|
On July 02 2013 08:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 07:57 politik wrote:On July 02 2013 07:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 07:34 kwantumszuperpozishn wrote:
The good thing about being human is that we are intelligent and that our knowledge keeps increasing that we are outdating and rejecting previous ideas and beliefs that seemed to adequately explain natural and social phenomena when human knowledge was not yet fully developed.
Chief among this is religion. It is getting the most heat because among other human institutions, it has been the most influential and even abusive and continues to control and influence some human relations. If, then, we are willing to go down this path and be consistent about it, why not go the full extent and interrogate all other abstract and arbitrary human constructs?
Chief among this is love. Outside religion, love seems the one concept which people would cling to and defend their lives. If we declare love just as one of the arbitrary human concepts, then we would eliminate many of the old fashioned and nonsense things that we tie ourselves into as humans - dating, marriage, long term relationship, etc. Think about it, if we start to reject the idea of love, and treat it as nothing more than socially reinforced concept that we evolved, and instead just have a transactional relationship in the sense that is built around trust, companionship, friendship, communication, etc, then we can free ourselves from the tyranny of love.
What do you think? Why do we still value these other arbitrary constructs? All religions starts on the basis of a witness testifying a hallucination and writing it down in record for people throughout history to know this truth. Do you have proof that it's a hallucination? Remember, the argument is that religion is an arbitrary construct--if people believe it because they believed the ramblings of some guy, whether its true or not has not bearing on the fact that it stops being arbitrary if people believe what he is saying anyway. An arbitrary construct suggests that people conceive of an abstract idea and follow it. Religion is hearing someone say something is supposedly true, and believing them. That's the opposite of arbitrary. That's literally taking evidence and structuring your viewpoint on that evidence. You not finding the evidence valid does not mean the believer finds the evidence invalid.
thats not how science nor life works my friend
|
On July 02 2013 08:36 teddyoojo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 07:57 politik wrote:On July 02 2013 07:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 07:34 kwantumszuperpozishn wrote:
The good thing about being human is that we are intelligent and that our knowledge keeps increasing that we are outdating and rejecting previous ideas and beliefs that seemed to adequately explain natural and social phenomena when human knowledge was not yet fully developed.
Chief among this is religion. It is getting the most heat because among other human institutions, it has been the most influential and even abusive and continues to control and influence some human relations. If, then, we are willing to go down this path and be consistent about it, why not go the full extent and interrogate all other abstract and arbitrary human constructs?
Chief among this is love. Outside religion, love seems the one concept which people would cling to and defend their lives. If we declare love just as one of the arbitrary human concepts, then we would eliminate many of the old fashioned and nonsense things that we tie ourselves into as humans - dating, marriage, long term relationship, etc. Think about it, if we start to reject the idea of love, and treat it as nothing more than socially reinforced concept that we evolved, and instead just have a transactional relationship in the sense that is built around trust, companionship, friendship, communication, etc, then we can free ourselves from the tyranny of love.
What do you think? Why do we still value these other arbitrary constructs? All religions starts on the basis of a witness testifying a hallucination and writing it down in record for people throughout history to know this truth. Do you have proof that it's a hallucination? Remember, the argument is that religion is an arbitrary construct--if people believe it because they believed the ramblings of some guy, whether its true or not has not bearing on the fact that it stops being arbitrary if people believe what he is saying anyway. An arbitrary construct suggests that people conceive of an abstract idea and follow it. Religion is hearing someone say something is supposedly true, and believing them. That's the opposite of arbitrary. That's literally taking evidence and structuring your viewpoint on that evidence. You not finding the evidence valid does not mean the believer finds the evidence invalid. thats not how science nor life works my friend
you are misunderstanding his argument
he is not arguing that god is real or that religion is true, he is arguing that the concept of religion being an "arbitrary construct" is flawed because by definition, religion is not an "arbitrary construct"
(it's an argument of semantics, and OP's entire post seems based on his misunderstanding of the words he is using)
|
On July 02 2013 08:36 teddyoojo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 07:57 politik wrote:On July 02 2013 07:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 07:34 kwantumszuperpozishn wrote:
The good thing about being human is that we are intelligent and that our knowledge keeps increasing that we are outdating and rejecting previous ideas and beliefs that seemed to adequately explain natural and social phenomena when human knowledge was not yet fully developed.
Chief among this is religion. It is getting the most heat because among other human institutions, it has been the most influential and even abusive and continues to control and influence some human relations. If, then, we are willing to go down this path and be consistent about it, why not go the full extent and interrogate all other abstract and arbitrary human constructs?
