Lets talk about World Peace

brabbit1987 said:

I really don't understand exactly what it is you are trying to say.

Reasoning does not come from stories. Defining reason as the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic. In other words, you can read a story, but the only way reason comes from it is if you have some type of logical bases for that too happen, such as evidence of some sort. This is why it's not reasonable to believe in the bible simply because it exists.

I also don't know what you mean by science and religion being two halves of the same hole. In what way? They are more like complete opposites. They don't even work well together.

Click to expand...

All history is literally faith. And can we really imagine a world without religion? We know our history to be true in this era be cause we have proof the people of our current civilizations have live through it but what about 3,000 years ago while we have proof, No one has lived that experience we can only guess at what all of our civilizations looked like all of history can't be explained. Also can you explain how the world would look like without religion without what we have to go on. all of our logic and reasoning all come from speculation to find the truth. So what does that say for our limited scope of knowledge.

tai said:

All history is literally faith. And can we really imagine a world without religion? We know our history to be true in this era be cause we have proof the people of our current civilizations have live through it but what about 3,000 years ago while we have proof, No one has lived that experience we can only guess at what all of our civilizations looked like all of history can't be explained. Also can you explain how the world would look like without religion without what we have to go on. all of our logic and reasoning all come from speculation to find the truth. So what does that say for our limited scope of knowledge.

Click to expand...

We don't just take history based on faith. Sure some of it might be, but no one who is smart is just going to believe in something simply because it says so in writing. We look at evidence and such to find out whether these things happened. Does some ancient writing talk about a war? Then we look for evidence of a war. We look for the location, weapons, anything that signifies there might have been a war as it has been written. That is not called faith,as faith requires believing in something without evidence. If we don't find any evidence of it ever happening, then we simply don't believe it. Of course we can have an open mind that it could have happened, but no one is going to say definitively that it did.

Things we say did happen, we say so because there is actual evidence for these things taking place. You don't have to have been there to know when using evidence.

I think the issue here is you don't seem to have a very good understanding on how these things work and how we come up with our history. We don't just read these things an assume they are true without some sort of backing for them. Though, religious people do that all the time. So if you are religious, I can understand why you may think that is the way it's done.

brabbit1987 said:

We don't just take history based on faith. Sure some of it might be, but no one who is smart is just going to believe in something simply because it says so in writing. We look at evidence and such to find out whether these things happened. Does some ancient writing talk about a war? Then we look for evidence of a war. We look for the location, weapons, anything that signifies there might have been a war as it has been written. That is not called faith,as faith requires believing in something without evidence. If we don't find any evidence of it ever happening, then we simply don't believe it. Of course we can have an open mind that it could have happened, but no one is going to say definitively that it did.

Things we say did happen, we say so because there is actual evidence for these things taking place. You don't have to have been there to know when using evidence.

I think the issue here is you don't seem to have a very good understanding on how these things work and how we come up with our history. We don't just read these things an assume they are true without some sort of backing for them. Though, religious people do that all the time. So if you are religious, I can understand why you may think that is the way it's done.

Click to expand...

That's what faith is. Just literal speculation. even with proof there is no exact way to gain the whole of history only it's bits and pieces. can we honestly say that we know the complete sum of the our history based on what we learned in school. No . because as time goes on even that can be overturned and disproven. It all depends on the perspective were willing to view from.

tai said:

That's what faith is. Just literal speculation. even with proof there is no exact way to gain the whole of history only it's bits and pieces. can we honestly say that we know the complete sum of the our history based on what we learned in school. No . because as time goes on even that can be overturned and disproven.

Click to expand...

If there is evidence for something, it isn't faith. Faith would be believing in something without evidence. At least that is how I view the definition to be, and so do most people as far as I am aware. It's how I have always seen it used. In debates and such as an example.

Edit: If you believe in something that doesn't have enough supporting evidence, then I would agree at that point it's also faith. So when I am talking about evidence in my above statement, I am talking about having enough for you to be absolutely sure something occurred.

As an example, if a book says there was a battle and you only find an arrow head. Then believing it would be faith even if there was some evidence. It's simply not enough. But if you find structures you would expect to see in a battle, and the land is depicted in the writing and it all fits. You find various weapons .. maybe even bones. Then it's not faith at that point to assume the battle must have happened. In fact, I would say it would require more faith to believe it didn't happen.

brabbit1987 said:

If there is evidence for something, it isn't faith. Faith would be believing in something without evidence. At least that is how I view the definition to be, and so do most people as far as I am aware. It's how I have always seen it used. In debates and such as an example.

Edit: If you believe in something that doesn't have enough supporting evidence, then I would agree at that point it's also faith. So when I am talking about evidence in my above statement, I am talking about having enough for you to be absolutely sure something occurred.

As an example, if a book says there was a battle and you only find an arrow head. Then believing it would be faith even if there was some evidence. It's simply not enough. But if you find structures you would expect to see in a battle, and the land is depicted in the writing and it all fits. You find various weapons .. maybe even bones. Then it's not faith at that point to assume the battle must have happened. In fact, I would say it would require more faith to believe it didn't happen.

Click to expand...

