feeling are not intangible, if it is then all those drug that alter your state of mind would not have work. brain mapping studies also show specific area reponsible for emotion.

---

Added on July 15, 2010, 2:16 pmfeeling are not intangible, if it is then all those drug that alter your state of mind would not have work. brain mapping studies also show specific area reponsible for emotion.

This post has been edited by robertngo: Jul 15 2010, 02:16 PM

Isn't that just an excuse?

That means you haven't been reading my posts. If feelings are actually tangible, hence made believable, why then the "godly-feelings" are not the acceptable ones?

i though you specificly dont want to mix this topic with religion?

simply because we don't recognize that 'godly feelings' as tangible and hence we don't believe it.

hmm... probably... since it is a mindset that developed inside me as a protective measure... my mind start to tell me that believing too deeply will hurt myself, so i prevent myself to do so in many matters, it can be an excuse for protecting my "feel".

now in my mind a question pop up, is it the "existence" wan me to have this mindset or its just me having this mindset due to certain chemical in my brain trigger me to?

I didn't. I used the word God to accommodate the existence of what others "feel" about it, and comparing with what others considered to be legitimate feelings.

But wouldn't that means that your other "feelings" are as good as intangible and not believable as well?


It's you. You rather live in denial because you know the truth is rather harsh.

im pretty sure they cant feel it as well.

Yes, i am... truth is too harsh on me, so i choose to live like that so that i can calm myself and continue on with my living dealing harsh truth...

Well, I don't think they will rely on "feeling" than observations when it comes to scientific proof, but neither can they deny that they have actions motivated by "feelings" whenever they're facing the effects of social stigma.

That's rather sad, isn't it? To choose to live in fake happiness, and to not experience any true sadness.

Ya living a life for many in the world is like this, always dream and hope for true happiness that will never came true...

dreaming and hoping their believes will one day realize...

and yet, the harsh truth will be with them until the day they stop "living" in this world... that is why many choose death over living...

I'm not brave enough to choose death, so i choose fake happiness to deal with harsh truth, it's just a choice of life...

who knows, maybe some day there really is true happiness waiting for humanity in the future...

is it a little bit off topic?? hmm....

This post has been edited by ToNToRo: Jul 16 2010, 10:49 AM

Nope. It's not off-topic because I'm handling it, LOL.

I understand what you mean, but do you know that there are people who are happy even after accepting the truth? The truth may seem hard, but at least when you're happy, it's REAL happiness. That means there are no such thing as an easy way out in life by just being in denial in a fantasy world of fake joy. You have fight all the harshness in REAL life to achieve REAL happiness.

Hahaha.. i'm actually wont dwell too deep into fake happiness and imagination.... if i do that, i wont even be working in a company for only 1k salary handling executive task... i do fight for my real happiness future, its just that sometime when i feel low and struggled i rather let myself dwell into those imagination for a while to calm myself, to relax a bit...

sometime i even denying myself being in so denial and negative attitude... haha...

Kinda off topic, but worth to question. I always wondering what if we train a child to react the other way round. A happy moment, we hit him, force him to cry. When sad moment, we trained him to laugh and smile.

This might be able to prove that emotion is just a state of mind which let the people around us know we're happy or sad.

By DEFAULT, a baby will cry and laugh to show it's feeling. What if we change the default by training? I am sure this can be done. Agents like CIA, FBI or actors can control their emotion perfectly. Some of the soldiers even have no emotion, or blank. Not to mention actors and actress that won awards for outstanding performance.

How does this justify what is happy and what is sad, tangible and intangible?

Can we 'cheat' ourself that the moment is happy where in fact it is a sad moment? Is it possible that our brain fail to interpret the moment ? Some situation like a man expecting a baby so much, when the wife finally delivered the baby, the wife passed away. Will the brain try to logic that moment - 'Wife died, don't be sad, there is still a baby = Happy' or 'Wife has more memories, baby is new = Sad'. Or our brain has a weighing system, by adding the points to summarize the emotion -'Wife passed away + new baby = -10 + 5 = -5(Sad).

What about the time factor ? When we break up, we feel sad. after 2 months, we feel less sad, after 2 years we don't feel sad. Does time reduce the feeling, or the clock in our brain is telling us that '2 months passed, minus 50% of the sad feeling from the breakup'

Of course, if we put this in a general religion perspective, God created us so that we can live in this world. We should define our own path and livings, to achieve happiness. But how to define this happiness, does happiness measured on the last second in our life? Such as the moment we died, if the moment of the last beat of our heart is happy, we achieve happiness.

what makes u think that hasnt already happened to some ppl? If the person is wise...he will despise the wrongness in the lessons and think the teacher is a retard. Yes, wise ppl do not all have perfect teachings during childhood.

---

Added on August 11, 2010, 11:26 pmthe fact that u can bring yourself to see that shows you have much potential for growth. be proud.


This post has been edited by teongpeng: Aug 11 2010, 11:26 PM

A wise person would not think the teacher is a retard. You are completely wrong, please do not mislead others in your delusion.

i u think im wrong back it up. if u think im deluded explain why. else you're just talking the kokking.

You are asking me to back up a common sense, much less if you were really a wise man? You think it is proper to go and tell people off that he/she is a retard? Do you have common sense or not?

Decades before, technology is not advance enough to be able to see cancer cells, therefore people never knew about cancer, making does not exist.
Maybe, we do not see a being known as God, because we do not have to tools to see him or her yet.

The only dangerous thing is not whether it is proper or not, is that he/she is REALLY a retard.

But it's all off-topic here. Read the first post if y'all wanted to understand what this thread is all about.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Aug 15 2010, 06:55 PM

After examining all Deadlocks' posts in connection to this thread and other thread “The acceptance of intangibility,” it seemed that his Appeal to Ignorance occurred because of an incorrect understanding of who has the burden of proof. Suppose I claim “People should accept the intangible feeling of God's presence because they have accepted their same intangible feeling of emotions.” You’d then rightly say to me, “Prove it!” If I want to make that claim, I have to provide proof. I can’t just say, “Well, prove to me there isn’t!” Because that would make the default position something like “Accept everything until you have reason not to.”

Imagine that for a moment, and you’ll realize how crazy that would be: People could claim all sorts of ridiculous things, and we’d all be walking around accepting them because no one had proved them wrong yet. How could you prove, for example, that there isn’t a Deity who manifests in the deepest part of the universe — especially if I told you The Deity has never been seen and He transcends in higher realms that are beyond our observable universe, that humans will never be able to detect Him with whatsoever instruments.

The far more reasonable default position is “Don’t accept a claim until you have good reason to accept it.” And that’s exactly the position that is established by putting the burden of proof on the person making the claim. So, just because a claim hasn’t been proven to be false, it doesn’t mean it’s true. Conversely, just because a claim hasn’t been proven to be true, it doesn’t mean it’s false. When there is insufficient proof one way or the other, one should suspend judgment.