Chief among this is love. Outside religion, love seems the one concept which people would cling to and defend their lives. If we declare love just as one of the arbitrary human concepts, then we would eliminate many of the old fashioned and nonsense things that we tie ourselves into as humans - dating, marriage, long term relationship, etc. Think about it, if we start to reject the idea of love, and treat it as nothing more than socially reinforced concept that we evolved, and instead just have a transactional relationship in the sense that is built around trust, companionship, friendship, communication, etc, then we can free ourselves from the tyranny of love.
What do you think? Why do we still value these other arbitrary constructs? All religions starts on the basis of a witness testifying a hallucination and writing it down in record for people throughout history to know this truth. Do you have proof that it's a hallucination? Remember, the argument is that religion is an arbitrary construct--if people believe it because they believed the ramblings of some guy, whether its true or not has not bearing on the fact that it stops being arbitrary if people believe what he is saying anyway. An arbitrary construct suggests that people conceive of an abstract idea and follow it. Religion is hearing someone say something is supposedly true, and believing them. That's the opposite of arbitrary. That's literally taking evidence and structuring your viewpoint on that evidence. You not finding the evidence valid does not mean the believer finds the evidence invalid. thats not how science nor life works my friend
How so?
People who believe religious texts see those texts as evidence written by people who saw the real deal. You might disagree with the evidence, but that doesn't mean that the people who do believe it do so arbitrarily.
They might be misguided.
They might be tricked.
But arbitrarily choosing what you believe in? That's not how believing things works. I don't "choose" to believe in gravity for much the same reason I don't "choose" to believe the world is round. Evidence to me shows that gravity is real and that the world is round. If evidence comes up later stating otherwise, I might or might not believe it depending on how much I trust said evidence.
The same is true for zealots and their texts. They have not found counter-arguments that are strong enough to prove their document wrong.
|
On July 02 2013 08:36 teddyoojo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 07:57 politik wrote:On July 02 2013 07:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 07:34 kwantumszuperpozishn wrote:
The good thing about being human is that we are intelligent and that our knowledge keeps increasing that we are outdating and rejecting previous ideas and beliefs that seemed to adequately explain natural and social phenomena when human knowledge was not yet fully developed.
Chief among this is religion. It is getting the most heat because among other human institutions, it has been the most influential and even abusive and continues to control and influence some human relations. If, then, we are willing to go down this path and be consistent about it, why not go the full extent and interrogate all other abstract and arbitrary human constructs?
Chief among this is love. Outside religion, love seems the one concept which people would cling to and defend their lives. If we declare love just as one of the arbitrary human concepts, then we would eliminate many of the old fashioned and nonsense things that we tie ourselves into as humans - dating, marriage, long term relationship, etc. Think about it, if we start to reject the idea of love, and treat it as nothing more than socially reinforced concept that we evolved, and instead just have a transactional relationship in the sense that is built around trust, companionship, friendship, communication, etc, then we can free ourselves from the tyranny of love.
What do you think? Why do we still value these other arbitrary constructs? All religions starts on the basis of a witness testifying a hallucination and writing it down in record for people throughout history to know this truth. Do you have proof that it's a hallucination? Remember, the argument is that religion is an arbitrary construct--if people believe it because they believed the ramblings of some guy, whether its true or not has not bearing on the fact that it stops being arbitrary if people believe what he is saying anyway. An arbitrary construct suggests that people conceive of an abstract idea and follow it. Religion is hearing someone say something is supposedly true, and believing them. That's the opposite of arbitrary. That's literally taking evidence and structuring your viewpoint on that evidence. You not finding the evidence valid does not mean the believer finds the evidence invalid. thats not how science nor life works my friend
I think Magpie's argument is not that the evidence on which religions are based is true, but that said religions' followers believe it to be true, because they take it to be legitimate evidence. So in this sense, it's not arbitrary, for them that is valid evidence and they base their belief on it. Whether or not it is actually true, outside of anyone's belief, that's a different matter entirely...
|
ok, i misunderstood. but if you believe something to be evidence, does it turn into evidence?
|
On July 02 2013 08:57 teddyoojo wrote:
ok, i misunderstood. but if you believe something to be evidence, does it turn into evidence?
how accurate something is does define it as evidence. If I believe in gravity, but my evidence is that grass grows upward--my evidence would be wrong but it still is "evidence."
|
So you're saying that we create religion as a way to explain things we don't understand, as an artificial construct.
But I'm a bit confused as to how love is an artificial construct that we cling to as a way of supporting us somehow.
I think, for the sake of argument, we can agree with the hypothetical idea that religion was created mainly as a means to explain the world around us.
