What do religions base their behaviors on?

[lightgigantic]

I can't think of a one, So we can take it you're talking bollocks and leave it at that.

Its not hard
Just google your previous posts and find references to other web sites regarding theism

Where? anyhow that's your job, your the theist.

Where?
Wherever you offer an opinion of theism of course .....

Why would anyone other than the theist, need philosophy.

Anyone who strives to make a point coherent ... which arguably might exclude you.

You don't need philosophy, to prove reality.

Take that little gem to the philosophy forum and get yourself an education


(tell you what, I will even make the OP for you)

Reality is mind-independent, talk sense, for f**k sake.

You seem to enjoy telling others what reality is while simultaneously advocating it has nothing to do with philosophy.
This only becomes a problem when you insist you're discussing topics of substance.

If you believe philosophy to be something other than subjective, then the floor is yours.

If you believe you can identify the objective without philosophy, please be our guest.

Show meAs said, show me. Just spouting of at the mouth isn't going to cut it.

Except when you spout off atthe mouth about theism or anything else opposed to your values, I take it?

Either show me or retract the statement, We've seen how well you tackled the atheist hate site, so I'm keen to see the impossible, so go right ahead.

Actually your inability to locate an atheist hate site, as well as your similar struggles with determining the role philosophy takes in presenting reality makes me wonder whether you are simply pretending to be stupid and being very good at it.
:shrug:

 

[geeser]

Its not hard
Just google your previous posts and find references to other web sites regarding theism

You made the claim the onus is yours. Since I first asked in post #68, your last four posts have failed to provide one link for an atheist hate site, it's an appeal to spite. so I'll repeat "we can take it you're talking bollocks and leave it at that"

Wherever you offer an opinion of theism of course

I haven't made any, I've merely stated facts, when I said "nothing can be gleaned completely or even partially from philosophy, it is a subjective discipline all you could possibly glean is an opinion." I wasn't offering an opinion on theism, was I. When I said in my next post "I don't have a subjective take on theism, I leave that too the theist" I was clearly stating that it was their baby, I merely lacked an opinion. And when I stated "There is nothing substantial one could say about theism it is all supposition, assumption, imagination, opinion. That is a fact, not an opinion. You may wish it to be an opinion, but there isn't one iota of objective evidence for theism, so, so far I haven't offered an opinion on theism.

Anyone who strives to make a point coherent ... which arguably might exclude you.

Personal attack: Am I getting too you, is your argument that weak you have to resort to personal attacks.

Take that little gem to the philosophy forum and get yourself an education
(tell you what, I will even make the OP for you)

Goading, Flaming, Personal attack: Am I getting too you, is your argument that weak you have to resort to personal attacks.

You seem to enjoy telling others what reality is while simultaneously advocating it has nothing to do with philosophy.
This only becomes a problem when you insist you're discussing topics of substance.

It was the first time I mentioned reality, if it isn't mind independent then show me as I asked before, I don't suffer from Solipsism syndrome, like you.

If you believe philosophy to be something other than subjective, then the floor is yours.
Show me

If you believe you can identify the objective without philosophy, please be our guest.

The floors yours, I'm still waiting.

As said, show me. Just spouting of at the mouth isn't going to cut it. Either show me or retract the statement, We've seen how well you tackled the atheist hate site, so I'm keen to see the impossible, so go right ahead.

Except when you spout off atthe mouth about theism or anything else opposed to your values, I take it?
Actually your inability to locate an atheist hate site, as well as your similar struggles with determining the role philosophy takes in presenting reality makes me wonder whether you are simply pretending to be stupid and being very good at it.
:shrug:

Personal attack: Am I getting too you, is your argument that weak you have to resort to personal attacks.

So far you are guilty of personal attacks, goading, flaming, and trolling. I'd check the forum rules if I were you.

 

[wynn]

I don't suffer from Solipsism syndrome

Actually, you are. Unless, of course, you are God Almighty Himself, playing with us.

:worship:

 

[geeser]

Actually, you are. Unless, of course, you are God Almighty Himself, playing with us.

:worship:

No sorry, I don't suffer from the overwhelming feeling that nothing is real, that all is a dream.
I believe that reality exists independent of consciousness, I believe people have direct contact with reality through sensory perception, we can attain objective knowledge from our perception through the process of information via inductive and deductive logic.

