Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Sriram on February 19, 2019, 04:57:39 AM
-
Hi everyone,
Most of the people here seem to think of religion as just a meaningless faith in a God up there somewhere. Also, the word 'religion' immediately seems to conjure up images of killings, terrorism, crusades, witches burnt at the sake...and so on. This is wrong.
Religions need not necessarily be about a God up there. Maybe the Abrahamic religions do emphasize this image but even they do talk of a God within. Indian religions emphasize bringing out the God within. For this, many paths are prescribed one of which is praying to external images of deities, temple rituals etc.
Secondly, all religions do not go to war all the time or keep fighting among themselves or other religions. Islam admittedly has a bad track record, but even there most Muslims are peace loving, pious people.
It is surprising that many people, especially those trained in science, have a blind spot when it comes to religion. They just cannot or don't want to see the positives. The discipline, the self control, the compassion, the altruism, family values, humility, brotherhood and other positive features that religions have not only taught but have also enforced among the people for centuries.
This kind of an extreme and knee jerk reaction towards religions has to go!
It is a faith in God and in after-life that keeps the Ego in check. Once the Ego is controlled, wisdom and self control automatically arise. That is the point of faith.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
They just cannot or don't want to see the positives. The discipline, the self control, the compassion, the altruism, family values, humility, brotherhood and other positive features that religions have not only taught ...
Religion doesn't have a monopoly on those values though, does it - indeed societies that have the highest proportion of people who choose not to be religious, while having a choice, tend to be those we consider to be the most compassionate, altruistic etc - e.g. the Scandinavian countries.
... but have also enforced among the people for centuries.
Blimey - sounds very authoritarian. And besides you cannot force people to be compassionate, altruistic or humble - the value only exists when it is freely chosen.
-
Hi everyone,
Most of the people here seem to think of religion as just a meaningless faith in a God up there somewhere.
That is one aspect of religion but of course the definition of what is a religion is difficult and not agreed by all.
Also, the word 'religion' immediately seems to conjure up images of killings, terrorism, crusades, witches burnt at the sake...and so on. This is wrong.
Not the first thing that comes into my head.
Religions need not necessarily be about a God up there. Maybe the Abrahamic religions do emphasize this image but even they do talk of a God within. Indian religions emphasize bringing out the God within. For this, many paths are prescribed one of which is praying to external images of deities, temple rituals etc.
Of course.
Secondly, all religions do not go to war all the time or keep fighting among themselves or other religions. Islam admittedly has a bad track record, but even there most Muslims are peace loving, pious people.
Of course.
It is surprising that many people, especially those trained in science, have a blind spot when it comes to religion. They just cannot or don't want to see the positives. The discipline, the self control, the compassion, the altruism, family values, humility, brotherhood and other positive features that religions have not only taught but have also enforced among the people for centuries.
Not sure I agree with that. Scientists are humans who on the whole will recognise these aspects of religion. Certain branches of science which study mental well being and the like recognise the positive and negative aspects of religious belief within their field of study. The effects of religious beliefs do not impact on most fields of science however.
This kind of an extreme and knee jerk reaction towards religions has to go!
How wide spread do you think it is? Why do you think it particularly needs to go?
It is a faith in God and in after-life that keeps the Ego in check. Once the Ego is controlled, wisdom and self control automatically arise. That is the point of faith.
If you say so.
-
Religion doesn't have a monopoly on those values though, does it - indeed societies that have the highest proportion of people who choose not to be religious, while having a choice, tend to be those we consider to be the most compassionate, altruistic etc - e.g. the Scandinavian countries.
Cambodia of the Khmer Rouge, Stalins USSR, Etc, etc. In fact any non religious country you can turn your rose tinted spectacles at.
-
Cambodia of the Khmer Rouge, Stalins USSR, Etc, etc. In fact any non religious country you can turn your rose tinted spectacles at.
Which part of while having a choice didn't you understand Vlad.
-
Religion doesn't have a monopoly on those values though, does it - indeed societies that have the highest proportion of people who choose not to be religious, while having a choice, tend to be those we consider to be the most compassionate, altruistic etc - e.g. the Scandinavian countries.
Blimey - sounds very authoritarian. And besides you cannot force people to be compassionate, altruistic or humble - the value only exists when it is freely chosen.
You're not getting my point. You are talking about the 20th and 21 centuries. I am talking about the role of religion over the centuries leading to the recent centuries.
For example, can you imagine 15th century or 10th century Europe or Asia without any religion to enforce social norms?!
-
For example, can you imagine 15th century or 10th century Europe or Asia without any religion to enforce social norms?!
When you say social norms are you talking about beheading perhaps? Or, maybe you are talking about slaves which were also a social norm.
-
Religions need not necessarily be about a God up there. Maybe the Abrahamic religions do emphasize this image but even they do talk of a God within. Indian religions emphasize bringing out the God within. For this, many paths are prescribed one of which is praying to external images of deities, temple rituals etc.
Secondly, all religions do not go to war all the time or keep fighting among themselves or other religions. Islam admittedly has a bad track record, but even there most Muslims are peace loving, pious people.
It is surprising that many people, especially those trained in science, have a blind spot when it comes to religion. They just cannot or don't want to see the positives. The discipline, the self control, the compassion, the altruism, family values, humility, brotherhood and other positive features that religions have not only taught but have also enforced among the people for centuries.
It is a faith in God and in after-life that keeps the Ego in check. Once the Ego is controlled, wisdom and self control automatically arise. That is the point of faith.
It might be better if you posted about those Indian religions and perhaps called them Yogas as opposed to religions. As regards 'many paths', I think you will find that the Abrahamic religions will say that there is only one path and each of the four main organised religions will say that their's is the only true way and have gone to war with or persecuted each other to assert that claim. The 'ego' has been controlled by those in power to form a collective 'ego' along the lines of a dictatorship. As regards 'altruism, family values, humility, brotherhood', perhaps you could explain to those who don't understand, how the caste system features in this respect.
-
Which part of while having a choice didn't you understand Vlad.
..all of it, probably.
-
That is one aspect of religion but of course the definition of what is a religion is difficult and not agreed by all.
Not the first thing that comes into my head.
Of course.
Of course.
Not sure I agree with that. Scientists are humans who on the whole will recognise these aspects of religion. Certain branches of science which study mental well being and the like recognise the positive and negative aspects of religious belief within their field of study. The effects of religious beliefs do not impact on most fields of science however.
How wide spread do you think it is? Why do you think it particularly needs to go?
If you say so.
"Not the first thing that comes into my head."
Check out Trentvoyager's post above.......
-
"Not the first thing that comes into my head."
Check out Trentvoyager's post above.......
Yes, but you were talking about 'most of the people' weren't you?
-
For example, can you imagine 15th century or 10th century Europe or Asia without any religion to enforce social norms?!
True - but those social norms weren't ones of compassion, altruism or fraternity, but ones of gross inequality involving grinding poverty and precious few freedoms for the vast, vast majority of the populations.
And certainly in Europe religion was used as a mechanism to keep the masses down - effectively teaching people that they had to accept that their lives were unspeakably awful, because they'd be rewarded in a hypothetical next life.
-
True - but those social norms weren't ones of compassion, altruism or fraternity, but ones of gross inequality involving grinding poverty and precious few freedoms for the vast, vast majority of the populations.
And certainly in Europe religion was used as a mechanism to keep the masses down - effectively teaching people that they had to accept that their lives were unspeakably awful, because they'd be rewarded in a hypothetical next life.
Every society develops its rules according to the people. Just as we treat children of different ages or different natures differently. If society at that time needed tough rules the local culture and religion would have come up with that.
In the absence of courts and law enforcement, religions had to prescribe rules and also enforce them.
At any rate Europe developed into a civilized society after that, didn't it?!
-
Every society develops its rules according to the people. Just as we treat children of different ages or different natures differently. If society at that time needed tough rules the local culture and religion would have come up with that.
In the absence of courts and law enforcement, religions had to prescribe rules and also enforce them.
At any rate Europe developed into a civilized society after that, didn't it?!
Religion has been responsible for more uncivilised behaviour, than civilised, imo.
-
I think what we are calling progress or civilisation is due to a process of human domestication - by other humans. It allows populations to grow.
The trouble is when it grows too large, culling is required, hence wars and so on.
-
I think what we are calling progress or civilisation is due to a process of human domestication - by other humans. It allows populations to grow.
The trouble is when it grows too large, culling is required, hence wars and so on.
You appear to be suggesting wars are required in order to reduce the population of the planet. Would you say the evil Holocaust was acceptable as so many Jews and others died, which depleted the population of the world somewhat? :o
-
You appear to be suggesting wars are required in order to reduce the population of the planet. Would you say the evil Holocaust was acceptable as so many Jews and others died, which depleted the population of the world somewhat? :o
Morality is a funny thing. It works differently at different levels. We cry if one individual is killed. But if an entire species disappears we call it natural extinction.
