, exists, to my knowledge. I am not after a religion to follow, I am not interested in worshiping any God.

 

[Corvus]

The only thing that can be said about theists as a group is that a theist is a person who accepts some sort of deity concept.

Yes, and therein lies the nature of their thought process, in general terms. I infer from their belief in deities that they believe in articles of faith that are non verifiable. Which is irrational. There can be no dispute there. This fundamental irrationality is what I identify as inherently problematic, and presumably common in varying degrees to one theist and another. I am aware that humans are individuals.

It's presumably selective or compartmentalized irrationality, in that I am sure they do not act irrationally usually in daily life. Just with regard to specific situations.

 

[YmirGF]

Sorry to hear. I think science can show you which religion is the correct one is. Follow scientific principles since they govern reality, and then see which religious traditions match those principles most closely.

OK, I'll bite. Which religion is the correct one? Does it start with an I?

 

[Corvus]

and you would prefer an existence similar to the Borg of Star Trek fame?

Not at all, I am ultra individualist.

 

[RedDragon94]

OK, I'll bite. Which religion is the correct one? Does it start with an I?

Nope, starts with an F.

 

[Corvus]

If you truly lack emotion, or empathy, then I'm afraid it is not just theists you are unable to understand or communicate with...
The notion that atheists are ruled by reason only is a fallacy.

I do not lack empathy or pity. I can feel those things. Especially for vulnerable things. Not easy for me to read emotions in people. As for feeling/experiencing emotions like love and fear and hate, not so much. I did not say atheists are ruled by reason. Stalin was an atheist and a paranoid psychopathic genocidal meglomaniac. Hardly the most logical person.

 

[Corvus]

Nope, starts with an F.

How many letters?

 

[RedDragon94]

How many letters?

Too many to count.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I do not lack empathy or pity. I can feel those things. Especially for vulnerable things. Not easy for me to read emotions in people. As for feeling/experiencing emotions like love and fear and hate, not so much. I did not say atheists are ruled by reason. Stalin was an atheist and a paranoid psychopathic genocidal meglomaniac. Hardly the most logical person.

I'm interested why you draw the line between theism and atheism. Why not (for example) sexual and asexual?

 

[Corvus]

I'm interested why you draw the line between theism and atheism. Why not (for example) sexual and asexual?

I do not understand. Sorry.