Well then I'm in deep crap, because I'm too lazy to take any action. Dunno what my problem is, but it partially has to do with me wanting to hear them. I do not like simply getting thoughts in my head. Too difficult to figure out which thoughts are mine, or Satan's, or God's, and I'd rather not take any initiative unless I knew for certain who was talking to me. Otherwise, visiting those in the hospital: do I have to do that, or is it just an idea that I got but don't really have to do?

And I'm iffy about the idea of "having to believe in Christ" etc., mostly because if that were the case, I'd say a good 1/3 of the world is pretty skrewed over. I want to believe we're all saved no matter what, save for maybe the really REALLY nasty folk.

As for the rest, Matthew, Chapter 25:31-46 (according to the God's Word Bible)

[i]"When the Son of Man comes in his glory and all his angels are with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. The people of every nation will be gathered in front of him. He will separate them as a shephed separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right but the goats on his left.

"Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, my Father has blessed you! Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger, and you took me into your house. I needed clothes, and you gave me something to wear. I was sick, and you took care of me. I was in prison, and you visited me.'

"Then the people who have God's approval will reply to him, 'Lord, when did e see you hungry adn feed you or see you thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you as a stranger and take you into our homes or see you in need of clothes and give you something to wear? When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?'

"The king will answer them, 'I can guarentee this truth: Whatever you did for one of my brothers or sisters, no matter how unimportant they seemed, you did for me.'

"Then the king will say to those on his left, 'Get away from me! God has cursed you! Go into the everlasting fire that was prepared for the devil and his angels! I was hungry, and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty, and you gave me nothing to drink. I was a stranger, and you didn't take me into your homes. I needed clothes, and you didn't give me anything to wear. I was sick, and in prison, and you didn't take care of me.'

"They, too, will ask, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or as a stranger or in need of clothes or sick or in prison and didn't help you?'

"He will answer them, 'I can guarentee this truth: Whatever you failed to do for one of my brothers or sisters, no matter how unimportant they seemed, you failed to do for me.'

"These people will go away into eternal punisment, but those with God's approval will go into eternal life."

So then, doing all that is in reference to returning the favor, rather than gaining favor? Still, I'm still skrewed over, I'm sure. I have to spend so much time at work, when I get home I don't want to spend my remaining time doing anything besides playing games and surfing the net.

I think that formula, clearly spells out my problem(in the event of it not being fallacy)

Personally I don't hold much stock in the bible so if I am to stay in this discussion without degrading your 'holy book', we need to stop giving such long quotes that really can't be commented on withhout another quote from the same damn document. I mean I know you can't really discuss religion without the bible but damn when it's all you say.

LOL


steriotyping the entirety of Christianity?



incidentally, CS Lewis wrote a book called The Problem of Pain, all about why God gave us pain. I saw it in a bookcase at home (my mum teaches RE and ethics stuff). Its probably highly boring, i just read the back cover.

still, its nice to know it exists...

pain is a sense of feel so if you have pleasure then you must have the opposite of it. I'm sure everyone has questions about god and the whys, when, where, how, and whats.

Thats funny since C.S. Lewis was an atheist...but maybe I'll check it out some time.

Pain is a feeling, but it also exists as something far less tangible, a state of mind. Pleasure is just a feeling, the equivalent of pleasure in state of mind is happiness. But for humans to be in a continual state of pleasure is almost impossible from my view of people, while a mindset of pain is all to common.

Don't forget animals can feel pain also.

But to our knowledge they do not posses cognizance, so a state of mind is not plausible-while granted they are capable of mental and physical anguish.

To some people's knowledge that is, if the animal is not aware of its existence then that would mean that this animal don't fear for its life.

A state of mind requires the posession of fore and hind sight. Animals are aware of their existence due to the simple fact that they exist, but they retain very little of information/memories. Meaning that they can fear for their existence because they exist, but not posess continual fear of it as humans do. (or any variations on state of mind)

We don't truly know that a animal has memories. There isn't any physical evidence to support that idea/theory

i love it when Taizon does a 180 mid-argument



although what he says about animals possessing memories is a really good point.

it has been noted in dogs that, upon following a scent to a fork in the road, the dog will choose a fork. if the dog loses the scent, it will often come back and check the other fork.

if thats not only evdence of memory but also of thought, i dont know what is.

some of them can use sign language to communicate with us.

they obey commands and can be TAUGHT to obey.

cmon, what do you want them to do? Write a book?




but we deviated from NLY's claim that humans live in a state of continual fear.

i disagree.

i would first suggest that at a consious level we do not constantly feel fear. at least, i dont, and i dont think im insane, so...

then what about Freud's brainchild, the subconsious?

well... you could argue that we are subconsiously in
constant fear. but...

well... freud didnt believe the subconsious revolved around fear, he instead suggested that we are continually thinking about sex on a subconsious level. hardly anyone agrees with freud anymore, albeit because hes gone out of fashion.

and the best thing about the subconscious? noone even knows if it exists. its a position so mystical that its untouchable.

i myself dont like that kind of idea. but whatever, i daresay you will all rip this flippant post to shreds anyway. im looking forward to it.





and...

have you ever read any Hume?