It is possible that the entire human species could be destroyed in coming centuries. Is that good or bad?!!
-
Morality is a funny thing. It works differently at different levels. We cry if one individual is killed. But if an entire species disappears we call it natural extinction.
It is possible that the entire human species could be destroyed in coming centuries. Is that good or bad?!!
Do we do we call it natural extinction? There is generally an almighty fuss if a species looks like becoming extinct. As a human I don't think it would be a good thing if our species was destroyed in the future, although we would be responsible for its destruction.
-
99% of species that have ever lived have become extinct. If that's not natural, what can it be?!
-
99% of species that have ever lived have become extinct. If that's not natural, what can it be?!
Have you got chapter and verse of that claim?
-
just google for it....!
-
just google for it....!
I just have and it is even worst than you said, 99.9%, flipping heck! :o
-
You appear to be suggesting wars are required in order to reduce the population of the planet. Would you say the evil Holocaust was acceptable as so many Jews and others died, which depleted the population of the world somewhat? :o
I certainly did not mean to suggest that war was acceptable, let alone genocide.
What people see as acceptable is directed by population and resource issues though. Hence the "othering" prior to war, genocide and acts of terrorism.
-
Some recent work on this topic:
Complex societies precede moralizing gods throughout world history
(https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1043-4?WT.ec_id=NATURE-201903&sap-outbound-id=64E8467361E9E4AA3362B725634EFEF32053745B)
Moralizing gods are not a prerequisite for the evolution of social complexity, but they may help to sustain and expand complex multi-ethnic empires after they have become established. By contrast, rituals that facilitate the standardization of religious traditions across large populations generally precede the appearance of moralizing gods. This suggests that ritual practices were more important than the particular content of religious belief to the initial rise of social complexity.
I haven't yet reviewed this in any depth myself.
-
Religion has been responsible for more uncivilised behaviour, than civilised, imo.
Putting "imo" at the end of a statement of opinion is a poor substitute for providing rational arguments and solid evidence.
-
I certainly did not mean to suggest that war was acceptable, let alone genocide.
What people see as acceptable is directed by population and resource issues though. Hence the "othering" prior to war, genocide and acts of terrorism.
'Othering', what do you mean by that?
-
'Othering', what do you mean by that?
https://www.wordnik.com/words/othering
-
Hi everyone,
Most of the people here seem to think of religion as just a meaningless faith in a God up there somewhere. Also, the word 'religion' immediately seems to conjure up images of killings, terrorism, crusades, witches burnt at the sake...and so on. This is wrong.
Religions need not necessarily be about a God up there. Maybe the Abrahamic religions do emphasize this image but even they do talk of a God within. Indian religions emphasize bringing out the God within. For this, many paths are prescribed one of which is praying to external images of deities, temple rituals etc.
Secondly, all religions do not go to war all the time or keep fighting among themselves or other religions. Islam admittedly has a bad track record, but even there most Muslims are peace loving, pious people.
It is surprising that many people, especially those trained in science, have a blind spot when it comes to religion. They just cannot or don't want to see the positives. The discipline, the self control, the compassion, the altruism, family values, humility, brotherhood and other positive features that religions have not only taught but have also enforced among the people for centuries.
This kind of an extreme and knee jerk reaction towards religions has to go!
It is a faith in God and in after-life that keeps the Ego in check. Once the Ego is controlled, wisdom and self control automatically arise. That is the point of faith.
Cheers.
Sriram
Sriram you say: Most of the people here seem to think of religion as just a meaningless faith in a God up there somewhere.
I just think of individuals that have religious beliefs as poor victims that have been indoctrinated to think they've got an invisible friend; to me this is rather sad and a total waste of time.
I manage to live a reasonably moral and ethical life as so many of us do without spending time thinking of some sort of spy in the sky scanning my most intimate thoughts and recording my daily deeds, nobody needs this god thing of yours you refer to, to enhance their lives.
Try forgetting all about these godly thoughts of yours, say for a couple of week I'll take a bet it'll not make the slightest difference to your experience of your daily life and then gradually increase the time span and before you know it you'll be able enjoy your life even more than you did in the past and you'll put it behind you, for good if you're lucky.
Regards ippy.
-
Hi ippy,
Spirituality is not so much about 'someone up there' as 'something within us'. It is really about understanding our own unconscious mind. When I say 'understanding' I mean it in a subjective and personal manner rather than in an objective, third person manner.
And that is not as simple as you might think.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160315-the-enormous-power-of-the-unconscious-brain
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/the-unconscious-mind/
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi ippy,
Spirituality is not so much about 'someone up there' as 'something within us'. It is really about understanding our own unconscious mind. When I say 'understanding' I mean it in a subjective and personal manner rather than in an objective, third person manner.
And that is not as simple as you might think.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160315-the-enormous-power-of-the-unconscious-brain
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/the-unconscious-mind/
Cheers.
Sriram
Nor as complicated as you seem to think, or woo factorish.
Cheers, ippy
-
I expected that! ::) Every discussion is either a vicious argument or a dead end. No wonder there is no activity on this board!
-
Sriram,
I expected that! ::) Every discussion is either a vicious argument or a dead end. No wonder there is no activity on this board!
That's not fair. Your posts often contain mistakes in reasoning, others point them out in the hope of a conversation about ideas and you run away. Why not instead own the things you say by dealing with the comments they elicit?
-
I expected that! ::) Every discussion is either a vicious argument or a dead end. No wonder there is no activity on this board!
I'm sure you are a nice chap and all that but all you do is assert stuff and unless you get agreement you become petulant and defensive . Plus you keep repeating stuff even though it has been demonstrated to be wrong or miss informed or wooly thinking .
-
I expected that! ::) Every discussion is either a vicious argument or a dead end. No wonder there is no activity on this board!
There's plenty of activity on this board. How much do you need?
-
Perhaps he means activity from anyone who is inclined towards his point of view! Just a thought!!
-
Nor as complicated as you seem to think, or woo factorish.
Cheers, ippy
The unconscious mind is not 'woo'.
-
The unconscious mind is not 'woo'.
i agree
the 'woo' is your interpretation and understanding of it though
-
Sriram,
The unconscious mind is not 'woo'.
No-one says it is. The woo is the content-less vagaries you assert about it.
-
Why?
-
Sriram,
Why?
Why are your content-less vagaries woo? It's because they're undefined, unsubstantiated and non-investigable. They're just white noise and so fail at the first hurdles as philosophy, as science or as anything else.
-
You find what Eagleman says in the BBC article also the same?
-
Sriram,
You find what Eagleman says in the BBC article also the same?
What article?
The David Eagleman I have read isn't the same as your efforts at all though - he uses the findings of science and reason to make his points; you just assert platitudes and expect people to take your unfathomable statements seriously.
-
Oh...forget it! Thanks!
-
Sriram,
Oh...forget it! Thanks!
And off you run again. Why not for once be honest with yourself and instead say something like, "OK, let's take one of the ideas I've asserted to be true and we'll examine it together to see whether it withstands scrutiny"?
What are you so frightened of?
-
Oh...forget it! Thanks!
You're not going to get away with your assertive pronouncements, I'm going to keep on at you Sriram with my unconscious mind 24/7, so there!!
Cheers ippy
-
Sriram,
A quote from Richard Feynman that would he helpful to you if only you'd allow it to be:
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
-
Oh...forget it! Thanks!
Sriram ,
as blue says, please don't run off . I too would like to understand you and why you think as you do but be prepared for serious investigation . I for one will not simply accept assertions , maybe where you come from millions of people do without question . and you are not used to that .
I don't know but lets find out eh .
-
No...guys! There is nothing to discuss. It is about attitude and perception, not about information. If you keep looking at the stars through a microscope...what can I do?! You see what you see! No discussion can change that.
Thanks anyway! :)
-
Sriram,
No...guy! There is nothing to discuss. It is about attitude and perception, not about information.
No it isn't. Your various assertions are claims of information, only when you're asked why you believe them to be true you typically try some logically false arguments and then run away. Are your ideas really so fragile that you cannot risk their examination?
If you keep looking at the stars through a microscope...what can I do?! You see what you see! No discussion can change that.
No-one does that. Your problem though is that your "stars" are just assertions, and the only telescope we can bring to examine them is reason. If you think them to be true despite collapsing when reason is brought to bear, propose a different tool instead.
Thanks anyway! :)
You won't understand this, but the thanks are deserved - it's just a pity you won't allow yourself to see why.
-
I have pointed out many times about the stubborn blind man and his argument about Light. It is the same here.
Sorry....but nothing can be done. Faculties and the mind don't open up due to arguments. :)
Try reading the thread on Panpsychism again....!
-
Sriram,
I have pointed out many times about the stubborn blind man and his argument about Light.
And you’ve been corrected on it just as many times. You just assume your premise to be correct – effectively, “light is real so so are my various claims if only you had the faculties to identify them”. You’d be better advised to try an analogy with, say, phlogiston as the evidence for that is analogous to the evidence for the claims you make – ie, there’s none at all.