But love wasn't created as an artificial construct. It is a natural, primordial feeling or bond that people develop between each other. The need to mate is encoded into our genes and our need to procreate to ensure the survival of the species, which is probably why the feeling of love is so strong, as it leads to that mating process.
So I really don't think you're going to be able to make it disappear somehow, just as if it were an idea of God or a set of ideas written down in a holy text.
Now, love can be formalized into a bonding ritual like marriage (and other forms); such rituals are definitely artificial constructs; i.e. the whole concept of monogamy and lifelong commitment to one woman only. You can certainly make the claim that those might be deconstructed. But everything should be deconstructed for a reason. Religion has very clear and obvious reasons for being dismantled if we assume the empiricist's perspective is correct. You would have to make a case against monogamy; show how it is harmful to all of society. I doubt you can really do this; in the end I think we should allow different "formal" relationships between people depending on what they like. Our goal should be to maximize freedom as it produces the most good.
|
If you really think about, there is actually very little in human society that is *completely* arbitrary. Emotions are chemical reactions in your brain. Most Religion is based on eyewitness testimonies that get passed down from generation to generation (and heavily distorted, depending on who you ask). Hell, even our number system isn't arbitrary (we have ten fingers).
Edit: So I guess, OP, a more constructive way of going about things is not asking why we do "arbitrary" things, but rather looking into the history and motives behind a lot of human behavior and thinking of ways to improve. Nothing happens in a vacuum.
|
ITT: People with fedoras talking about words and concepts they don't understand. Take it back to reddit, I'm sure they value cunning teen freethinkers over there.
User was warned for this post
|
I'm going to give the poorly thought out and constructed op a pass and actually give him a straight answer. I think it has been deconstructed enough.
We know that love is driven by chemicals and we are entirely aware of it.
Being completely aware of it does not make us not-human (aka under the influence) or want to shun these generally favored chemicals. We like being in love. Our decision making, our very thinking is completely influenced by these chemicals. It is no wonder we don't rationalize it into pure logic.
Now contract this with addiction. We realize it is our brain chemistry craving things. Same story here, but our rational side even under the influence of addiction can make logical decisions (or not).
|
Love is an evolutionary byproduct but it is definitely real.
|
I find it odd that religious evidence is still just based on hear-say. There's no evidence that God actually spoke to Moses other than Moses saying so.
|
On July 02 2013 07:34 kwantumszuperpozishn wrote:
Chief among this is love. Outside religion, love seems the one concept which people would cling to and defend their lives. If we declare love just as one of the arbitrary human concepts, then we would eliminate many of the old fashioned and nonsense things that we tie ourselves into as humans - dating, marriage, long term relationship, etc. Think about it, if we start to reject the idea of love, and treat it as nothing more than socially reinforced concept that we evolved, and instead just have a transactional relationship in the sense that is built around trust, companionship, friendship, communication, etc, then we can free ourselves from the tyranny of love.
What do you think? Why do we still value these other arbitrary constructs?
Plato - The Symposium
Kierkegaard - Seducer's Diary
Just two great sources for exploring the human construct of 'love'. Perhaps, it is something we never fully achieve, but always strive after, like "good health" or "democracy". In this case, it is something that we are constantly developing ourselves around and re-examining ourselves 'in light of'. Love, then, may be something that propels us forward, to keep on yearning, some higher purpose which is always set beyond the one that we are actually engaged in...for instance, writing a book dedicated to a loved one after they pass away--the immediate goal might be the fulfillment of the book, but the real love that drove project can never be reduced to merely 'writing a book' or even 'honoring the memory of...' The real purpose, then, is always just outside of reach, beyond the lover.
As far as 'marriage' goes, again Kierkegaard is interesting for that topic...he backed out of his own engagement and wrote extensively about how marriage often was the 'end to love' because it set something concrete, after the marriage there was nothing left to strive for....it caused lovers to settle and get comfortable rather than to continue growing and striving.
|
On July 02 2013 09:21 SnipedSoul wrote:
I find it odd that religious evidence is still just based on hear-say. There's no evidence that God actually spoke to Moses other than Moses saying so.
All religious evidence is necessarily hear-say. Faith is based on by-passing rationality, that is why it is a 'leap'.
Have you ever seen Pulp Fiction? Remember the beginning scene when Samuel L Jackson and John Travolta are fired at by the man with the "hand cannon"? If not, it is on youtube...the point being, they both witnessed the same event, one accepted the miracle, the other did not....one had faith, the other did not. Faith requires you to believe in it in order to witness some phenomenon, or event, as a miracle, without faith there is no miracle....there is always some other explanation, even if it is beyond what anyone can explain.