Double spacing is annoying.

I believe in a sub-concious. It is one of the FEW things that Freud proposed that wasn't arrantly selfpromoting/extreme. The Id most truly exemplifies my point of a constant 'state'. The Id is, supposedly the demesnes of our brain that is devoted to survival. Now while this doesn't necessarily constitute a 'fear of death, it most certainly entails awareness. It tells us to fight or flee. The Id is our basic tool for acquiring our 'needs'. While the Ego and the Superego are our regions of 'conscience'. So it might not be fear, but We are innately aware and in caution of death. And that is a state of mind devoted to avoiding death, which is the roundabout way of saying what I already said.

On the subject of animal memories. Tests have concluded that what they 'remember' is only on a conditioned basis, for those of you familliar with Skinner. They get kicked by a horse (negative enforcer) and they know not to piss of horses. They get a treat for playing dead(positive enforcer) and they play dead on command. And all animals have connective memories for survival basis. If they forgot everything then how apt for survival would they be? They remember things such as popular watering holes for it's prey, but they could not tell you what happened that one time you walked them. Therefore all animals have the most primal of memory capabilities, with variances from species to species (the elephant for instance). They do not live in a 'state' because their minds focus on the here and now. Not the then and when. But I do concede that there is no way of knowing whether this is true, but I will stress the numerous tests to gain this info. And the day to day life experiences. For instance, maybe you've seen a dog's master die or move and leave the dog. They mourn, enailing attachement. Attachement through conditioned love, respect, and admiration for a master.

(Hume is Ideas Impressions, Simple Complex guy right? That scottish guy? Yeah...I think I see what your getting at-animals are obviously (as all mentally bound creatures must be) innately capable of impressions, but whether or not ideas are present is the question...or perhaps what I said above allows for Simple Ideas, but Complex capacity is the real question...*ponders*)

Well yeah, I'd remember not to piss off a horse if one kicked me, too. But then, we have a speaking language, and can warn each other not to do so. Animals generally have to learn it on their own. And how many kids do you know that will do what they're told if they think they're going to get a cookie or cake in return? Heck, how many adults do you know that would do the same? *raises hand* All these tests do is prove that animals can learn just as we do. They teach other how to survive as well. Sure one might learn how to survive on its own, bu then, so would us if we were forced to survive in the wild. Really, their biggest handicap is their general inability to learn how to talk. (Although there was that one horse video that picked up a phone and moved its lips as if it were trying.)

Hmmmmm....I think our point of contention is the fact that you don't seem to get that if psychology is about stating what we see, then there's no point to having a science of the mind. The reason for those studies is to find HOW our mind catalogues things, not state that it does. They wish to outline the steps a mind takes, not just observe the minds progress. It is bluntly obvious that you do not piss off a horse, but when a mind is bereft of "intelligence" you do not thing of things on a consequential level. No sh*t you don't piss of a horse, obvious right? But having raised horses I know that dogs DON'T find it so obvious. They must learn, so comparing you to the anomaly of a dog really doesn't cover any ground-your just proving that you have thought trains and the dog doesn't.

Incentive (cake in your case) is (loosely) defined as: "a reason to do stuff". Sure we understand the whole reward concept, we capitalize on it in negotiations and everyday life. But what psychology is looking at is really not the fact that incentives exist. I think I'll cut off here because I'm coming to close to teaching/preaching, and I have no business doing so. But it's true what psychology does is sometimes make the naturally obvious clear. So it's obvious that you don't piss off a horse, psychology's goal is to tell us why. Sometimes it's tedious and nonsensically explicit but in order to discuss the mind everything has to be defined.

And while I DID say that they do not have conscious thought-I did not say they could not communicate-what do you think barking is?

It's a form of communication, yes, but it's nowhere near as advanced as our English/Japanese/German/etc. languages. One dog can't tell another dog "hey, get me a hot dog".

And I'm a little confused on the whole "concious thought" deal.

Bassically I meant the ability to hold a thought train, a linkage of one thought to the next in a deductive fashion-coming to either a decision or more thought. Dogs, as judged by their actions, do not.

And I see your point with the barking, but I guess poor communication is a direct consequence of NOT having ability for concious thought. They can't say: "hey get me a hot dog" because they are to simple, so it just goes again with the lacking of concious thought theory.

There is a great book Lewis wrote called "The Screwtape Letters." It's a collection of letters sent back and forth between a retired devil and a young devil, who working for their "Father," Satan himself, to turn a Christian man away from the real "Heavenly Father." Lewis really understood how we are as people. Great book...and it's short too.

Lewis is a brilliant author. (and I checked online because I thought it was strange if he was an atheist to write books of that afilliation, but it turns out he was an atheist for years and then he converted for whatever reason)

I am a Christian so I believe in God. I don't think you should keep this thread; people sometimes fight over religion...

Agreed. It is true a religion is a powerful army. All it takes is the right person to lead an army and combine religions with it. But anyway some animals have a way of telling you what they want.