Your problem has nothing to do with the stubbornness of the people who challenge you. Rather your problem is that, if your claims aren’t susceptible to reason and evidence then it‘s your job to propose a different method to investigate them.
It is the same here.
No it isn’t.
Sorry....but nothing can be done. Faculties and the mind don't open up due to arguments.
Yes they do. Make an argument that isn’t logically hopeless and you’ll change minds. If not for arguments though, what do you propose that people use instead to investigate your claims?
-
All this has been discussed several times. Try the threads on Panpsychism and Soul. Try the articles on Evidence, Zoom In..Zoom Out and Two boxes syndrome also.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/evidence/
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/28/zoom-in-zoom-out/
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2018/03/03/the-two-boxes-syndrome/
-
All this has been discussed several times. Try the threads on Panpsychism and Soul. Try the articles on Evidence, Zoom In..Zoom Out and Two boxes syndrome also.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/evidence/
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/28/zoom-in-zoom-out/
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2018/03/03/the-two-boxes-syndrome/
Sriram
I've just read the zoom-in zoom-out link and I see your point . The thing is we already instinctively recognise these people in our daily lives . I call zoom-out people wooly headed 'thinkers ' who just accept what they're told , eg, TV advert that tells us we need Domestos bleach so people go and buy their product at a high price .
But the zoom-in person (like me) will read the label and find the active ingredients then look for a similar product with the same ingredients at much lower price
The point being , I'm hard to fool in most cases (never say never)
-
Sriram,
All this has been discussed several times. Try the threads on Panpsychism and Soul. Try the articles on Evidence, Zoom In..Zoom Out and Two boxes syndrome also.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/evidence/
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/28/zoom-in-zoom-out/
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2018/03/03/the-two-boxes-syndrome/
Except of course your posts on those threads and your "articles" are riddled from beginning to end with straw men, longueurs and logical fallacies - none of which problems you will ever address when they're explained to you.
How do you that this helps you?
-
Sriram,
Coda: Just had a look at your article re evidence. Apart from wanting to tear my eyes out at the various mistakes it contains, I love the casual ending of: "In matters of spirituality, the same arguments apply"!
Priceless, just priceless. OK, my turn then: In matters of leprechaunology, the same arguments apply.
As neither of us it seems need to bother defining either "spirituality" or "leprechaunology", and as both of us it seems can just assume that we're right only, you know, the evidence for both assertions is kind of tricky or impossible to produce, presumably you're just as cool with my assertion as you expect others to be with yours right?
-
Sriram
I've just read the zoom-in zoom-out link and I see your point . The thing is we already instinctively recognise these people in our daily lives . I call zoom-out people wooly headed 'thinkers ' who just accept what they're told , eg, TV advert that tells us we need Domestos bleach so people go and buy their product at a high price .
But the zoom-in person (like me) will read the label and find the active ingredients then look for a similar product with the same ingredients at much lower price
The point being , I'm hard to fool in most cases (never say never)
Hi Walter....at least you are honest enough to 'see my point'.....instead of repeating the old round of sniggers and jeers. Thanks. ;) :D
-
Lock this thread before I slit my wrists!
-
Sriram,
Hi Walter....at least you are honest enough to 'see my point'.....instead of repeating the old round of sniggers and jeers. Thanks. ;) :D
Explaining to you where you go wrong isn't sniggering and jeering - it's just explaining to you where you go wrong.
Why not just for once try to address those explanations rather than ignore them?
-
Ha...Ha! What the heck are you going on and on about addressing some explanation..! :D
-
Hi Walter....at least you are honest enough to 'see my point'.....instead of repeating the old round of sniggers and jeers. Thanks. ;) :D
Sriram
I thought I might lighten-up on you for a minute to see if it would give you some confidence and motivation to give us some explanations or anything we can discus and work with . How about it now ?
-
No Walter. If all the earlier threads I have referred and my articles have not 'explained' anything to you....nothing will. So, lets just leave it at that, shall we?! :)
Thanks.
-
No Walter. If all the earlier threads I have referred and my articles have not 'explained' anything to you....nothing will. So, lets just leave it at that, shall we?! :)
Thanks.
Sriram
I've just read the article about 'evidence' I had high hopes but they were dashed not very far into it .
I'm puzzled why you cant see what's wrong with it . Please help me to understand , thanks
-
I have pointed out many times about the stubborn blind man and his argument about Light. It is the same here.
Sorry....but nothing can be done. Faculties and the mind don't open up due to arguments. :)
Try reading the thread on Panpsychism again....!
The trouble is that, if you want to convince a blind man that there is a world outside of his perceptions, the best way is to demonstrate its existence to him, not spout platitudes about how he won’t open his mind.
Everything we say comes down to us asking you to show that your ideas are true. Nothing more, nothing less. You always come up empty.
-
Sriram
I've just read the article about 'evidence' I had high hopes but they were dashed not very far into it .
I'm puzzled why you cant see what's wrong with it . Please help me to understand , thanks
Oh...oh! Your honesty got compromised very quickly! What a pity! ;)
Well...If you have actually read through the complete article...there is nothing more I can say here.
-
The trouble is that, if you want to convince a blind man that there is a world outside of his perceptions, the best way is to demonstrate its existence to him, not spout platitudes about how he won’t open his mind.
Everything we say comes down to us asking you to show that your ideas are true. Nothing more, nothing less. You always come up empty.
I have said many times that it is not about more information....it is about perception. I cannot make you change it.
In any case, this specific discussion started with my comment on the Unconscious mind. What do you want me to demonstrate?
-
Hi everyone,
I am sorry guys but there is nothing for me to demonstrate or provide evidence for. I have nothing more to say than what I have already said multiple times here and in my articles that I link. There is no additional information for me to provide.
It is about the way we look at the world. It is about perception. That is not likely to change whatever I may say.
The reason I don't take any of your criticisms seriously is because of the 'Zero error' that I ascribe to your view points. The problem is multi fold.
1. Many of you are in the mental stage of adolescence. (Please refer to my article on 'Three stages' at my blog site). This makes many of you habitual skeptics and cynics....full of 'I know it all' self importance. It is a mindset that cannot change at this stage given that many of you people are fairly old.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/three-stages/
2. Additionally, many of you have a Zoom-In mind set due to your science training and cultural environment. This makes your thinking microscopic....full of reductionist and detailed nitpicking....with no total view at all. This is a problem while discussing philosophy and spirituality.
3. Besides the above two, there is also the 'Two boxes syndrome' because of which many of you have two segregated and a bipolar way of reacting to similar issues. You clearly have bias and prejudice in the way you choose to look at certain phenomena.
4. Some of you believe that merely joining together and badgering someone can bring them around. Not likely! That is bullying, not discussion.
But, having said all this, I still enjoy posting here because it also makes me rethink on certain issues....besides having something to do, of course.
So, keep it going folks. :)
Cheers.
Sriram
PS: Where is torridon, I wonder?! I could hold a conversation with him without the issue getting derailed or ending in name calling.
-
Hi everyone,
I am sorry guys but there is nothing for me to demonstrate or provide evidence for. I have nothing more to say than what I have already said multiple times here and in my articles that I link. There is no additional information for me to provide.
It is about the way we look at the world. It is about perception. That is not likely to change whatever I may say.
The reason I don't take any of your criticisms seriously is because of the 'Zero error' that I ascribe to your view points. The problem is multi fold.
1. Many of you are in the mental stage of adolescence. (Please refer to my article on 'Three stages' at my blog site). This makes many of you habitual skeptics and cynics....full of 'I know it all' self importance. It is a mindset that cannot change at this stage given that many of you people are fairly old.
2. Additionally, many of you have a Zoom-In mind set due to your science training and cultural environment. This makes your thinking microscopic....full of reductionist and detailed nitpicking....with no total view at all. This is a problem while discussing philosophy and spirituality.
3. Besides the above two, there is also the 'Two boxes syndrome' because of which many of you have two segregated and a bipolar way of reacting to similar issues. You clearly have bias and prejudice in the way you choose to look at certain phenomena.
4. Some of you believe that merely joining together and badgering someone can bring them around. Not likely! That is bullying, not discussion.
But, having said all this, I still enjoy posting here because it also makes me rethink on certain issues....besides having something to do, of course.
So, keep it going folks. :)
Cheers.
Sriram
PS: Where is torridon, I wonder?! I could hold a conversation with him without the issue getting derailed or ending in name calling.
Good post. There's much in what you say, especially about the immature, adolescent mindset of some posters, who think relentless, non-stop, laboured sarcasm is an argument.
-
Good post. There's much in what you say, especially about the immature, adolescent mindset of some posters, who think relentless, non-stop, laboured sarcasm is an argument.
That's not what Sriram means though.
-
That's not what Sriram means though.
