Godzira

The only thing we could ever know to be true is our thoughts here and now and only because we are experiencing it. Even the nature of that experience is in question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision_making How do you know your thoughts on religion are reducing to be true either? Science never makes any claims of infallibility. Btw. Godzira I've never heard of that term "philosophical reductionism," a similar sort of idea is that the only thing we can not doubt is our own doubt; which is a Descartes type of reductionism. Philosophical reductionism is term I have used for years to label reductionism that focuses on more of a question of perception. Descartes tried to reduce his thought processes while I am decomposing perceptual reality. Thus philosophical reductionism is a better fit to describe the topic at hand though only narrowly. Just as an interesting side note, my first encounters with reductionism were scientific not philosophical. Quite humorous how alike they are.

By what you believe. Things might affect what you believe - but they can't prove any type of morality. Ultimately, it's just what you believe. How you feel. For instance, if I saw a homeless person on the street I would feel bad for them. There are several logical reasons I would feel bad - they don't have money, they probably don't have any food... but there are several people who would pass by and feel that it's their own fault that they are homeless and on the street. Ultimately, it's how we feel and what we believe that determines right and wrong, good and bad. We are not born with either a lack of belief or belief itself. Our ideas of what we believe to be right or wrong come from one of two places, both of which are external to ourselves. The most obvious way that we begin to form our beliefs is by simply participating in the human experience. Merely by holding consciousness we are taking in information that will be incorporated into our beliefs. Our instincts manifest themselves as desires and fears, not only in the basic sense but it more refined ways as well. Yet, these instincts are only perceptual guides and not beliefs in their own right as they no more than guide us toward the interactions that truly form our experiences. The second way that a determination can be made about right and wrong is through the guidance of another human institution such as religion or a set social structure. When it comes to my own beliefs about right and wrong I do not accept the second way as valid. My reason for refusing this form of determining right and wrong is that it is nothing more than the first process executed by other individuals. Seeing as the first process is unavoidable in the equation I would much rather use my own logic, reason, and human experience to determine my beliefs about right and wrong since it is more likely to be suitable to me, having been structured from my own experience.

Just to be clear. If you read through the previous posts the only reason I went into the "knowledge of god" debate was to refute the "ignorant of god" comment. Back on track now :D

To answe that question directly, yes. But that's irellevant. What people want has nothing to do with right is - unless that's your definition. And if it is - that is the definition you believe in - it can't be proven logically. Eventually, you just have to say "this is what right is, and this is what wrong is, and it's because I believe that." Your definition of right might very well be, "further yourself" and your definition of wrong might be "hindering yourself," and you might be able to logically show why you like and dislike those things. But that doesn't prove how one is right and one is wrong. You have to decide that based on what you believe. I would be interested in knowing how you propose our personal beliefs are formed, since you do not accept my explanation.

Believe it or not this is not my first run in with the philosophical reductionism debate. So, instead of reducing for another three pages, lets drop right to the bottom. Perhaps everything I know is flawed and nothing exists other than in my own consciousness. If that be the case it is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because the things I perceive are still my reality and thus the way I interact with that reality is still valid. So you see, I would need faith if I wanted to believe that everything around me is real as it appears. However faith is not required because real or not I accept it as my reality. That acceptance trumps the requirement of faith. I'm sorry to go back a page, but since this is my first time with the philosophical reductionism debate, let me ask you a question. You seem to be an expert in the subject. :) How do you "know" that you can't "know" anything? That would mean that you have known everything and know enough to know that you can't know anything which is, of course, contradictory. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the theory, but that's what it seems to be to me. EDIT: And evilperson, check your PMs. I don't want any confusion of people thinking it's that time of month yet. The argument goes that it is possible that everything that we believe is true is in fact an illusion created by our consciousness. This is troubling for some people because it shakes the very foundations of existence and yet it cannot be proven to be false.

So what your trying to say is that there is someone in the world who wants things to go badly?

I don't think he's saying that they don't know anything about God/gods, but that they profess that they don't know whether God/gods exist, thus making them ignorant (not knowing) in that one area. Despite the fact that you are going to disagree with me, I will make the point. NO ONE knows that god exists. You my believe that he exists to the point of ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅknowingÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

That's a basic premise. It's only relevant depending on the topic at hand - and considering the topic at hand is to question that premise, there are no grounds for it. Once again, your logic, your reasoning - only takes you so far. Eventually you have to say "this is wrong, and this is right - because I believe it." You have to define wrong and right based on your own personal belief. As Astra was trying to say, your logic only works for your own beliefs. I can logically show how giving to the poor could be wrong, and someone else could logically show how it's right. When it comes down to it - logic has nothing to do with it - it's your own personal belief on what is right, and what is wrong. LetÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s take your giving to the poor example. If both individuals had the same methodology and the same information available the conclusion would be the same. If they drew separate conclusions then they did not follow the same methodology or they had different information available to them. As far as the first part of your response, you are simply starting over again even after I just walked you through the entire process. I have shown how my logic can take me the entire way. You pulled out the last part of my post which was the conclusion. If you want to know how I arrived at that statement please read the rest of the post.

