logout
help
framed forum
go pro
subscriptions
account
create thread
HolyGround >> Why do men cheat?
| 1/7/10 10:05 PM | |
the rooster
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 17671 |
Philosophy. a. the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual. b. the belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value. it is inconsistent to deny God because He's non material and then endorse "thoughts" "Feelings" etc. Just another inconsistency of the secularists. |
| 1/7/10 11:31 PM | |
|
the rooster
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 17672 |
Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment ( ‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’ Reference Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997. "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." —Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401(6752):423, Sept. 30, 1999 Love to choke, this is a quick scan . The more you read of your avowed high priest of materialism, the more that all they believe in is physical. Emotions are not physical. Thoughts are not physical. Concepts are not physical. Therefore, like God they must not exist |
| 1/8/10 6:34 AM | |
|
LoveToChoke
Member Since: 11/1/06 Posts: 611 |
Not that you've ever cared before about getting your facts straight, but even by your own definition what you're saying is incorrect. Emotions can be measured in a few different ways, so therefore are physical (and real). Again however, you're making an inference that just isn't true - noone has said that emotions are not real, or not important. |
| 1/8/10 11:27 PM | |
|
the rooster
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 17675 |
LTC, use a little consistent logic here. You do not believe in God because you cannot see Him despite all of the various ways in which people validate His existence. Yet you believe in an emotion or concept or thoughts as real despite the fact that they cannot be held, be put in a cup, viewed on a slide. And you find no inconsistency to your materialism, naturalism and no relevance to your woeful denial of God? LTC, you are wrong. Again. You are wrong. There is an all powerful God, just as there are emotions, thoughts, concepts, ideas and other non material aspects to our reality. |
| 1/9/10 3:53 AM | |
|
LoveToChoke
Edited: 01/09/10 4:41 AM Member Since: 11/1/06 Posts: 612 |
So you're ignoring that emotions can be measured? That they can be viewed on a slide in terms of brain activity, heart rate, etc? Do you see how incredibly weak your argument is? First off - no atheist I've ever read has ever made the claim that emotions aren't important. Secondly, you make the claim that emotions can't be measured or "seen" - whatever that means - when a 3 second google search would show that you're wrong. Thirdly, atheism does not mean a lack of ideas, philosophy, concepts or even spirituality. It simply means a lack of belief in the supernatural. That's it. Anything else you add is simply you projecting your own inaccurate assumptions and weak logic. Fourthly, What are these ways that people validate God? You can't validate God because God is supernatural. Therefore there is no way to test that God exists. If you are implying that a belief in God equals God's existance, then you must acknowledge the legitimacy of the Hindu Gods, Greek Gods etc because people believe/believed in those. Lastly, your argument falls down on so many levels its just ridiculous and you should feel embarassed to have posted it, just as I feel embarrassed to have responded to it. |
| 1/9/10 5:45 PM | |
|
the rooster
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 17676 |
LTC: So you're ignoring that emotions can be measured? That they can be viewed on a slide in terms of brain activity, heart rate, etc? me: LTC, you are not listening. *I* never said emotions couldn't be measured. I believe emotions, concepts, ideas, etc are non tangible but real. Let me try this again. Don't you think it's incredibly inconsistent to disregard any arguement concerning God because He isn't visible while accepting secondary "proofs" for emotions, ideas, etc. The "proofs" you use for proving emotions, ideas and concepts (which I believe in) are similar arguments I can make for someone for instance, being filled with God's Spirit. You can measure in the "physical world" evidence for someone receiving God's Spirit. yet you deny God's Spirit is real and the tangible physical presence of God's Spirit but accept emotions. Completely inconsistent. you: Do you see how incredibly weak your argument is? me: no, because I believe in emotions. I see how incredibly weak and inconsistent your arguement is. in fact, the seat of emotions has always been something called the "soul". You would deny a man has a soul (and science would) but that men would have emotions. Odd and inconsistent. soul??– noun 1. the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part more |