I think that the best person to decide what Sriram means is Sriram.
-
Sriram
I'm sorry you feel bullied and I apologise for any part you think I may have played in that . It was not my intention .
However , it does not stop me from calling you out on assertions and misunderstandings on your part and asking you to support claims you make
-
Good post. There's much in what you say, especially about the immature, adolescent mindset of some posters, who think relentless, non-stop, laboured sarcasm is an argument.
you have missed a historical point Sriram made some time ago about the 'adolescent mind', it wasn't about childish behavior .
-
Sriram
I'm sorry you feel bullied and I apologise for any part you think I may have played in that . It was not my intention .
However , it does not stop me from calling you out on assertions and misunderstandings on your part and asking you to support claims you make
Hi Walter,
Well...you can be pretty rude sometimes but I find I can still connect with you unlike many others here. So, no problems there, Walter.
You can of course disagree with anything I say. But if an attempt is made to understand my point of view, that would be welcome! :)
-
Sriram,
I am sorry guys but there is nothing for me to demonstrate or provide evidence for. I have nothing more to say than what I have already said multiple times here and in my articles that I link. There is no additional information for me to provide.
If you expect your various claims of objective fact about the world to be taken seriously then you have you have everything to demonstrate or to provide evidence for. Until you do all you have is undefined assertions – essentially white noise – no matter how convinced of them you may be.
It is about the way we look at the world. It is about perception. That is not likely to change whatever I may say.
Again, no – it will change if and ever you manage to provide some reasoning or evidence that supports you. Until then there’s no reason for it to change, at least not for thinking people.
The reason I don't take any of your criticisms seriously is because of the 'Zero error' that I ascribe to your view points. The problem is multi fold.
No, the reason is that you cannot or will not engage with the rebuttals that undo you. Take your blind man analogy mistake for example – why not actually deal with it rather than pretend it hasn’t happened?
1. Many of you are in the mental stage of adolescence. (Please refer to my article on 'Three stages' at my blog site). This makes many of you habitual skeptics and cynics....full of 'I know it all' self importance. It is a mindset that cannot change at this stage given that many of you people are fairly old.
Insulting your interlocutors won’t help you. Scepticism is the default position for any thinking person because, without it, any claim about anything would be accepted – “spirituality” and leprechauns alike. That’s why the burden of proof concept matters – if you make a claim you expect to be taken seriously, then it’s your job to explain why anyone should do so. Just asserting some of us to lack the magic properties that you have decided you have to grasp these things just makes you look foolish.
2. Additionally, many of you have a Zoom-In mind set due to your science training and cultural environment. This makes your thinking microscopic....full of reductionist and detailed nitpicking....with no total view at all. This is a problem while discussing philosophy and spirituality.
Which is another of your posts full of mistakes in reasoning. It’s not “microscopic thinking” to reason your way to, say, aerodynamics creating lift rather than angels doing it. Again, insulting those with better reasoning ability than your own does you no credit here.
3. Besides the above two, there is also the 'Two boxes syndrome' because of which many of you have two segregated and a bipolar way of reacting to similar issues. You clearly have bias and prejudice in the way you choose to look at certain phenomena.
“Bipolar” is a medical term, and it’s particularly scummy of you to use it as an insult. There’s only a “bias and prejudice” inasmuch as mindless, content free woo won’t be accepted as true just on someone’s say so. You have the same bias and prejudice in respect of the mindless and content free woo of others, which is why you reject my assertions about, say, leprechauns. If you want to persist with your “two boxes” analogy, then you have to label the first one “reason-based beliefs” and the second “other beliefs”.
4. Some of you believe that merely joining together and badgering someone can bring them around. Not likely! That is bullying, not discussion.
Playing the persecution card won’t help you either. No-one badgers you – rather you’re given clear and cogent explanation when you go wrong, which you then ignore in favour of scattering insults as you make good your escape. This dishonesty does you no credit.
But, having said all this, I still enjoy posting here because it also makes me rethink on certain issues....besides having something to do, of course.
If you claim to “rethink” (or even to think at all for that matter) why not finally show some evidence of it here?
So, keep it going folks.
Cheers.
Sriram
PS: Where is torridon, I wonder?! I could hold a conversation with him without the issue getting derailed or ending in name calling.
Name calling like “Many of you are in the mental stage of adolescence”, “thinking microscopic”, “bipolar” etc you mean?
-
Walter,
I'm sorry you feel bullied and I apologise for any part you think I may have played in that . It was not my intention .
However , it does not stop me from calling you out on assertions and misunderstandings on your part and asking you to support claims you make
To be clear, no-one bullies Sriram. It's a card he plays in response to rebuttals he doesn't like but cannot or will not address.
-
I have now linked my article on 'Three Stages' to my earlier post, for those who may be interested.
-
Sriram,
It would really be helpful in discussions like these if you could try to keep your ego in check and practise what you preach. To scatter your responses with this strange air of superiority by seeking to belittle those who disagree with you with such comments as Blue has made reference to, seems to show a certain lack of control on your part. Wouldn't it be far more constructive to respond to points that are made, giving reasons and evidence for your conclusions, and attempting to limit your personal bias in favour of a more encompassing and more tolerant approach?
People still might not agree with you, but at least you would be illustrating the approach which you consider to be important instead of one which has all the hallmarks of retiring into your shell and attempting to fire off broadsides against those who disagree with you.
-
I have said many times that it is not about more information....it is about perception. I cannot make you change it.
Yes you can. You need to provide evidence that the things you say are true. Then I will change my perception.
On second thoughts, if you have no evidence, then it is true that you can't change my perception, however, it's not my fault that you have no evidence for your ideas. Stop blaming me.
-
Yes you can. You need to provide evidence that the things you say are true. Then I will change my perception.
On second thoughts, if you have no evidence, then it is true that you can't change my perception, however, it's not my fault that you have no evidence for your ideas. Stop blaming me.
Spot on
-
jeremy,
Yes you can. You need to provide evidence that the things you say are true. Then I will change my perception.
On second thoughts, if you have no evidence, then it is true that you can't change my perception, however, it's not my fault that you have no evidence for your ideas. Stop blaming me.
I explained this to him in Reply 72 ("Again, no – it will change if and ever you manage to provide some reasoning or evidence that supports you. Until then there’s no reason for it to change, at least not for thinking people.").
He seems to think that "perception" has epistemological force, apparently oblivious to the problem that you can perceive anything at all, whether real or imaginary. What matters is whether or not the object of the perception can be validated. He complains that the tools of reason and evidence are too "microscopic" etc for the job, but is unable to suggest what other method should be used instead.
-
No!
Perception is like a fundamental program. That is the means by which information will be processed. Depending on ones perception, information will be processed accordingly. For example, if a person beliefs in a particular deity, that is the way the mind will work regardless of the evidence. Some people believe that the devil plants fossils. That is programming or perception regardless of the information.
Similarly, some people have a materialistic perception...a mindset. It is a form of programming that will not change whatever the evidence. All evidence will be seen only from that angle...and will be justified or rationalized accordingly.
-
No!
Perception is like a fundamental program. That is the means by which information will be processed. Depending on ones perception, information will be processed accordingly. For example, if a person beliefs in a particular deity, that is the way the mind will work regardless of the evidence. Some people believe that the devil plants fossils. That is programming or perception regardless of the information.
Similarly, some people have a materialistic perception...a mindset. It is a form of programming that will not change whatever the evidence. All evidence will be seen only from that angle...and will be justified or rationalized accordingly.
You have no evidence to support your perception, is what you are saying, and with which I agree.
-
No!
Perception is like a fundamental program. That is the means by which information will be processed. Depending on ones perception, information will be processed accordingly. For example, if a person beliefs in a particular deity, that is the way the mind will work regardless of the evidence. Some people believe that the devil plants fossils. That is programming or perception regardless of the information.
Similarly, some people have a materialistic perception...a mindset. It is a form of programming that will not change whatever the evidence. All evidence will be seen only from that angle...and will be justified or rationalized accordingly.
Sriram just for a moment go have a read of a few pages of the Searching for God thread on this forum, you're presenting all of the so similar assertions that A B does, he seems to think he can work quite functionally without evidence too.
I notice you're not quoting anything from your science mag these days, have they cut out, stopped printing the horoscopes?
Cheers ippy
-
Sriram,
No!
Perception is like a fundamental program. That is the means by which information will be processed. Depending on ones perception, information will be processed accordingly. For example, if a person beliefs in a particular deity, that is the way the mind will work regardless of the evidence. Some people believe that the devil plants fossils. That is programming or perception regardless of the information.
Similarly, some people have a materialistic perception...a mindset. It is a form of programming that will not change whatever the evidence. All evidence will be seen only from that angle...and will be justified or rationalized accordingly.
Dear God but you struggle. I can line up ten people before breakfast, each of whom “perceive” something different to be true – the Christian god for the first one, Allah for the second, Poseidon for the third, Colin the Laird of Leprechaunland for the fourth etc.
