Re: Decision-making using logic not feelings

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 7:39:51 +1100, Joe wrote
(in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>):

> Some people see the World going by their feelings and not
> by logic. Some of these people are entitled to because it is
> self-defence. For those whom it is not self-defence it would
> be rewarding to put effort into attempting to teach themselves
> to think logially. This may mean breaking through conditioning.
> 
> 
> Atheists who believe we are in a Universe on are own in
> self-defence can ignore the rest of this post.

Well, I'm an atheist, but I have no idea what you mean by the rest 
of that sentence.


> Science has not debunked supernatural therefore it may be
> possible supernatural exists.
> You could try to line your feelings up with this.
> Try to indentify if you are manipulating information.

This really needs tightening up, it comes across as babble.

e.g. if information exists then of course I'm manipulating it, 
/long/ before it gets anywhere near a level where I can consider 
it using the tools of rational thought. [consider what 
'information' actually reaches the eyes of a normally sighted and 
normally encephalised human, then consider what they 'see' - the 
'information' has been manipulated already.]

> Science has not debunked the possibly of the existance of God
> therefore it is possible God exists.

Definition & attributes of 'God' being?

> You could try to line your feelings up with this.
> Try to identify if you are manipulating information.

Sorry, I have no idea what scope you have in mind when you say 
'God'. 

 
> An example of manipulation would be to say there is too much 
> suffering in the World for God to exist. I say that there is a

Nope, that would depend on the attributes of the 'God' in 
question.
 
> lot of suffering but we have infinity amount of time to get 
> over the suffering in this life. That is not belittling 
> suffering though. 

So life is a paper cut?
Would it be OK to keep my children on a 
minimal-food-to-sustain-life diet for the next few years, provided 
I feed them well for the rest of their lives?

And, does this 'infinity of time' to get over the suffering in 
this life depend on any particular actions, or is it automatic?

If it is automatic, then why bother with this phase? If it is not 
automatic, then isn't it a bit 'manipulative' to suggest that 
suffering in this life will be repaid in the next, when it is 
actually contingent on something else (and so suffering in this 
life may not repaid)?

Have Fun
Martin
-- 
aa #1792

Almost always SMASHed