Do you have faith in the knowledge you know , and if so, where did it come from? In the end our knowledge and truths come from other people despite them being our own.The danger with knowledge is we can only hope to be right.

tai said:

Do you have faith in the knowledge you know , and if so, where did it come from? In the end our knowledge and truths come from other people despite them being our own.The danger with knowledge is we can only hope to be right.

Click to expand...

You can't know something while also having it be faith. The two are incompatible with each other. It's a question that makes no sense. Knowledge is based around evidence, faith is not.
You can't have faith in your knowledge, because that would translate into "you believe your knowledge which has evidence without evidence." It makes no sense. It's a contradictory question.

Honestly, you are getting into some really pointless non sense. Might as well be asking if the world we live in is virtual.
I am not here to talk about philosophy with you.

Philosophy is the study of the general and fundamental nature of reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. That's literally what were doing.

tai said:

Philosophy is the study of the general and fundamental nature of reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. That's literally what were doing.

Click to expand...

No, you are the one using philosophy. I am not. Philosophy is something that people talk about using logic and reasoning to rationalize what could be and to think about concepts and such. Philosophy is fine to talk about, but it's pointless unless you have a way to test the things you say.

Example: "The danger with knowledge is we can only hope to be right."
This implies what we know and see around us is somehow fooling us. However, you have no way to test if this if it is actually the case. Thus it is just a hypothesis that is meaningless. Again, we might as well be talking about how this might be a virtual world.

The only thing I care about is what is currently known. I expect what we currently know to be truth because that is the world we live in.

In plus, there is no point in talking with you if you are just going to use philosophical non sense to back yourself up. There is no proof or evidence in it, so it's pointless. I don't like talking about things like that because it entirely defeats the point of having this kind of discussion in the first place. It's like role playing with someone who only knows god modding. You simply can't win because they always come up with the next ridiculous thing you can't beat.

brabbit1987 said:

No, you are the one using philosophy. I am not. Philosophy is something that people talk about using logic and reasoning to rationalize what could be and to think about concepts and such. Philosophy is fine to talk about, but it's pointless unless you have a way to test the things you say.

Example: "The danger with knowledge is we can only hope to be right."
This implies what we know and see around us is somehow fooling us. However, you have no way to test if this if it is actually the case. Thus it is just a hypothesis that is meaningless. Again, we might as well be talking about how this might be a virtual world.

The only thing I care about is what is currently known. I expect what we currently know to be truth because that is the world we live in.

In plus, there is no point in talking with you if you are just going to use philosophical non sense to back yourself up. There is no proof or evidence in it, so it's pointless. I don't like talking about things like that because it entirely defeats the point of having this kind of discussion in the first place. It's like role playing with someone who only knows god modding. You simply can't win because they always come up with the next ridiculous thing you can't beat.

Click to expand...

Default



Of course their is a reason to talk about such things. Philosophy is one of the most important aspects the mind can have because it gives us the ability to rationalize the world around us. and because of this,Logic, Like all forms of ideals is subjective in the context by which we view them.

An example would be the mind or your consciousness. you can't actively define it yet it exist . Your living proof of that. So how do you define something that exist yet you can't explain?


all nature is subjective by this logic is it not.

tai said:

Of course their is a reason to talk about such things.

Click to expand...

I meant specifically here. To me.

Philosophy is one of the most important aspects the mind can have because it gives us the ability to rationalize the world around us.

Click to expand...

Ya, but not all philosophical concepts are created equal. Some are not really worth talking about because they simply do not have an answer. Don't know how many times I need to give you the virtual world example. The concept might make sense or be logical, but that doesn't mean it's true.

and because of this,Logic, Like all forms of ideals is subjective in the context by which we view them.

Click to expand...

No, it's not all subjective because not all of it is simply based on an idea, it's based on actual evidence.

An example would be the mind or your consciousness. you can't actively define it yet it exist.

Click to expand...

Who the hell cares. Just because we don't have an exact answer doesn't mean we will not in the future. That is what science is all about. We don't need to know every answer to know that there is one out there.

Your living proof of that. So how do you define something that exist yet you can't explain?

Click to expand...

Well, you can come up with ideas on how it might work, but you can't make claims that is how it works. The leading hypothesis on it has to do with our brain functionality.

all nature is subjective by this logic is it not.

Click to expand...

No, it's not, you are making jumps by leaps and bounds. Your logic makes no sense. Just because there are things we don't know, doesn't mean all nature is subjective. How you come to these conclusions baffles me and really irritates me.

It's almost like you think you know what you are talking about, but you really don't have a clue.

brabbit1987 said:

I meant specifically here. To me.


Ya, but not all philosophical concepts are created equal. Some are not really worth talking about because they simply do not have an answer. Don't know how many times I need to give you the virtual world example. The concept might make sense or be logical, but that doesn't mean it's true.


No, it's not all subjective because not all of it is simply based on an idea, it's based on actual evidence.


Who the hell cares. Just because we don't have an exact answer doesn't mean we will not in the future. That is what science is all about. We don't need to know every answer to know that there is one out there.