A “materialistic mindset” as you put it isn’t though a perception of anything – it’s a method to investigate the validity or otherwise of the perceptions that people do have, but that’s all.
Materialism doesn’t even claim to falsify the perceptions it can’t address. Rather it just says, “perceptions A, B and C are justified by this method, but perceptions D, E and F are not”. That’s not to say that D is not true (leprechauns say), but it is to say that this method provides no reason to think that it is. And your problem when you perceive D, E or F to be true nonetheless is that you offer no other means to test the claim. The various claims of non-naturalistic fact you make are therefore precisely as (in)valid as any others that fall outwith the purview of materialism.
This isn’t hard to grasp if only you’d try. Really it isn’t.
-
blue & jeremyp
the only people who see fairies at the bottom of the garden are those who really really REALLY believe . It's that simple !
-
blue & jeremyp
the only people who see fairies at the bottom of the garden are those who really really REALLY believe . It's that simple !
One of my schools had playing fields that backed on to one of the premises of Fairey Engineering. We had Faireys at the bottom of the garden.
-
One of my schools had playing fields that backed on to one of the premises of Fairey Engineering. We had Faireys at the bottom of the garden.
would that be the world famous Aircraft manufacturer
Oddly enough I was having a good look round a FAIREY GANNET aircraft in a museum earlier today
-
would that be the world famous Aircraft manufacturer
Oddly enough I was having a good look round a FAIREY GANNET aircraft in a museum earlier today
Yes. In Stockport.
-
Yes. In Stockport.
There's quite a lot of info on the net about it if you're interested
-
No!
Perception is like a fundamental program. That is the means by which information will be processed. Depending on ones perception, information will be processed accordingly. For example, if a person beliefs in a particular deity, that is the way the mind will work regardless of the evidence. Some people believe that the devil plants fossils. That is programming or perception regardless of the information.
Similarly, some people have a materialistic perception...a mindset. It is a form of programming that will not change whatever the evidence. All evidence will be seen only from that angle...and will be justified or rationalized accordingly.
As I said before, it’s not my problem if you do not have the evidence to convince me that you are right, it’s your problem. Stop blaming me for the shortcomings in your arguments.
-
One of my schools had playing fields that backed on to one of the premises of Fairey Engineering. We had Faireys at the bottom of the garden.
Fireflies, Gannets or Swordfish?
-
would that be the world famous Aircraft manufacturer
Oddly enough I was having a good look round a FAIREY GANNET aircraft in a museum earlier today
Which museum? I saw one recently at one near York, whose name escapes me.
-
Fireflies, Gannets or Swordfish?
Dunno. Whatever they made in Heaton Chapel.
-
Dunno. Whatever they made in Heaton Chapel.
Biplanes or monoplanes?
-
Which museum? I saw one recently at one near York, whose name escapes me.
yes that's the one
The Yorkshire Air Museum at ELvington Well worth a visit.
-
Dunno. Whatever they made in Heaton Chapel.
I'm overwhelmed by your enthusiasm ::)
-
I think that the best person to decide what Sriram means is Sriram.
He's explained what he means by the adolescent mind state before and it wasn't about childish posts.
-
Which museum? I saw one recently at one near York, whose name escapes me.
jeremyp
here is a nice example
https://youtu.be/BC8vaHEI6gY
-
As I said before, it’s not my problem if you do not have the evidence to convince me that you are right, it’s your problem. Stop blaming me for the shortcomings in your arguments.
:D There you go again! You don't get it at all...do you?!
If you keep looking through a microscope...how can I show you the stars?!! The evidence is there....its just that you can't see it!!
Get your head away from the microscope and then you can see the evidence.
-
:D There you go again! You don't get it at all...do you?!
If you keep looking through a microscope...how can I show you the stars?!! The evidence is there....its just that you can't see it!!
Get your head away from the microscope and then you can see the evidence.
You ever thought you might be missing the evidence because you aren't looking through the microscope?
BTW I'm not being serious here. I just think your analogy is weak and insulting.
-
You ever thought you might be missing the evidence because you aren't looking through the microscope?
BTW I'm not being serious here. I just think your analogy is weak and insulting.
I have looked through the microscope too at various times in my life. That is one method of investigation but can't be used everywhere. I am not against any discoveries of science. I am surprised you haven't realized that. I am not questioning science at all!
I am only saying that science has its place while the world is much bigger and requires us to look outside of the microscope too.
And...'insulting'....really!! Ha...Ha! You seem to have missed all the insults directed at me.... and others...by the atheist bunch! ;)
-
And...'insulting'....really!! Ha...Ha! You seem to have missed all the insults directed at me.... and others...by the atheist bunch! ;)
Well, I agree about that: it's the non-believers on here who specialise in non-stop sarcasm against believers. That's why I keep getting suspended: I lose my temper and tell them to **** ***, or similar.
-
Well, I agree about that: it's the non-believers on here who specialise in non-stop sarcasm against believers. That's why I keep getting suspended: I lose my temper and tell them to **** ***, or similar.
if you present yourself as a target don't be surprised when someone takes a shot
-
If posters, whether they are believers or non believers, make statements which appear nonsensical to others they can expect to be challenged. Losing one's rag doesn't help the situation, especially if unpleasant swear words are used.
-
If posters, whether they are believers or non believers, make statements which appear nonsensical to others they can expect to be challenged. Loosing one's rag doesn't help the situation, especially if unpleasant swear words are used.
I'm prepared to be challenged, but with reason and evidence. Sarcasm and insults are what I'm complaining about. You mean "losing", btw.
-
:D There you go again! You don't get it at all...do you?!
If you keep looking through a microscope...how can I show you the stars?!! The evidence is there....its just that you can't see it!!
Get your head away from the microscope and then you can see the evidence.
Or maybe its not there but all in your imagination.
-
Or maybe its not there but all in your imagination.
Possibly what is behind the 2nd commandment ... don't try and create images of that which is beyond imagination, it will only lead you astray.
-
Sriram,
:D There you go again! You don't get it at all...do you?!
If you keep looking through a microscope...how can I show you the stars?!! The evidence is there....its just that you can't see it!!
Get your head away from the microscope and then you can see the evidence.
Oh he gets it all right - and much better than you do. The only "microscope" he and and some others of us are confined to is reason. And if reason can't lead to these supposed "stars" of yours, then it's your job to propose something else that will. Currently though all you have is, "suspend your critical faculties and just accept as true anything I say" which I suspect even you can see is a very bad argument.
I also incidentally took the time to correct your various mistakes in Replies 72 and 78, though predictably I see that you just ignored them - presumably so you can repeat exactly the same mistakes without a scintilla of doubt to cloud your woo-centred certainties.
What does this say about you do you think?
-
SteveH,
Well, I agree about that: it's the non-believers on here who specialise in non-stop sarcasm against believers. That's why I keep getting suspended: I lose my temper and tell them to **** ***, or similar.
You do know that it's Sriram who uses terms like, “Many of you are in the mental stage of adolescence”, “thinking microscopic”, “bipolar” etc right?
By contrast by and large it's the non-believers here who use reason and argument to demolish the validating arguments attempted by theists. This is perhaps because, when you have reason on your side, there's no point in using insult instead, whereas when reason undoes Sriram he resorts to evasion and insult while he makes good his escape.
-
SteveH,
I'm prepared to be challenged, but with reason and evidence. Sarcasm and insults are what I'm complaining about. You mean "losing", btw.
Does it occur to you that calling arguments you don't like and can't rebut "sarcasm and insults" is just a way of processing the problem so as to avoid it?
-
I'm prepared to be challenged, but with reason and evidence. Sarcasm and insults are what I'm complaining about. You mean "losing", btw.
And of course you are never sarcastic or insulting. ::)
-
SteveH,
Does it occur to you that calling arguments you don't like and can't rebut "sarcasm and insults" is just a way of processing the problem so as to avoid it?
I'm not doing that. Reason and evidence are fine, and I have modified my opinions about some things when presented with arguments and evidence that are persuasive. I mean argument-free sarcasm and insults.
-
And of course you are never sarcastic or insulting. ::)
Insulting occasionally, when I lose my temper with the sarcasm-merchants (though I'm trying not to from now on); sarcasm - maybe very occasionally, but not as nearly as obsessively as some people.
-
Insulting occasionally, when I lose my temper with the sarcasm-merchants (though I'm trying not to from now on); sarcasm - maybe very occasionally, but not as nearly as obsessively as some people.
If you say so.
Anyway getting back to the topic of religion, if a faith does it for a person making them more fulfilled in a good, caring way that is fine by me, even if I don't share their beliefs. I find it objectionable when their belief in a religion turns them into a person with extremist views that they try to force on others, often with threats if they don't convert.
-
Steve H,
I'm not doing that. Reason and evidence are fine, and I have modified my opinions about some things when presented with arguments and evidence that are persuasive. I mean argument-free sarcasm and insults.