 

[Doreen]

I believe that reality exists independent of consciousness, I believe people have direct contact with reality through sensory perception, we can attain objective knowledge from our perception through the process of information via inductive and deductive logic.

It seems like neuroscience has long since moved away from the idea that we have direct contact with reality through sensory perception. And where does this contact take place? Sure the light strikes the retina, but is this where we see? The current model seems to be that messages are sent from the sensory organs into the brain where, mingling this information with visual memory - in the case of vision - guesses and anticipation and gestalt formation, an image is created. And this image is what we experience, not the chair across the room.

 

[wynn]

No sorry, I don't suffer from the overwhelming feeling that nothing is real, that all is a dream.
I believe that reality exists independent of consciousness, I believe people have direct contact with reality through sensory perception, we can attain objective knowledge from our perception through the process of information via inductive and deductive logic.

That's right: you believe.

 

[geeser]

That's right: you believe.

Semantics, poor choice of words on my part.
"No sorry, I don't suffer from the overwhelming feeling that nothing is real, that all is a dream.
I know via my senses that reality exists independent of consciousness, I know via my senses people have direct contact with reality through sensory perception, we can attain objective knowledge from our perception through the process of information via inductive and deductive logic"
Is that better.

 

[geeser]

It seems like neuroscience has long since moved away from the idea that we have direct contact with reality through sensory perception. And where does this contact take place? Sure the light strikes the retina, but is this where we see? The current model seems to be that messages are sent from the sensory organs into the brain where, mingling this information with visual memory - in the case of vision - guesses and anticipation and gestalt formation, an image is created. And this image is what we experience, not the chair across the room.

Only if you suffer with solipsism syndrome.

 

[wynn]

Semantics, poor choice of words on my part.

I hate to break it to you, but "choice of words" is what it comes down to.

But that is philosophy, and that is subjective, so why bother ...


Why do I bother ... :bugeye:

 

[Big Chiller]

It seems like neuroscience has long since moved away from the idea that we have direct contact with reality through sensory perception. And where does this contact take place? Sure the light strikes the retina, but is this where we see? The current model seems to be that messages are sent from the sensory organs into the brain where, mingling this information with visual memory - in the case of vision - guesses and anticipation and gestalt formation, an image is created. And this image is what we experience, not the chair across the room.

Might I add the chair across the room doesn't matter beyond perceiving it, it is the entity's perception and any effects on the entity which is the reality.

 

[stefan]

I have been following lg's pathetic thread that attempts to belittle geezer, he keeps changing the goal posts.
Pavlos posited this statement "Debate does not establish new evidence, it simply refines the evidence that has already been collected/observed." lg's response was "hence debate is not going to help you gather anything", what is philosophy if not debate. He now claims that "Its a fact that without philosophy (or at least a poor form of it) one cannot support an opinion, what to speak of a fact."
I disagree with both your positions, If nothing can be taken as fact, then nothing can be taken as reality, what is the point of discussing anything at all, all positions are unprovable, we cant know anything, which means my previous comment that "transcendent trans-dimensional universe building pixies were the first cause" cannot be shown to be false, it is a stupid position to take.
Here endeth the lesson.

 

[lightgigantic]

I have been following lg's pathetic thread that attempts to belittle geezer, he keeps changing the goal posts.
Pavlos posited this statement "Debate does not establish new evidence, it simply refines the evidence that has already been collected/observed." lg's response was "hence debate is not going to help you gather anything", what is philosophy if not debate. He now claims that "Its a fact that without philosophy (or at least a poor form of it) one cannot support an opinion, what to speak of a fact."
I disagree with both your positions, If nothing can be taken as fact, then nothing can be taken as reality, what is the point of discussing anything at all, all positions are unprovable, we cant know anything, which means my previous comment that "transcendent trans-dimensional universe building pixies were the first cause" cannot be shown to be false, it is a stupid position to take.
Here endeth the lesson.

ok.

 

[stefan]

ok.

Glad you agree.

 

[lightgigantic]

Glad you agree.

ok.

 

[NMSquirrel]

good..