| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/18/2009 01:36:38 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The believer can see two worlds; this one and another. The atheist (and perhaps, but not necessarily, the agnostic) can only see one. What you were trying to get your friend to do, perhaps, is akin to asking a person with normal eyesight to pretend they are red/green colorblind. It would be very hard to do so with any amount of reality. You can't divorce from your mind something so ingrained as "seeing green". |
No, the believer sees just one world like everyone else. They just hope, have faith that another one exist.
Message edited by author 2009-09-18 01:45:27.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2009 02:19:01 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Intelli:
I am good because someone taught me to be good.
Hitler was bad because someone taught him to think badly. |
I like the direction of the thread as it is, but this is too rich to pass up. We all know we don't always act good. I don't. You don't. So is that because you choose to do bad or because someone taught you to think badly? |
You are correct.. A person chooses.. however.. I'm sure hitler was raised in a way that his choices were influenced. Therefore he was taught the bad way. But in his mind.. he probobly didn't think it was bad.
Alot of it has to do with education.. but that's another story.. |
|
|
|
09/18/2009 11:38:20 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Intelli:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Intelli:
I am good because someone taught me to be good.
Hitler was bad because someone taught him to think badly. |
I like the direction of the thread as it is, but this is too rich to pass up. We all know we don't always act good. I don't. You don't. So is that because you choose to do bad or because someone taught you to think badly? |
You are correct.. A person chooses.. however.. I'm sure hitler was raised in a way that his choices were influenced. Therefore he was taught the bad way. But in his mind.. he probobly didn't think it was bad.
Alot of it has to do with education.. but that's another story.. |
I'm more concerned with Joe-you-and-me instead of Hitler. I agree he was likely a product of his upbringing and I agree we all are. But you know as well as I do that often we know what is the correct action and we choose not to do it. This, to me, goes beyond upbringing and falls into personal responsibility. |
|
|
|
09/18/2009 11:43:16 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The believer can see two worlds; this one and another. The atheist (and perhaps, but not necessarily, the agnostic) can only see one. What you were trying to get your friend to do, perhaps, is akin to asking a person with normal eyesight to pretend they are red/green colorblind. It would be very hard to do so with any amount of reality. You can't divorce from your mind something so ingrained as "seeing green". |
No, the believer sees just one world like everyone else. They just hope, have faith that another one exist. |
Looks like you just can't see it yank. ;P You may be missing that I'm talking about a mindset. The Christian can "see" both the Scientific world and the religious world. To them, they are both very real and important. I'm suggesting that at least at times the atheist cannot see this world and this worldview is as ingrained as the theist. It's not somehow "worse" to be like this, but I'm, once again, pointing out it's a two-way street. |
|
|
|
09/18/2009 12:39:18 PM · #30 |
Religion is like one of those distorted tourist maps where the locals view their own beliefs as the way things really are, and the rest of the planet is restricted to the margins. People all over the world are nearly unanimous in their atheism, readily dismissing 99.9999% of gods as mythology without a second thought. Yet the idea that ALL of them may be fiction is strangely incomprehensible.
People will stand at the mouth of a cave forever arguing over the size, color and intentions of the dragon inside. They will have different opinions on the steps necessary to avoid the dragon's wrath or gain its favor, but it's taboo to suggest there's no such thing as dragons. |
|
|
|
09/18/2009 01:10:26 PM · #31 |
If there's anybody in the world that can't see the other world Shannon, I've learned it's you. :/ You have an incredible cynicism about religion and I don't know what happened in your past but it's part and parcel of the way you are now.
It doesn't mean we can't be friends and I think you are a good guy, but you'll always be my colorblind buddy. |
|
|
|
09/18/2009 01:12:33 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
People all over the world are nearly unanimous in their atheism, readily dismissing 99.9999% of gods as mythology without a second thought. Yet the idea that ALL of them may be fiction is strangely incomprehensible. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If there's anybody in the world that can't see the other world Shannon, I've learned it's you. :/ |
Thanks for illustrating my point. You disbelieve all "other worlds" with a single exception, even though that one shares a common background with those you deny, yet simply cannot comprehend the same disbelief YOU hold in every other case might apply to your exception too. Your rose colored glasses do not determine the accuracy of another's vision.