I'm not aware that you've been subject to either, but I am aware that you claim to have been when the arguments have been unwelcome. That's the point.
-
Or maybe its not there but all in your imagination.
How would you even know that with your eyes stuck on the microscope?! Maybe because you can't see it, you are imagining that we are imagining it!
-
Sriram,
How would you even know that with your eyes stuck on the microscope?! Maybe because you can't see it, you are imagining that we are imagining it!
Because you're unable to propose a method to validate or justify your beliefs other than "because I say so", and who's "we"?
Calling the use of reason and evidence a "microscope" just makes you look foolish. If they can't support your claims, suggest something else that can.
-
yes that's the one
The Yorkshire Air Museum at ELvington Well worth a visit.
Agreed. My one criticism is that they seem to have left several of the outside exhibits to rot. Also, if you remove the engines from a jet, you should put some sort of blanking plate in the jet pipe. There's nothing sadder than looking at a jet fighter and being able see right down the jet pipes.
-
jeremy,
There's nothing sadder than looking at a jet fighter and being able see right down the jet pipes.
How about when Bambi's Mum gets killed?
-
Agreed. My one criticism is that they seem to have left several of the outside exhibits to rot. Also, if you remove the engines from a jet, you should put some sort of blanking plate in the jet pipe. There's nothing sadder than looking at a jet fighter and being able see right down the jet pipes.
I didn't notice anything like that (you shouldn't be looking up jet pipes , its rude ) the other day. Apart from the ones waiting for renovation and the whole place smelt of fresh paint too.
I think the mugs , sorry, volunteers had be working especially hard .
-
jeremy,
How about when Bambi's Mum gets killed?
quick ! pass the tissues :'(
-
jeremy,
How about when Bambi's Mum gets killed?
I’ve no idea. I haven’t seen Bambi.
-
How would you even know that with your eyes stuck on the microscope?! Maybe because you can't see it, you are imagining that we are imagining it!
Its possible. Is it possible you are imagining it?
-
Its possible. Is it possible you are imagining it?
Unlikely! It is certainly possible that our individual interpretations are imaginary and culture related. But the basic experience and its after effects are not imaginary. They are real and are common across the world.
-
Unlikely! It is certainly possible that our individual interpretations are imaginary and culture related. But the basic experience and its after effects are not imaginary. They are real and are common across the world.
I accept people have experiences, I don't think anyone questions that. That people interpret them in an imaginary way and influenced by their culture is certainly not unlikely.
-
I accept people have experiences, I don't think anyone questions that. That people interpret them in an imaginary way and influenced by their culture is certainly not unlikely.
?????? What?
I think that's what I said. ::)
-
?????? What?
I think that's what I said. ::)
Your posts are not always easy to understand.
-
Sriram,
Unlikely!
!
It is certainly possible that our individual interpretations are imaginary and culture related. But the basic experience and its after effects are not imaginary. They are real and are common across the world.
You fundamentally misunderstand still. “The basic experience” is a story, a narrative. I might have a perception later today that I’ve been visited by Colin, the grand Nabob of the leprechauns. There would though various possible explanations for that perception: Colin did indeed visit; I had a brief hallucinatory episode; I mistook a green bin bag that flew past my window for Colin etc. In other words, there is no “basic experience” – just (countless) basic perceptions of experiences. Identifying what an experience actually is is a very different matter – something that’s been explained to you several times, but you always ignore.
And there (again) is your problem. You make various assertions of fact, and complain that when they can’t be verified with reason or evidence the fault is with the use of reason and evidence (“microscopic thinking”) rather than with your inability to justify your claims. It’s led you to a curious mix of arrogance and ignorance that does you no credit.
-
You need to have a WiFi and the required software. You also need to switch them on and then click on the icon. Only then you even know that such a thing as the internet actually exists. Till then it does not exist for you.
Snooping around inside the hardware will not show you what the internet is.
-
Sriram,
You need to have a WiFi and the required software. You also need to switch them on and then click on the icon. Only then you even know that such a thing as the internet actually exists. Till then it does not exist for you.
Snooping around inside the hardware will not show you what the internet is.
So, yet again, what "WiFI and software" do you propose people use to investigate your claims of fact if you think reason and evidence aren't up to the job?
You've also just repeated your blind man analogy mistake by the way - pick something that's agreed to be real then point out that some people can't identify it. This'll be lost on you, but it's a fallacy called begging the question ("petitio principii").
Oh, and I see that you've just ignored your mistake of conflating an experience with the perception of it. Funny that.
-
You need to have a WiFi and the required software. You also need to switch them on and then click on the icon. Only then you even know that such a thing as the internet actually exists. Till then it does not exist for you.
Snooping around inside the hardware will not show you what the internet is.
Sriram
Instead of receiving this constant battering why don't you just admit it's an emotional thing , something you strongly believe rather than have 'evidence' for . That way , I for one would accept it's just a very strong feeling you have .You might then be able to share your experiences with us on the basis we both know it's not real but might be enjoyable to both parties as a kind of thought experiment .
We might both learn something !
-
Sriram
Instead of receiving this constant battering why don't you just admit it's an emotional thing , something you strongly believe rather than have 'evidence' for . That way , I for one would accept it's just a very strong feeling you have .You might then be able to share your experiences with us on the basis we both know it's not real but might be enjoyable to both parties as a kind of thought experiment .
We might both learn something !
And why would I admit to anything like that?!! :D
-
Sriram,
So, yet again, what "WiFI and software" do you propose people use to investigate your claims of fact if you think reason and evidence aren't up to the job?
You've also just repeated your blind man analogy mistake by the way - pick something that's agreed to be real then point out that some people can't identify it. This'll be lost on you, but it's a fallacy called begging the question ("petitio principii").
Oh, and I see that you've just ignored your mistake of conflating an experience with the perception of it. Funny that.
Don't be silly Blue...! How can I pick something that is 'admitted to be real'...when you can't 'admit' to it?
You are getting back to the 'show me it is real through my microscope and then I will admit to it'. "There is a hole in my bucket dear Eliza.......'
-
And why would I admit to anything like that?!! :D
more to the point , why wouldn't you ?
please show your reasoning and workings , thanks .
-
Just read my post 131 above......
-
Just read my post 131 above......
but from what I can determine ,you don't even have a bucket ::)
-
Sriram,
And why would I admit to anything like that?!! :D
Becasue it's true.
-
Sriram,
Don't be silly Blue...! How can I pick something that is 'admitted to be real'...when you can't 'admit' to it?
You are getting back to the 'show me it is real through my microscope and then I will admit to it'. "There is a hole in my bucket dear Eliza.......'
It's hard to know whether you can't grasp even a simple argument or you're wilfully misrepresenting the argument that undoes you. No-one said "admitted" - that's just you misquoting me. What I actually said was agreed. You pick phenomena we agree to be real - light and the internet respectively - and then say that some people lack the equipment to see them. Well, yes. That though tells you nothing about whether or not phenomena that only you think to be real are real because the rest of us have no means to validate them.
Try to focus now - really, really try: if you think the tools of reason and evidence are too "microscopic" to see the various things you believe in that the rest of can't see, WHAT METHOD TO INVESTIGATE YOUR CLAIMS WOULD YOU PROPOSE INSTEAD?
Surely "you just have to take my word for it" isn't all you have is it? Is it?
-
Sriram,
It's hard to know whether you can't grasp even a simple argument or you're wilfully misrepresenting the argument that undoes you. No-one said "admitted" - that's just you misquoting me. What I actually said was agreed. You pick phenomena we agree to be real - light and the internet respectively - and then say that some people lack the equipment to see them. Well, yes. That though tells you nothing about whether or not phenomena that only you think to be real are real because the rest of us have no means to validate them.
Try to focus now - really, really try: if you think the tools of reason and evidence are too "microscopic" to see the various things you believe in that the rest of can't see, WHAT METHOD TO INVESTIGATE YOUR CLAIMS WOULD YOU PROPOSE INSTEAD?
Surely "you just have to take my word for it" isn't all you have is it? Is it?
Well...its quite simple really...Blue! Just try to get the microscopes off your eyes. That is the only way to see things outside the microscopic world. There is no other way.
Continuing to insist that someone should provide evidence of the bigger realities in a microscopic way is ridiculous. It can't be done.
As I keep telling you, it is about perception not about information. I have no additional information to provide you that you don't already have. You just need to get the microscopes off and look at the same things. You will see them differently!
Get it?!
Now...how does one get the microscopes off? That is easier said than done. Decades of microscopic training and cultural pressure cannot be undone easily. But you can try some of the following.
1. For a start, try to have some faith in other people who accept mystical realities. Instead of adopting a superior 'nose in the air' attitude towards believers, try to respect at least some of their views. You can start with people who you would otherwise respect for their intelligence and honesty but who have a different view on such matters. Quit brushing them off as soon as they disagree with you on such things. While it requires you to keep your large ego under check, it could surely help somewhat in changing your perception.