Believe it or not this is not my first run in with the philosophical reductionism debate. So, instead of reducing for another three pages, lets drop right to the bottom. Perhaps everything I know is flawed and nothing exists other than in my own consciousness. If that be the case it is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because the things I perceive are still my reality and thus the way I interact with that reality is still valid. So you see, I would need faith if I wanted to believe that everything around me is real as it appears. However faith is not required because real or not I accept it as my reality. That acceptance trumps the requirement of faith.

I don't think he's saying that they don't know anything about God/gods, but that they profess that they don't know whether God/gods exist, thus making them ignorant (not knowing) in that one area. Despite the fact that you are going to disagree with me, I will make the point. NO ONE knows that god exists. You my believe that he exists to the point of ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅknowingÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Because my logic is my own, composed of evidence and depth of though. Surely, there could be mistakes in my logic which is why I stated earlier that all conclusions that I may draw are open ended. As new evidence presents itself I include it in my running analysis. So you see, it is not so much my reasoning that gives my opinions weight but the method that is followed in the course of that reasoning. I doubt there is a man alive that will say that looking at all available evidence with an open mind and extrapolating an open ended answer to the problem at hand is a faulty methodology.

That is a completely nonsensical question. I have already defined logic above. As far as logic being a good thing, maybe itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not for you. I know that religion has always had a problem with free thought and analysis. Hmmmm. Wonder why that is? As far as the monkey thing, I'm not even going to bother. If you want to debate evolution that's fine by me, but at least understand evolution first. If you were debating that in class you deserved detention. You should have attempted to learn the theory and then try to poke holes in it if you wish. But disrupting your teacher with irrelevant questions that only show you didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t understand the theory in the first place is extremely immature.

Not knowing whether a god exists. And that was the same source i found to decide it's legitimacy. However we must have drawn different conclusions. Don't know whether God exists? Then you're ignorant on the subject, and thus an ignoramus. -Gid. You can be knowledgeable about god and still not believe in him.

Um no. It is logical to want to further your position is it not?

right is the outcome that will further my position, and wrong is the one that will hinder it. BTW this started because you said that a god had to be involved to have right and wrong, be it an external or internal god. I said that this was not the case.

Because, the point of life is survival and prosperity. What I would like to know is, why is it so unfathomable to you that a person could have their own morals without god?

No, they aren't. Eventually, you have to make the decision as to whether or not something is right or wrong. Eventually, you have to step out of the realm of logic and go on what you believe. For instance - try and logically explain to me why murder is wrong - using nothing but logic. Human beings are a clan based society. As a member of this society I am subject to the common law and the common good. First letÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s talk about the law. If I kill someone I go to jail. But beyond that, murder creates mayhem and violence begets violence. Since our society is based on interactions with fellow human beings for mutual success, murder is counter productive. I also realize that each person has something to contribute to the world and by ending that life you take away those contributions. Thus murder is wrong.

I reason toward the answer to a question. Not toward something I value as that is dictated as part of the answer.

Logic is defined thus : 1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning By that definition, my beliefs are logical as a result of the thought and empirical processes that I use to arrive at my open ended conclutions on which my beliefs are based.

What is your point? Q; You said you decide right and wrong based on logic and I said that's wrong. You decide based on your own personal beliefs. A; Yes but my personal beliefs are based on logic. This should be obvious

Both homosexuality and cannibalism are natural yes. Do humans practice both? Yes. As far as the argument that homosexuality works against procreation, that is true. But have you ever though that just maybe that is what it is supposed to do? Nature has many ingenious ways of dealing with overpopulation of a species. Is it that hard to extrapolate that with the sort of population explosion our species is experiencing that homosexuality may serve a purpose and might possibly even be beneficial to our race?

Yes but my personal beliefs are based on logic.

1) I have several friends who believe there is a God and don't follow a religion. In fact, I'm about to go play Ultimate Frisbee with one of them. 2) I'm not troubled by you making personal decisions based on selfish choices. The point I'm making is that you are still making choices based on what you believe. You can't decide right and wrong based on logic - it's something you believe. I don't care what your definition of right and wrong is - that's not my point. My point is that right and wrong is decided by your own personal belief (for you). 1. What god does he believe in? His own god? 2. lol Belief does not equate to got. Your problem is that you do not understand that you can have your own beliefs independent of a god.

ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a matter of balance. I do donate my money and time quite a bit but I would never ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Ågive all my money to kids in AfricaÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