Message edited by author 2009-09-18 13:20:21. |
|
|
|
09/18/2009 01:15:19 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by scalvert:
People all over the world are nearly unanimous in their atheism, readily dismissing 99.9999% of gods as mythology without a second thought. Yet the idea that ALL of them may be fiction is strangely incomprehensible. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If there's anybody in the world that can't see the other world Shannon, I've learned it's you. :/ |
Thanks for illustrating my point. |
And now we have an expected religious conversation. |
|
|
|
09/18/2009 01:26:10 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
And now we have an expected religious conversation. |
Imagine debating believers in Greek gods or Norse gods during their heyday. Would the conversation be any different? |
|
|
|
09/18/2009 01:41:28 PM · #35 |
Just a couple of notes here:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Looks like you just can't see it yank. ;P You may be missing that I'm talking about a mindset. The Christian can "see" both the Scientific world and the religious world. To them, they are both very real and important. I'm suggesting that at least at times the atheist cannot see this world and this worldview is as ingrained as the theist. It's not somehow "worse" to be like this, but I'm, once again, pointing out it's a two-way street. |
I note that you use Christian exclusively. Is there a reason for this? I'm only assuming that the religious world can 1) be seen by non-christian believers of other faiths and 2) those 'viewers' see something different than the christians do and 3) this would mean that there are more than two worlds. Logically, one could assume that if there is more than one world and the second world is different for each different set of beliefs then there can be infinite number of worlds. Interesting on the surface but I'd like to see you explain the circumstances for their existences.
Additionally, in your statement you put forth that "the atheist cannot see this world and this worldview is as ingrained as the theist." How would you explain the world view of those who converted from christianity to atheism where 'two worlds' was ingrained for a time and the person chose to disbelieve in the second world? I would assume that, in this case, the single world view would not be so deeply ingrained as you may think. Many atheists have 'seen both worlds' and yet still chose go forward only seeing one. |
|
|
|
09/18/2009 02:06:54 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by scalvert:
People all over the world are nearly unanimous in their atheism, readily dismissing 99.9999% of gods as mythology without a second thought. Yet the idea that ALL of them may be fiction is strangely incomprehensible. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If there's anybody in the world that can't see the other world Shannon, I've learned it's you. :/ |
Thanks for illustrating my point. You disbelieve all "other worlds" with a single exception, even though that one shares a common background with those you deny, yet simply cannot comprehend the same disbelief YOU hold in every other case might apply to your exception too. Your rose colored glasses do not determine the accuracy of another's vision. |
Forget the flavor of the supreme being, the OP was discussing the difference between people who believe in a dual reality versus those who believe in a single one. The fact that I disbelieve in 99.9% of the "gods" out there is a red herring and no different from the fact you likely disbelieve in 99.9% of the scientific theories we have held over the millenia. Humors of the blood, flat earth, etc. etc. etc. I don't think this cheapens your worldview and would counter that my disbelief in Zeus does not cheapen mine. |
|
|
|
09/18/2009 02:08:01 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
I note that you use Christian exclusively. Is there a reason for this? |
No, only because the OP was discussing with a Christian. The conversation can be had on a larger level and context with theist vs. atheist or dualist vs. materialist, etc. Sorry to sound exclusionary there.
In my eyes I would caution away from the idea that every flavor of religion represents a different world in the same way there are not many material worlds just because people have different scientific theories about things. Despite what Merchillo said way up above, in my eyes one view of the religious world is going to more correctly reflect a truth just as one scientific theory is going to reflect the material world more closely than another. They are not "all the same" as he asserted. I think that kind of talk merely comes from people who don't understand this other world at all. At least in my view anyway.
