How very amusing. Of course I will. What the hell that has to do with any of my responses to you, no one will ever know.
We know. Magical thinkers like you find all the support they need for their magical nonsense between their own ears.
I am not unfamiliar with internal conflict. My intellect, emotions and will rarely completely agree. I'm content with a two to one majority in favor of what is good.
Do you think others will be understanding (or be justified in not being understanding) if you go with your emotions rather than your intellect and they suffer for it?
What is the time dilation over time space with omnipotent? If God's everywhere at all times, and then God must be now and in the future and in the past (that's how big omnipotent is), since God is everywhere meaning time space, which means everywhere and every when where, motion through space over vast enough distances can alter what is considered 'now'. Time space says even quantum time measuring devices will record different time if one is airborn or in orbit or even just being further away from the planet/Earth because of the gravitational pull on the passage of time (time is relative to mass and speed).
I don't think that the suffering care to understand the emotions of others while in the midst of their suffering. It's not just intellect and emotion; there is also volition, which is something quite a bit different. We have all experienced times when we think one way, we also feel that way, but we choose something else. It's when our wills stand out from our intellects and emotions that it becomes most clear that will is something else. Drug addicts lose volitional abilities. Addiction is volitional; dependency is corporeal. Addiction is a spiritual disease; it infects the volition. It weakens the will; ultimately, it takes over the will.
This seems to be missing the point. Maybe due to me choosing poor questions to ask. In my view, most of the above falls under intellect, with the possible exception of emotion which merely informs the intellect. I would say the intellect gathers all the information it can, including from emotions, and then makes a decision. The last part of that process, I would call volition, but I would say all of that, volition included, takes place under the umbrella of the intellect. Indeed, on your view, intellect seems to be merely memories and calculations, and even then a pretty limited view of those too. For sensible decisions to be made, it seems to me the calculations which the intellect performs should take the emotions into account, so while the emotions certainly can win out, they are still a dependency of the intellect rather than a separate system. It seems to me what you call volition is functionally merely a particular set of emotions (and possibly a bit of intellect which goes with it). It's possible that your definition of emotion means that it falls outside of the idea of emotions, but that seems to me mostly a semantic difference.
I'm quite comfortable with intellect, emotion and volition being independent processes. However, emotion and volition must be intellectualized to be conveyed via language. The fact that they must be intellectualized to be conveyed via language is no implication that they are, in and of themselves, part in parcel of the intellect. I cannot affirm the modalism that you propose above.
Don't they also have to be intellectualised to be meaningfully compared to each other and to the intellect? If my emotion says I want to steal an ice cream and my intellect says no, did the two butt heads on equal ground, or did your intellect (or arguably your volition or ego) decide between them? I'm not suggesting that that which you call the intellect is larger than you think, I'm saying that what you call the intellect is a subset of what I call the intellect. There is some kind of process which moderates between the different forces, and to suggest that that process lies outside the intellect seems to me at best an oversight and at worst an excuse for poorly made decisions.
Dissecting our knowledge base can be useful, to distinguish between those things that are empirical, verifiable FACTS, and surmises, opinions, or beliefs. A central point of this thread, is that most people do not make that distinction, but blend the 2 until their beliefs merge with facts.. giving justification for dogmatic asserting of beliefs as 'Fact!' It is part of the blending of emotion and reason, for if something 'feels' true, it automatically becomes true, for those who have not trained their minds with critical thinking. It is, IMO, one of the central problems in the world today, and is at enmity with true knowledge. It is pseudo knowledge, and muddies empirical truth.. it validates propaganda, as a 'knowledge' dispenser, by mixing truth with lies, for an agenda, & promotes confusion & a 'trust the experts!' mindset, since verifying facts requires effort. It is, at its essence, a demand for faith.. to trust those who are 'really smart', and suspend your own cynicism & skepticism, for the ease of conformity & compliance. It is anti-science, & is the main vehicle of 'education', in the world today.
Neither human intellectual, emotional or volitional processes actually exist apart from corporeal processes; however they can actually exist, and operate, apart from each other. We can lose parts, or all, of some, or all, of the above. Sociopaths are emotionally addled. Idiots are intellectually addled, and addicts are volitionally addled. Most sociopaths have the intellectual acumen and volitional discipline to navigate through life numb to the feelings of others. Most addicts do not lose their intellectual or emotional abilities even when they are volitionally helpless. They understand and feel everything; that's what makes it so pernicious. In my experience, those most willing to love are also those who feel most deeply for others, and they're almost all idiots. Downs people are, on average, far more empathetic and willing to love others than any other group of people I can categorize.
I don't doubt that you can identify these areas and that they can fail as you have described, I'm trying to assess whether they're distinct as you suggest. I would suggest that volition is a part of the intellect and that emotion should be filtered through intellect. That's not to say one should ignore the emotions. Insofar that emotion or volition contradicts intellect, what merit do they have?
You're going to have to cite a source which suggests a connection between the influence of science and the decline of religious identity if you want to be taken seriously. So far its just your unsubstantiated opinion. Can you improve on this? What is your evidence that "most churchy types opposed interracial marriage?" And what interest would secular pro-lifers have in this?
Sure. Most Americans attended church and most Americans opposed interracial marriage. I have no doubt I could dig up the evidence I've seen that support my comment.
Uh, whose ass does he kick? Not the greedy. Not the nasty. Not the criminal. Not the dictators. Not the cruel. They are all alive and doing well......so who?
From Wiki: Historically, many American religions disapproved of interracial marriage.[44] Religious tradition and church attendance are consistent predictors for attitudes towards interracial marriages. Biblical literalists are less likely to support interracial marriage to Asians and Latinos. Whites who attend multiracial congregations or engage in devotional religious practices are more likely to support interracial marriages.[45] Region also moderates the relationship between religion and interracial dating. Children with a religious upbringing in non-Western states, particularly the South, were less likely to have interracially dated than those without religious upbringings.[46] Religious attitudes combined with Christian nationalism increased opposition to intermarriage more than either attribute measured independently.[47] According to a Baylor University study "people with no religious affiliation were not statistically more likely to be in intermarriages than evangelical or mainline Protestants or people from other religions"[48] with one exception, Catholics. Catholics were twice as likely to be in an interracial marriage than the general population.[48] It is speculated that the reason for this is twofold: the increasing diversity of the Catholic population (which has seen a huge influx of immigrants, Catholicism has sizable to significant number of adherents from many nationalities worldwide) and the fact that Catholics typically base their choice of parish on geography rather than on its ethnic or racial makeup which creates more opportunities for interracial mixing.[48] Jews were also more likely to date interracially than Protestants.[46] Some religions actively teach against interracial marriages. For example, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recommends against interracial marriages, but does not prohibit it.[49][50] On the other hand, the Baha’i faith promotes interracial marriage as a prerequisite to achieving world peace.[44]
We acknowledge volition as being distinct from intellect and emotion experientially. We have all experienced times when we thought and felt one way and yet chose to do something else. It is when our volitions stand aside our intellects and emotions, even when our intellects and emotions stand together, that we recognize our volitions as being something other than our intellects or emotions. Intellect and emotion are far easier to distinguish these days. There are distinct electromagnetic and chemical markers for each. The interplay between our intellectual, emotional and volitional processes are often an interplay of conflict. I would dare say the more common state of man is to have, at least, some internal conflict between their intellects, emotions and wills. Personally, I am satisfied with a 2 to 1 majority in favor of doing the right thing or at least not doing the wrong thing.
science believes the odds are there is extraterrestrial species based on the number of galaxies and time involved....as in ... more likely then not
