Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Reply to topic
Freethinker43
First Post
PostPosted: Mon Dec 19, 2016 12:03 am  Deism Reply with quote

I believe in God and I believe that God works through nature, specifically through evolution and the Big Bang Theory. I believe that we serve each other best when we use our God- given reason. I believe that the philosophy of Deism is the most practicable one today. Here's a link for those interested in exploring deistic tenets: http://www.deism.com/index.html.
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 91: Tue Mar 07, 2017 11:08 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 90 by hoghead1]

*chuckles*

Snails are also intelligent critters.


I don't particularly see any strength in your argument re referring to other critters as intelligent as if somehow the label can only apply to the human critter.

By acknowledging the obvious intelligence in other critters, one is not saying they are human.

By your argument, only humans are intelligent.

In relation to reward and punishment - changing the terms to mean "Reinforces" doesn't change the fact that these are rewards and punishments, and in what way are these different from the way human societies are controlled?

Intelligence learns through experience. Consciousness is that which allows for intelligence and learns from experience.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 92: Tue Mar 07, 2017 3:05 pm
Reply
Re: Deism explains nothing significant re GOD.

Like this post
[Replying to post 89 by American Deist]

Do you have anything to say about the contradictions I pointed out in my post about your position as a deist?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 93: Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:05 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 91 by William]

I definitely did not say that only humans are intelligent. I said that attributing intelligence to other creatures is anthropomorphizing, which it is, because we are generalizing from ourselves, what we are familiar with, to other creatures, the unfamiliar. All knowing is such analogous knowing. Hence, projection and anthropomorphizing are the solution, not the problem. I thought I made that clear in several previous posts.

And no, behaviorists would go up the wall with your notion that "reinforce" means "reward" or "punishment." I should know, I have an M.S. in clinical psychology. Anyhow, All "reinforce" means to the behaviorist is to increase the possibility of the response occurring. And that it, period. Please no references to internal states of mind, such as emotion, pain, etc., as all of these are aspects of our experience. You should have my old professor of psychology on the topic. One day in the lab, observing rats copulate, I shared how "horny" I thought they are. Well, they copulate like flies or something. Geeze, regular orgy going on here. I got chewed out but good, told never to attribute human sexual feelings to rats. Humans get "horny," but forget it with rats. No anthropomorphizing. Just describe their copulatory frequency. You have no idea what is going on inside them. Stop projecting human emotions into them, etc.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 94: Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:42 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 93 by hoghead1]

That is all very well, but to say - as in your example - that humans get 'horny' while other critters do not, is merely using a term (horny) to describe something which both rats and humans (and dogs etc,) do.

Why should such be described as 'horny' for humans and 'naturally copulating' for the rest of earths critters?

How does professor so-and-so know that that other critters are not feeling the same base things during copulation as human beings do?

If you had said -"look at those rats! They obviously love one another" then I could agree if the professor had pounced on you for that, but 'human sexual feelings' in relation to being 'horny'?

Perhaps the professor was conflating?

If you agree that other critters are intelligent, then that is not saying that you are anthropomorphizing.

Even if you recognize love in the relationship that other critters might show toward one another, that is still not anthropomorphizing. Otherwise you would be saying that only humans are capable of expressing love, and you would be incorrect.

Look at it another way. You think of GOD as a loving being? GOD is not human. So are you anthropomorphizing GOD?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 95: Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:04 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 94 by William]

No, the professor was not conflating. He was simply being a good behaviorist, and good behaviorists are 100 percent against anthropomorphizing. And again, attributing intelligence to animals is attributing a humanlike trait to them and is considered a anthropomorphizing, just as would be attributing " horniness." As I have said several times, I have no trouble with this anthropomorphizing. I feel it is the key to knowing. Hence, I would have no trouble attributing " love" to rats. Yes, I think our pets love us.

Consequently, as I have said, unless a genuine analogy, uniformity, likeness exists between ourselves and God, we can know nothing of God. If we cannot apply finite, creaturely attributes to god, then we can say only what God is not, not what God is, as St. Thomas Aquinas emphasized. In that case, the whole concept of God is meaningless. So yes, I am all for anthropomorphizing God.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 96: Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:01 am
Reply
Anthropomorphizing God - or GOD is within the creation?

Like this post
GOD is discernible within the critters.
Because the critters exist, GOD is discernible within the Planet.
Because the living Planets exist, GOD is discernible within the Galaxies.

After that, things get a little hazy...

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 97: Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:45 pm
Reply
Re: Anthropomorphizing God - or GOD is within the creation?

Like this post
[Replying to post 96 by William]

Sorry, but I don't follow what this has to do with my previous post.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 98: Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:35 pm
Reply
Re: Anthropomorphizing God - or GOD is within the creation?

Like this post
hoghead1 wrote:

[Replying to post 96 by William]

Sorry, but I don't follow what this has to do with my previous post.


It has to do with GOD being the one 'anthropomorphizing' creation with GODs consciousness. Looking from within the human form out into the greater creation, 'we' as that GOD-consciousness are able to recognize our self within the creation, depending of course, on two main things.

1: How we choose to self identify.
2: How we choose to identify others.

'Others' includes all life forms (obviously imbued with consciousness) and all forms obviously directly responsible for life forms (not obviously imbued with consciousness.)

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 99: Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:22 pm
Reply
Re: Anthropomorphizing God - or GOD is within the creation?

Like this post (1): William
[Replying to post 98 by William]

Thanks for the info. I'm still puzzled, but I suppose I may gain more clarity in future posts from you.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version