Message edited by author 2009-09-18 14:22:59. |
|
|
|
09/18/2009 02:31:29 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In my eyes I would caution away from the idea that every flavor of religion represents a different world in the same way there are not many material worlds just because people have different scientific theories about things. Despite what Merchillo said way up above, in my eyes one view of the religious world is going to more correctly reflect a truth just as one scientific theory is going to reflect the material world more closely than another. They are not "all the same" as he asserted. I think that kind of talk merely comes from people who don't understand this other world at all. At least in my view anyway. |
You have me confused then.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The believer can see two worlds; this one and another. |
The believer of what? What separates the two worlds?
I am only asking for clarification because, while you and I are both believers, our beliefs don't even come close to even overlapping...
|
|
|
|
09/18/2009 02:35:03 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...you likely disbelieve in 99.9% of the scientific theories we have held over the millenia. Humors of the blood, flat earth, etc. etc. etc. |
Those were never scientific theories and you should know better. Humors of the blood, flat earth and so on were popular conventions of ancient philosophy and theistic dogma. Modern scientific method wasn't even developed until around the 17th century with Sir Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes. Furthermore, scientific theories are always subject to disproof. A single demonstrable observation that disagrees with predictions of a theory is sufficient to kill the theory. This is in stark contrast to religious beliefs declared to be unquestionable truth without (or even despite) any evidence whatsoever. Therefore, disbelief in disproven scientific models only strengthens the remaining theories. Disbelief in every other religious model but one, despite identical basis for those beliefs, leaves the remaining position open to question if not completely contradictory. |
|
|
|
09/18/2009 02:37:31 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
You have me confused then. |
He's ignoring you. The simple fact that religious scholars, priests, and devout believers can and have become atheists completely discredits his notion that atheists are incapable of understanding theistic views.
Message edited by author 2009-09-18 14:38:40. |
|
|
|
09/18/2009 02:44:03 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...you likely disbelieve in 99.9% of the scientific theories we have held over the millenia. Humors of the blood, flat earth, etc. etc. etc. |
Those were never scientific theories and you should know better. |
Bullshit. They were descriptions of our material world. If you want to move to a time when we have the scientific method I can point out you don't likely believe in the Bohr model of the atom or a luminiferous aether through which light propogates. You don't likely believe in Lamarckian evolution and I could take up DPC's hard drive listing medical theories which have been discredited. Stop nitpicking and hear my point. This is the typical Shannon method of arguing. When I have a valid point you delve into the minutae trying to obfuscate the larger idea.
Takehome point: There are far more scientific theories (defined however you please) that you don't believe in than you do. I see parallels with your own accusations and I don't for a minute think your disbelief discredits your worldview of materialism as invalid. |
|
|
|
09/18/2009 02:44:46 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
I am only asking for clarification because, while you and I are both believers, our beliefs don't even come close to even overlapping... |
Do you believe in any sort of reality that cannot be described by the material (ie. physical) world? If the answer is yes, that's the world I'm talking about. |
|
|
|
09/18/2009 02:45:28 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by dahkota:
I note that you use Christian exclusively. Is there a reason for this? |
No, only because the OP was discussing with a Christian. The conversation can be had on a larger level and context with theist vs. atheist or dualist vs. materialist, etc. Sorry to sound exclusionary there.
In my eyes I would caution away from the idea that every flavor of religion represents a different world in the same way there are not many material worlds just because people have different scientific theories about things. Despite what Merchillo said way up above, in my eyes one view of the religious world is going to more correctly reflect a truth just as one scientific theory is going to reflect the material world more closely than another. They are not "all the same" as he asserted. I think that kind of talk merely comes from people who don't understand this other world at all. At least in my view anyway. |
My point is more that I don't understand, how, in good conscience and without disrespecting the other, a christian can say to an muslim (or budhist, or hinduist) that his view on the "other wolrd" is false when both or their belief system is based on believing without knowing (the very concept of faith). Every religion with a "higher being" (optional plural here) have their own proofs that they are right. God being God (the Alpha and the Omega, the begining and the end, or simply put, everything), is it possible that all those different ways to worship Him, and all the names we can give Him (God, Jehova, Allah, Yhavee, The Great Spirit, the different deities of hinduism or even Mother Nature if you want) can be all right at the same time?