'for those who have faith, no proof is needed...for those who lack faith, no proof is possible'
An event can be interpreted as a miracle at any time for a person who believes. Example: The birth of a child, life itself, can both be miracles by one who believes that God is responsible for all life.
|
Love is biological. Not a social construct. Marriage is a social construct
|
On July 02 2013 09:38 scaban84 wrote:
Love is biological. Not a social construct. Marriage is a social construct
You are confusing "objective" science with subjective experience. Yes, we can map the biological processes that result in the sensation experienced when being with a loved one, but that tells us nothing about experiencing love. Yes, love can be talked about in this sterile way, but it immediately becomes boring and removed from everyday life.
Besides, a more classic definition of 'love' does not only include that elevated serotonin level induced horny bedside episodes of carnal relationships...but rather one can 'love' one's neighbor or love one's country or love a ruler or love Jesus / some other deity (all of these social construction of love that makes no reference to the scientific love of brain scans and chemical / biological processes.)
Edit: Besides, even if you do look at love entirely as a biological process, then you are still saying an awful lot about the values of yourself and your culture. You have given science (itself a human construct) a privileged domain and have accepted the scientific view and language (language, also a human construct). In other words, you describe the social values of a highly scientific age that would prefer to explain love in terms of biological processes rather than through the subjective experience of the lover ie. in terms of passion and striving or acceptance, security, affection, companionship, commitment and stability, etc.
|
On July 02 2013 08:40 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 08:36 teddyoojo wrote:On July 02 2013 08:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 07:57 politik wrote:On July 02 2013 07:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 07:34 kwantumszuperpozishn wrote:
The good thing about being human is that we are intelligent and that our knowledge keeps increasing that we are outdating and rejecting previous ideas and beliefs that seemed to adequately explain natural and social phenomena when human knowledge was not yet fully developed.
Chief among this is religion. It is getting the most heat because among other human institutions, it has been the most influential and even abusive and continues to control and influence some human relations. If, then, we are willing to go down this path and be consistent about it, why not go the full extent and interrogate all other abstract and arbitrary human constructs?
Chief among this is love. Outside religion, love seems the one concept which people would cling to and defend their lives. If we declare love just as one of the arbitrary human concepts, then we would eliminate many of the old fashioned and nonsense things that we tie ourselves into as humans - dating, marriage, long term relationship, etc. Think about it, if we start to reject the idea of love, and treat it as nothing more than socially reinforced concept that we evolved, and instead just have a transactional relationship in the sense that is built around trust, companionship, friendship, communication, etc, then we can free ourselves from the tyranny of love.
What do you think? Why do we still value these other arbitrary constructs? All religions starts on the basis of a witness testifying a hallucination and writing it down in record for people throughout history to know this truth. Do you have proof that it's a hallucination? Remember, the argument is that religion is an arbitrary construct--if people believe it because they believed the ramblings of some guy, whether its true or not has not bearing on the fact that it stops being arbitrary if people believe what he is saying anyway. An arbitrary construct suggests that people conceive of an abstract idea and follow it. Religion is hearing someone say something is supposedly true, and believing them. That's the opposite of arbitrary. That's literally taking evidence and structuring your viewpoint on that evidence. You not finding the evidence valid does not mean the believer finds the evidence invalid. thats not how science nor life works my friend you are misunderstanding his argument he is not arguing that god is real or that religion is true, he is arguing that the concept of religion being an "arbitrary construct" is flawed because by definition, religion is not an "arbitrary construct" (it's an argument of semantics, and OP's entire post seems based on his misunderstanding of the words he is using)
Yup you figured it out. Arguing about semantics will get annoying really fast. The OP would have to be rewritten to make this go away.
|
Let's pick a biased sample of people who have shown a tendency to commit to a relationship to demonstrate that, when exposed to a hormone that would make them sexually receptive, they will drop all their social conditioning and dive upon the nearest cute girl.
Oh, huh, it didn't happen... Guess this hormone must mind control people into committed relationships into an opposite effect to its normal one by itself.
Have not psychologists heard of occam's razor? does it not make more sense that this hormone would trigger effects that in a person without commitments would make them receptive, but in a person with commitments would make them more wary? Was this accounted for? Twenty bucks on no...
You have to be stupidly careful about trusting studies like these. They're mostly scientific wish fulfillment, not strong evidence for what the researchers are suggesting they might explain.
|
Where the hell do these topics keep coming from?
|
On July 02 2013 10:29 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Where the hell do these topics keep coming from?
They're arbitrarily constructed 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