| 1/9/10 5:52 PM | |
|
the rooster
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 17677 |
you: First off - no atheist I've ever read has ever made the claim that emotions aren't important. me: no but atheist scientists who have an a priori committment to materialism and naturalism have no real reason to believe in "emotions, ideas, concepts, etc". All are non tangible, non physical and you only have secondary 'evidences' as "proof". you: Secondly, you make the claim that emotions can't be measured or "seen" - whatever that means - when a 3 second google search would show that you're wrong. me: have you ever seen an emotion, held an emotion, put it in a cup?!?! What you are saying I presume is that there is some physical variances that are consistent in peoples brains when they feel a certain emotion. That's not "proof" of an emotion. It may point to a theory of what the body does when it feels something but it doesn't make an idea tangible and material. you: Thirdly, atheism does not mean a lack of ideas, philosophy, concepts or even spirituality. It simply means a lack of belief in the supernatural. That's it. Anything else you add is simply you projecting your own inaccurate assumptions and weak logic. me: and thus you prove my point. How inconsistent it is to pretend to be a materialist and then violate that ism by accepting certain intangible, invisible "things". What' is it. Do you believe in the invisible and non tangible, extra physical or super natural, or not?!!? You prove my point. you: Fourthly, What are these ways that people validate God? You can't validate God because God is supernatural. me: God is "extra natural". but that doesn't mean you can't find evidence for God anymore then an emotion is "extra natural" or outside of they physical real and still exist or be real. you: Therefore there is no way to test that God exists. If you are implying that a belief in God equals God's existance, then you must acknowledge the legitimacy of the Hindu Gods, Greek Gods etc because people believe/believed in those. me: sure there is. There are many evidences for the existence of a greater Intelligent force and specifically the Christian God who actually was made visible in Christ. You don't accept the proof or evidence, which is fine. you: Lastly, your argument falls down on so many levels its just ridiculous and you should feel embarassed to have posted it, just as I feel embarrassed to have responded to it. me: ah the old smug elitest attempt to personalize the argument as beneath you. You responded because you 1) know i'm right 2) know deep down inside that there is a God and 3) because you defense mechanism kicked in and had to say something rather then let my correct point be the last point. Your not an intellectual giant for rejecting God. you are as the bible says...a fool. |
| 1/10/10 1:59 PM | |
zealot66
4 
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 11035 |
I thought this was a thread on why men cheat. I cant for the life of me imagine putting some extra burden on my life. I figure if it time to cheat, time to get a divorce. |
| 1/11/10 2:23 PM | |
|
bjjdna
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 1541 |
"Yet you believe in an emotion or concept or thoughts as real despite the fact that they cannot be held, be put in a cup, viewed on a slide." i'm pretty sure neurotransmitters and hormones can be measured, held in a cup, viewed, etc they are the chemicals that create hard core lustful feelings as well as love/jeolousy/anger/etc biochemical neurotransmitters misfiring in the brain can cause you to hallucinate and see things that aren't there...some people don't even have to take acid hormones and neurtransmitters are chemicals and are very tangible |
| 1/11/10 3:27 PM | |
|
the rooster
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 17681 |
bjjdna: i'm pretty sure neurotransmitters and hormones can be measured, held in a cup, viewed, etc they are the chemicals that create hard core lustful feelings as well as love/jeolousy/anger/etc biochemical neurotransmitters misfiring in the brain can cause you to hallucinate and see things that aren't there...some people don't even have to take acid hormones and neurtransmitters are chemicals and are very tangible me: bjjdna, you are concluding a connection between physical manifestations in the body that seem to coincide with "feelings". Fine. I believe in the connection between mind, body and spirit. I believe in the etheral and not just the physical and natural world. So that something invisible, something non tangible like emotions/feelings, ideas, concepts, etc. are real is no suprise to me nor is the connection to emotions and the body. However this is still theoretical. We can draw a conclusion between the body and mind and I frankly agree with them. But I think it's hypocritical and inconsistent to be a secular materialist/naturalist and then cherry pick the evidence allowable as proof. There