Quit being an adolescent, in other words.
2. Read some books on Yoga, Vedanta etc. instead of snickering at them. Try to be humble and accept that the world could contain many mysteries that are beyond your perception.
3. Practice some Yoga, meditations so that your well entrenched perceptions and ideas get a good shake up. They might loosen their hold and after that it might be easier to take a peek outside the microscope.
That is all I can say. (Now don't start off with the 'provide me evidence' routine)
-
For a start, try to have some faith in other people who accept mystical realities
I can have faith in people who accept mystical realities. I can't have faith in mystical realities.
You are asking me to believe that my friend Trevor is helped by his crystals that sit on his hearth at home. I don't believe that. In mostly every other way I believe him but I can't make the leap to nonsense his crystals require.
-
Well...its quite simple really...Blue! Just try to get the microscopes off your eyes. That is the only way to see things outside the microscopic world. There is no other way.
Continuing to insist that someone should provide evidence of the bigger realities in a microscopic way is ridiculous. It can't be done.
As I keep telling you, it is about perception not about information. I have no additional information to provide you that you don't already have. You just need to get the microscopes off and look at the same things. You will see them differently!
Get it?!
Now...how does one get the microscopes off? That is easier said than done. Decades of microscopic training and cultural pressure cannot be undone easily. But you can try some of the following.
1. For a start, try to have some faith in other people who accept mystical realities. Instead of adopting a superior 'nose in the air' attitude towards believers, try to respect at least some of their views. You can start with people who you would otherwise respect for their intelligence and honesty but who have a different view on such matters. Quit brushing them off as soon as they disagree with you on such things. While it requires you to keep your large ego under check, it could surely help somewhat in changing your perception.
Quit being an adolescent, in other words.
2. Read some books on Yoga, Vedanta etc. instead of snickering at them. Try to be humble and accept that the world could contain many mysteries that are beyond your perception.
3. Practice some Yoga, meditations so that your well entrenched perceptions and ideas get a good shake up. They might loosen their hold and after that it might be easier to take a peek outside the microscope.
That is all I can say. (Now don't start off with the 'provide me evidence' routine)
Stop blaming us for your shortcomings. It’s not our fault you can’t provide convincing evidence for your point of view.
FYI a microscope is an instrument that helps us understand the world better. When you say stop using one, I hear you arguing that ignorance is better than knowledge. That’s just bullshit.
-
Sriram
I was prepared to give you a chance and was hopeful you would come up with a basis for real discussion but you've just blown it .
Try looking down a microscope now and then !
-
Sriram,
Well...its quite simple really...Blue!
Excellent. So you’re finally going to address your blind man analogy mistake are you? Good – here we go then…
Just try to get the microscopes off your eyes. That is the only way to see things outside the microscopic world. There is no other way.
Aw no – you’ve blown it again Say it ain’t so! Do I really have to explain this to you again? Really though? Slooooowly now….the only “microscope” here is reason and evidence. That’s what some of us bring to the claims of fact you make because that’s only only method of investigation we have. And when that fails – as it always does – then it’s your job to provide an alternative method to investigate them.
Continuing to insist that someone should provide evidence of the bigger realities in a microscopic way is ridiculous. It can't be done.
It’s claims of bigger realities, not bigger realities and if you have no evidence for these claims why should anyone think you to be right? I can make lots of claims about lots of things for which I have no evidence either – would you accept them as true on the same basis that you expect me to accept as true your evidence-free assertions? Why not?
As I keep telling you, it is about perception not about information. I have no additional information to provide you that you don't already have. You just need to get the microscopes off and look at the same things. You will see them differently!
I’ve dealt with your microscope mistake already (several times in fact), and your problem with “perception” is that your personal perceptions about anything are no more epistemically useful than my perceptions about leprechauns. You can perceive anything you like, but unless you can find some way to anchor those perceptions to reality, that’s all they are - perceptions.
Get it?!
Yes. Why don’t you?
Now...how does one get the microscopes off? That is easier said than done. Decades of microscopic training and cultural pressure cannot be undone easily. But you can try some of the following.
Easy – just abandon reason and evidence and use instead…er….well, what exactly?
1. For a start, try to have some faith in other people who accept mystical realities. Instead of adopting a superior 'nose in the air' attitude towards believers, try to respect at least some of their views. You can start with people who you would otherwise respect for their intelligence and honesty but who have a different view on such matters. Quit brushing them off as soon as they disagree with you on such things. While it requires you to keep your large ego under check, it could surely help somewhat in changing your perception.
I'm happy to respect anyone’s right to believe anything, but why on earth would I respect the content of their beliefs when they offer no means to investigate or validate them? You know this to be true already though don’t you – you respect my right to believe in leprechauns, but you have no respect at all for the belief itself.
Oh, and you’re on awful thin ice if you want to claim intelligence and honesty. The first is invalidated by the blogs you link to that are riddled with logical mistakes from beginning to end; the latter is invalidated by your habit of making errors here, then replying with insults and running away.
Quit being an adolescent, in other words.
QED
2. Read some books on Yoga, Vedanta etc. instead of snickering at them. Try to be humble and accept that the world could contain many mysteries that are beyond your perception.
If they’re “beyond our perception” why should anyone think that you alone actually do perceive them?
3. Practice some Yoga, meditations so that your well entrenched perceptions and ideas get a good shake up. They might loosen their hold and after that it might be easier to take a peek outside the microscope.
I could practice these things for ever and a day. I might even arrive at various claims of objective fact about the world if I did. Trouble is, that’s all they’d be - claims. Until and unless you ever, ever provide some means to justify your claims though that’s all you have. Let’s be kind and call them guesses rather than woo shall we – it’s a useful label for the claims of fact you make about whatever and the claims of fact I make about leprechauns. They’re epistemically identical – ie, worthless.
That is all I can say. (Now don't start off with the 'provide me evidence' routine)
Fine. Guesses it is then.
-
Sriram The notion that you, a most arrogant and self-aggrandising poster have the gall to suggest that others should be humble is completely and appallingly objectionable in my opinion. ,
-
Susan,
Sriram The notion that you, a most arrogant and self-aggrandising poster have the gall to suggest that others should be humble is completely and appallingly objectionable in my opinion. ,
Yes, it's astonishing really.
-
Ok...this is boring! Explaining 'light' to 'blind people' clearly doesn't work.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Ok...this is boring! Explaining 'light' to 'blind people' clearly doesn't work.
Cheers.
Sriram
It is very sad that you can't see how silly you are being, your responses don't do you any favours. ::)
-
Ok...this is boring! Explaining 'light' to 'blind people' clearly doesn't work.
Cheers.
Sriram
Kent Cullers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Cullers)
-
Physics in the dark (https://physicsworld.com/a/physics-in-the-dark/)
-
Sriram,
Ok...this is boring! Explaining 'light' to 'blind people' clearly doesn't work.
So in Reply 141 I took the time to demolish your various mistakes, only for you to ignore all of it and to repeat the initial one.
What does that say about you do you think?
-
How a blind artist is challenging our understanding of colour (https://theconversation.com/how-a-blind-artist-is-challenging-our-understanding-of-colour-93872)
Eşref Armağan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C5%9Fref_Arma%C4%9Fan)
-
Ok...this is boring!
Cheers.
Sriram
too right
brick wall . heads . banging ! at some point one has to stop
-
Ok...this is boring! Explaining 'light' to 'blind people' clearly doesn't work.
Cheers.
Sriram
Possible translation:
Oh...I find it really hard to answer any of the points made against me! Convincing people that I'm right just by telling them that they just can't see that I am right, clearly doesn't work.
:)
-
Kent Cullers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Cullers)
Well..yes...of course! There are some visionaries and broad minded people who can 'see' beyond their sensory limitations. But not many blind people can do that.
Similarly there are few scientists and science enthusiasts who can 'see' beyond their microscopic mindset and are spiritualists also. But alas.......not many! :(
-
Sriram,
Well..yes...of course! There are some visionaries and broad minded people who can 'see' beyond their sensory limitations. But not many blind people can do that.
Similarly there are few scientists and science enthusiasts who can 'see' beyond their microscopic mindset and are spiritualists also. But alas.......not many! :(
And again you fail utterly to suggest any reason at all to think that your various claims of "the spiritual" are correct. Fun as it may be reading your various guesses about this, why would you not be concerned to find a reason for your guesses about the spiritual to be taken more seriously than my guesses about leprechauns?
-
Well..yes...of course! There are some visionaries and broad minded people who can 'see' beyond their sensory limitations. But not many blind people can do that.
Similarly there are few scientists and science enthusiasts who can 'see' beyond their microscopic mindset and are spiritualists also. But alas.......not many! :(
Kent Cullers can't see beyond his sensory limitations. He has no vision but he can hear and touch and smell. There's no magic of the sort you seem to think exists involved.