Well, you can come up with ideas on how it might work, but you can't make claims that is how it works. The leading hypothesis on it has to do with our brain functionality.



No, it's not, you are making jumps by leaps and bounds. Your logic makes no sense. Just because there are things we don't know, doesn't mean all nature is subjective. How you come to these conclusions baffles me and really irritates me.

It's almost like you think you know what you are talking about, but you really don't have a clue.

Click to expand...

Of course not everything is not created equal but that doesn't mean it's not worth talking about. Talking about things no matter how obscure is how we create subject and opinions and how we evolve from one moment to the next. To learn and create . giving us answers to questions we never even considered. Getting back to the original question of the thread. Why should we at least talk about world peace? it's because it's the beginning to understanding one another. like us ! even thought we may not agree on a lot of things, you made an effort to at least try to understand me. and for that I'm grateful to you.

tai said:

Of course not everything is not created equal but that doesn't mean it's not worth talking about. Talking about things no matter how obscure is how we create subject and opinions and how we evolve from one moment to the next. To learn and create . giving us answers to questions we never even considered. Getting back to the original question of the thread. Why should we at least talk about world peace? it's because it's the beginning to understanding one another. like us ! even thought we may not agree on a lot of things, you made an effort to at least try to understand me. and for that I'm grateful to you.

Click to expand...

Our debate didn't really start based around the topic, it started more along the lines about you claiming religion birthed logic or something like that. As for understanding you? I actually already do understand you, I just highly disagree with your thought process on these matters. Though the only part I don't understand is how you come to your conclusions. I feel like you are taking to much of a philosophical approach on the matter. We can discuss philosophy but this isn't a thread for that.

brabbit1987 said:

Our debate didn't really start based around the topic, it started more along the lines about you claiming religion birthed logic or something like that. As for understanding you? I actually already do understand you, I just highly disagree with your thought process on these matters. Though the only part I don't understand is how you come to your conclusions. I feel like you are taking to much of a philosophical approach on the matter. We can discuss philosophy but this isn't a thread for that.

Click to expand...

How I come up with my conclusion is basically the same as yours. I take a look at all the logic I get from a situation and apply it to my train of thought. I just tend to look at it from as many angles as I can. Logical or not you can't deny that there is some truth in what I say. most people don't like to talk about subjects that don't directly affect them. I just like to make them think. Also It was interesting to talk with you about this as I found it oddly stimulating to talk with someone this deeply on one subject as abstract as religion and wars because even thought hey really don't have much in common in a literal since, they are linked together.

tai said:

How I come up with my conclusion is basically the same as yours. I take a look at all the logic I get from a situation and apply it to my train of thought. I just tend to look at it from as many angles as I can. Logical or not you can't deny that there is some truth in what I say. most people don't like to talk about subjects that don't directly affect them. I just like to make them think. Also It was interesting to talk with you about this as I found it oddly stimulating to talk with someone this deeply on one subject as abstract as religion and wars because even thought hey really don't have much in common in a literal since, they are linked together.

Click to expand...

You are incorrect. We don't find our conclusions in the same way. I base my conclusions around reasoning / logic, and evidence. Evidence being one of the key points here. You are arguing based on pure reasoning. Which is what the Greeks used to do when they first started using the scientific method a very long time ago. They felt they could gather all their knowledge through reasoning without the use of measurements and evidence. Aristotle found their methods where not reliable and found that observations where also important to the method. Measurements and evidence where necessary.

You can't figure things out using pure reasoning. You need evidence to back up the reasoning.

It's fine to talk about philosophical concepts that are based around pure reasoning, but there will not be a conclusion and without a conclusion, that is all it will ever be is a talk. You can't state it as being fact. You can't act as if you are right, because you don't know. This is why I said it's useless to talk about it, because it's not going to end with a conclusion. We will keeping going in circles because they are simply ideas.

This is why I don't understand how you come to your conclusions, because you are not basing it on anything other than ideas. When what you should be doing is basing your conclusions on everything overall, the reasoning / logic, and evidence.

I think peace would be possible if people let go of some emotions. like Greed; they say 66 people hold up to 1/2 the wealth in the world, hate; eat people up inside. want; people aren't happy with what they have. tolerance: people don't like people that are different.
you know what I'm getting at.

so It may be possible for peace but we have a long ways to go as humans.

John Lennon sang it Imagine no religion then we would have peace!! if people would practice their religion and stop preaching it and forcing it on others as well as respecting others religion we would have peace

keithandre1 said:

John Lennon sang it Imagine no religion then we would have peace!! if people would practice their religion and stop preaching it and forcing it on others as well as respecting others religion we would have peace

Click to expand...

I think the issue with the whole idea of practicing a religion but not preaching it, is preaching it is usually a part of the religion. Forcing it on others is actually something many religions pretty much tell you to do. So it would be hard to practice a religion while not doing these things as it would mean you are not practicing them as they are written.

Also, even if they did stop forcing it on others and preaching it out in the open, that wouldn't eliminate their beliefs in matters and it would simply be hidden instead. So rather than people hating on say the lgbt community out in the open, it will be done behind peoples backs. Sort of like a how a bully might only bully when the teacher isn't looking.