are physical manifestations given as "proof" in the bible for receiving the infilling of the Holy Spirit. The manifestation of the Spirit includes the physical manifesation of speaking in tongues, along with typically a euphoria associated with swaying, weeping, etc. (which I'm sure can also be measured by brain waves as well as seen and observed). Typically there is a also complete change in behavior from lifestyle actitivies that are often self destructive to avoidance. This is a repeatable, observable occurance that has happened for literally 2 thousand years. Yet a secularist would dismiss the infilling of the Holy Spirit as scientifically impossible to prove (at the very least) or outright dismiss it as impossible (though one couldn't prove that). However, the evidence is not all that different then associating certain physical manifestations with proof of something invisible (feelings, thoughts etc.) I think it would be more consistent and honest to admit the possiblity of God rather then automatically dismiss it. |
| 1/11/10 3:52 PM | |
|
LoveToChoke
Member Since: 11/1/06 Posts: 613 |
Rooster, It's pretty common for most atheists to admit the possibility of God - because science cannot disprove something. Dawkins states this in The God Delusion. |
| 1/11/10 6:28 PM | |
|
Grakman
Member Since: 6/21/08 Posts: 2293 |
I didn't read much of the last few posts, but I did catch this part: rooster said: The manifestation of the Spirit includes the physical manifesation of speaking in tongues, along with typically a euphoria associated with swaying, weeping, etc. (which I'm sure can also be measured by brain waves as well as seen and observed). Typically there is a also complete change in behavior from lifestyle actitivies that are often self destructive to avoidance. Glossolalia can also be seen in other religious practices, outside of Christianity. Most Christians will say that Christian glossolalia is the Holy Spirit; but if performed by non-Christians, it's a counterfeit and the work of the Devil (who can appear as 'an angel of light'). |
| 1/11/10 11:59 PM | |
|
the rooster
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 17682 |
ltc: It's pretty common for most atheists to admit the possibility of God - because science cannot disprove something. Dawkins states this in The God Delusion. me: good to hear. Sounds like we found common ground. grackman: Glossolalia can also be seen in other religious practices, outside of Christianity. Most Christians will say that Christian glossolalia is the Holy Spirit; but if performed by non-Christians, it's a counterfeit and the work of the Devil (who can appear as 'an angel of light'). me: true. To the point, a person can be under the influence of a spiritual force (good or bad) according to Christian theology and have a true physical manifestation. |
| 1/12/10 9:30 AM | |
|
770mdm
6
Member Since: 7/24/08 Posts: 1148 |
When Moses spoke to the people telling them what G-d instructed Moses to say to them... I wouldn't call that speaking in toungues but there is a lot of Chassidus on the idea that Moses became infused with G-d and was in part a conduit for G-d as G-d. Maybe the idea of speaking in tounges is Jibberish which would be considered something non-holy but speaking as a conduit of G-d, articularaitly, coherently, directly, meaningfully is differrent? |
| 1/12/10 12:17 PM | |
|
Grakman
Member Since: 6/21/08 Posts: 2298 |
770mdm - When Moses spoke to the people telling them what G-d instructed Moses to say to them... I wouldn't call that speaking in toungues but there is a lot of Chassidus on the idea that Moses became infused with G-d and was in part a conduit for G-d as G-d. Maybe the idea of speaking in tounges is Jibberish which would be considered something non-holy but speaking as a conduit of G-d, articularaitly, coherently, directly, meaningfully is differrent? I like this explanation better than speaking gibberish. How do we explain the following verse with the understanding you have outlined above? Acts 2: 6- 16 6And(H) at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7And(I) they were amazed and astonished, saying, "Are not all these who are speaking(J) Galileans? 8And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9Parthians and(K) Medes and(L) Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11both Jews and(M) proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God." 12And(N) all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, "What does this mean?" 13But others(O) mocking said, "They are filled with new wine." |
| 1/12/10 2:29 PM | |
|
770mdm
6
Member Since: 7/24/08 Posts: 1149 |
Not my text. How would you answer it? |
| 1/12/10 2:41 PM | |
|
Grakman
Member Since: 6/21/08 Posts: 2300 |
I don't know. Was hoping you'd have some insight into how it might be done. |
| 1/13/10 7:58 AM | |
|
Joe Ray
Member Since: 8/24/00 Posts: 54473 |