And over all that I don't think God really cares about the way we worship Him. What would happen if you die, go upthere and God (wich happen to be everything but a white-bearded old man) tells you "No, no, no! you got it all wrong, you were supposed to be dressed exclusively in blue when whorshiping me!... for that offense, you'll burn in Hell for all eternity!" ? I don't think (hope and guess) that He's that stupid. God is a concept that is not made to be understood by a human being. Every culture (that believes in God) has its way to deal with trying to understand Him.
That's why I say that there is many many ways to celebrate Him (or Her or It), and possibly none of them are wrong. |
|
|
|
09/18/2009 02:54:02 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by dahkota:
I am only asking for clarification because, while you and I are both believers, our beliefs don't even come close to even overlapping... |
Do you believe in any sort of reality that cannot be described by the material (ie. physical) world? If the answer is yes, that's the world I'm talking about. |
The truly sad part about this comment is that there are countless numbers of examples where the indigenous peoples of the Americas shared these very beliefs (their own mind you) and were brutalized because of them.
Ray
Message edited by author 2009-09-18 14:54:30. |
|
|
|
09/18/2009 02:58:36 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by dahkota:
I am only asking for clarification because, while you and I are both believers, our beliefs don't even come close to even overlapping... |
Do you believe in any sort of reality that cannot be described by the material (ie. physical) world? If the answer is yes, that's the world I'm talking about. |
The truly sad part about this comment is that there are countless numbers of examples where the indigenous peoples of the Americas shared these very beliefs (their own mind you) and were brutalized because of them.
Ray |
And the jews were exterminated because of the theory of eugenics. blah blah blah. The good news is you and I were not part of either. Is this even a helpful avenue of discussion Ray? Why even bring these things up? Does it further anything? |
|
|
|
09/18/2009 02:59:01 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
They were descriptions of our material world. |
So was the idea that the earth is supported on the back of a giant turtle, but that doesn't make it a scientific theory. It's appalling that you don't understand that. I thought you were supposed to be a doctor? Anyway you're missing the point: I consider particular scientific models to be true precisely BECAUSE the alternatives have been disproven! Each discovery or debunked hypothesis makes the remaining theories stronger. Theists can only believe a particular religious model because they believe it. There is no possibility of proof or disproof, and contrary observations or alternative models are simply declared false. |
|
|
|
09/18/2009 03:02:58 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you believe in any sort of reality that cannot be described by the material (ie. physical) world? |
Belief in an unknown universe is only half of the story. The other half requires belief in the correct unknown universe since all others are considered myths. |
|
|
|
09/18/2009 03:04:25 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by dahkota:
I am only asking for clarification because, while you and I are both believers, our beliefs don't even come close to even overlapping... |
Do you believe in any sort of reality that cannot be described by the material (ie. physical) world? If the answer is yes, that's the world I'm talking about. |
The truly sad part about this comment is that there are countless numbers of examples where the indigenous peoples of the Americas shared these very beliefs (their own mind you) and were brutalized because of them.
Ray |
That's the problem when you believe in this other world that cannot be measured or observed in any way. You end up just filling in the blanks with imagination and well when your details differ from my details... wars tend to happen.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2009 03:04:48 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by dahkota:
I am only asking for clarification because, while you and I are both believers, our beliefs don't even come close to even overlapping... |
Do you believe in any sort of reality that cannot be described by the material (ie. physical) world? If the answer is yes, that's the world I'm talking about. |
So, I would assume everyone has two worlds: the physical and the mental. (One could argue that brain processes are physical but I would argue the actual thoughts are not). Or is this not the separation you are talking about? If not, I am still confused and if so, then religious belief is not required for the second world. |
|
|
|
09/18/2009 03:05:20 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
There is no possibility of proof or disproof, and contrary observations or alternative models are simply declared false. |
This is your giant blind spot Shannon which has been evident every time we talk. Your steadfast belief that truth can only be discovered through the Scientific Method. It ignores a whole body of knowledge which can be generically labelled "philosophy". I have no way of making you see because you are so set in your way. |
|