It is a defining feature of emotions that they exhibit physical and physiological characteristics in those who are expressing them The mind is essentially an organ of the body and emotions are essentially a physiological/biological phenomenon. The self or soul is also an organ of the body, one of many. People who are happy, sad, in love, guilty etc. express facial expressions and body language that show what emotion they are feeling. It is a defining part of social intelligence to be able to read what emotions others are feeling by the physical characteristics they exhibit. I'm not sure why this argument started but it seems to be Rooster is suggesting emotions can't be proven to exist, as if they are undetectable and exist purely in the ether. And that therefore there is a direct contradiction between people believing that emotions are real and believing God is not real. Which is a totally wrong conclusion to draw. |
| 1/13/10 10:12 AM | |
|
770mdm
6
Member Since: 7/24/08 Posts: 1152 |
We do have the ability to fool others too including ourselves. I see it sort of absurd to think emotions aren't real. I believe we have the ability to change which would require us to ignore a negative trait we may posses until we can overcome its influence. Or we'll use more powerful emotives to subdue less powerful ones. Here is where religion is important. To subscribe that G-d can be and that he is made to be the most important thing in a persons life has the ability to nulify negative qualities. It's not just having G-d in your life its the community you surround yourself with too that also shapes a person and helps regulate negative qualities within the self. So the better community the more one has G-d in their life is 'supposed' to be a driving force in creating a better person from one who's all to common negative qualities can overtake them. |
| 1/13/10 1:14 PM | |
|
bjjdna
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 1544 |
770mdm - We do have the ability to fool others too including ourselves. I see it sort of absurd to think emotions aren't real. I believe we have the ability to change which would require us to ignore a negative trait we may posses until we can overcome its influence. Or we'll use more powerful emotives to subdue less powerful ones. Here is where religion is important. To subscribe that G-d can be and that he is made to be the most important thing in a persons life has the ability to nulify negative qualities. It's not just having G-d in your life its the community you surround yourself with too that also shapes a person and helps regulate negative qualities within the self. So the better community the more one has G-d in their life is 'supposed' to be a driving force in creating a better person from one who's all to common negative qualities can overtake them. certainly group acceptance plays a huge role in regulating negative behaviors...but the desire to be accepted amongst the group is a part of our evolutionary biology too. i would argue that a fully developed frontal lobe is also very important in regulating negative qualities...the frontal lobe is the part of the brain that allows humans todo the harder thing and not take the easy way out, ie, not give into your lust which isn't an easy thing to do given our male biology and hormones the supreme court recently ruled that kids can't be executed because of their undeveloped frontal lobes...which are not done growing until mid 20s |
| 1/13/10 3:57 PM | |
|
770mdm
6
Edited: 01/13/10 3:59 PM Member Since: 7/24/08 Posts: 1157 |
Cool, yes we are social beings. Interesting you should mention frontal lobes and responsible decision making capabilities. Tradtionally many religions have a comming to age ceremony celebrating a coming of age into adulthood. In Judaism there is a Bar-Mitzvah or Bat-Mitzvah and the next stage would be when a person reaches a marrying age. The celebration here is the marriage ceremony. Certian stages of soul type enter a persons body at particular ages. Ruach, a soul aspect which is connected to ethics and morality enters a person at the age of twenty and manifests itself in the persons life until they reach a higher aspect of soul which is revealed to them at an older age. |
| 5/10/10 10:45 AM | |
|
RamK
5
Member Since: 8/29/03 Posts: 3616 |
Grakman -jimmy23 - my brief theory right but does that imply cheating or just short lived relationships? Maybe the rich who are in the public eye cheat when they would have just left their significant other if they were not being watched? |
| 5/10/10 10:45 AM | |
|
RamK
5
Member Since: 8/29/03 Posts: 3617 |
Grakman -jimmy23 - my brief theory right but does that imply cheating or just short lived relationships? Maybe the rich who are in the public eye cheat when they would have just left their significant other if they were not being watched? |
| 6/23/10 7:38 PM | |
TheHawker
Edited: 06/23/10 7:39 PM Member Since: 7/4/05 Posts: 30619 |
. |
Reply Post
You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.