And once again, a microscope enhances our perception of the world, not limits it. That you keep spouting this bullshit looks like evidence of dishonesty to me.
-
Kent Cullers can't see beyond his sensory limitations. He has no vision but he can hear and touch and smell. There's no magic of the sort you seem to think exists involved.
And once again, a microscope enhances our perception of the world, not limits it. That you keep spouting this bullshit looks like evidence of dishonesty to me.
I don't know why this simple idea is so difficult to understand. A microscope enhances certain perceptions, but it also has its limitations. It can't be used to look at the stars.
What I am talking about is that certain mindsets and mental limitations can prevent us from 'seeing' or understanding certain phenomena. We need to change our perceptions if we want to access certain ideas.
-
Sriram,
I don't know why this simple idea is so difficult to understand. A microscope enhances certain perceptions, but it also has its limitations. It can't be used to look at the stars.
It might be simple but it's also wrong because you still make the same basic mistake with the analogy – you just assume your “stars” are real, and that it’s the fault of the “microscopic” thinkers that they don’t agree with you. If you want to demonstrate your claims of the “spiritual” to be any better than guessing then you need (finally) to propose a method to do it.
What I am talking about is that certain mindsets and mental limitations can prevent us from 'seeing' or understanding certain phenomena. We need to change our perceptions if we want to access certain ideas.
They probably can, but that takes you not one jot of a step of an iota toward demonstrating these phenomena to be real in the first place.
That’s your problem. Why not address it?
-
Gosh...Blue. This is terrible!! How the heck can I provide evidence to you of the stars in the sky when your head is stuck in the microscope?! Get your head out and you can see for yourself.
Is this so difficult?!
-
Sriram,
Gosh...Blue. This is terrible!! How the heck can I provide evidence to you of the stars in the sky when your head is stuck in the microscope?! Get your head out and you can see for yourself.
Is this so difficult?!
Yes, because it's wrong. You can blame others for lacking your magic insight as much as you like, but that's a problem for you rather than for those of us who require reason and evidence before taking claims seriously. If you think otherwise, on what basis would you reject my claim of leprechauns that I assert you lack the magic insight to see too?
-
Gosh...Blue. This is terrible!! How the heck can I provide evidence to you of the stars in the sky when your head is stuck in the microscope?! Get your head out and you can see for yourself.
Is this so difficult?!
Sriram
just have a quick look inside your brain to see if the switch marked REASON has been turned off .
If so flick it back on again , its not that difficult . ::)
-
I don't know why this simple idea is so difficult to understand. A microscope enhances certain perceptions, but it also has its limitations. It can't be used to look at the stars.
What I am talking about is that certain mindsets and mental limitations can prevent us from 'seeing' or understanding certain phenomena. We need to change our perceptions if we want to access certain ideas.
Neither a microscope nor a telescope enhance or develop the idea any spiritual reality at all. They are both concerned with and enhance our knowledge of the natural world. They both have their limitations. That is why your attempt to contrast the two is such a poor analogy.
What you seem to be concerned with is the idea that we are a victim of a certain mindset which limits us from being spiritualists(in the philosophical sense). That is a fair point and one that could be true but, alternatively, one which fails to deal with the very real proposition that some of us have not been curtailed by such a mindset but have come to our views in full knowledge and realization of the mindset which accepts the reality of a spiritual world. It is not that we have necessarily utterly rejected that view but find little to commend it either from a rational and evidential position, but, also, and speaking purely for myself here, from an emotional and experiential position. That is not to say such a spiritual reality does not exist, but surely you must accept that simply suggesting that such a thing exists if only we had the perception to see it, is fraught with problems. What if your perceptions are simply a result of your mindset? what if they are plain wrong? How can we tell? You dismiss the idea of evidence yet you put nothing in its place, so how can we judge? And then you simply label us as 'adolescents' because we do not agree with what you say. Assuming that you wish people to be sympathetic to your point of view I would suggest that that is not the way to 'win friends and influence people'.
Finally you speak of 'understanding certain phenomena'. This may or may not be true, but I have to say your understanding of evolutionary theory leaves a lot to be desired, and your emphasis on the importance and significance of NDEs is at the very least contested.
Perhaps, if you desire humility in others, then it would be a wise approach to use a little humilty also. And you could start by trying to understand why so many people on this forum have difficulty, not in understanding your ideas, but in accepting them.
-
Quote.....'That is a fair point and one that could be true.....'
Well..well..well! There is a glimmer of hope here then...finally!
So, you got the point I have been making. Certain mindsets limit our perceptions and understanding. As long as we retain those mindsets (microscopic), we will never understand because our mindsets will not allow us to see it. Once we change our mindset, understanding is automatic.
Not bad...enki! Late, but you got there. :)
At least you aren't saying....'first show me evidence of the stars and then I will bother to look up at the sky'... as some others are saying.
PS: who said that microscopes and telescopes enhance spiritual reality?
-
I don't know why this simple idea is so difficult to understand.
It's not difficult to understand, it's just that it is bollocks.
A microscope enhances certain perceptions, but it also has its limitations. It can't be used to look at the stars.
Why would you want to use a microscope to look at the stars? That would be stupid. Use a telescope instead.
Note however, if you are looking through a microscope and I say "hey, there are giant balls of gas in the sky that emit light" and you say "I can't see them through this microscope, I don't say "you are blinkered by your perception", I say, "here, try this telescope instead".
What is your equivalent to a telescope?
What I am talking about is that certain mindsets and mental limitations can prevent us from 'seeing' or understanding certain phenomena. We need to change our perceptions if we want to access certain ideas.
My mindset is "show me the evidence". Why are you surprised that, when you consistently fail to provide any evidence, I don't believe you?
-
Gosh...Blue. This is terrible!! How the heck can I provide evidence to you of the stars in the sky when your head is stuck in the microscope?! Get your head out and you can see for yourself.
Is this so difficult?!
Give him the right tool for the job and I'm sure Blue will use it. You are dissembling because you know there is no tool. Your ideas are just fantasy. No tool will help us verify your fantasies.
-
Quote.....'That is a fair point and one that could be true.....'
Well..well..well! There is a glimmer of hope here then...finally!
So, you got the point I have been making. Certain mindsets limit our perceptions and understanding. As long as we retain those mindsets (microscopic), we will never understand because our mindsets will not allow us to see it. Once we change our mindset, understanding is automatic.
Not bad...enki! Late, but you got there. :)
At least you aren't saying....'first show me evidence of the stars and then I will bother to look up at the sky'... as some others are saying.
PS: who said that microscopes and telescopes enhance spiritual reality?
Nothing's changed Sriram. I have always accepted the possibility of a spiritual dimension, but all it remains is a possibility and no more unless and until you can give reason and evidence to support that this spiritual dimension actually exists. That's always been my position.
I notice you don't take note of the points I make, seemingly preferring to claim some sort of victory. Why do you do that? Is it some sort of massaging of your ego perhaps?
About the telescope/microscope analogy, both add to our knowledge of the natural world, but in different areas. Just not a good analogy, that's all.
-
Quote.....'That is a fair point and one that could be true.....'
Well..well..well! There is a glimmer of hope here then...finally!
So, you got the point I have been making. Certain mindsets limit our perceptions and understanding. As long as we retain those mindsets (microscopic), we will never understand because our mindsets will not allow us to see it. Once we change our mindset, understanding is automatic.
Not bad...enki! Late, but you got there. :)
At least you aren't saying....'first show me evidence of the stars and then I will bother to look up at the sky'... as some others are saying.
PS: who said that microscopes and telescopes enhance spiritual reality?
I think you need to drop your microscope analogy Sriram. You have a mindset to, a set of filters you view the world through. Your filters and mindset or not superior or more developed than anyone elses, they are just different based on your 'nature and nurture'. If you accept that it would certainly help when it came to discussing phenomena and experiences.
-
Give him the right tool for the job and I'm sure Blue will use it. You are dissembling because you know there is no tool. Your ideas are just fantasy. No tool will help us verify your fantasies.
The 'tool' is a certain state of mind. I can't provide it.
-
It's not difficult to understand, it's just that it is bollocks.
Why would you want to use a microscope to look at the stars? That would be stupid. Use a telescope instead.
Note however, if you are looking through a microscope and I say "hey, there are giant balls of gas in the sky that emit light" and you say "I can't see them through this microscope, I don't say "you are blinkered by your perception", I say, "here, try this telescope instead".
What is your equivalent to a telescope?
My mindset is "show me the evidence". Why are you surprised that, when you consistently fail to provide any evidence, I don't believe you?
Yes...I am in fact saying exactly that....'try the telescope'. But its not a physical instrument I can buy and provide you. It is a state of mind that you have to generate yourself. Once the microscopic mind recedes, the larger perception may come on automatically.
This requires lot of mental discipline, introspection, stillness of mind and so on. Constantly running the same old 'program' again and again will not help. Change is called for.
-
Nothing's changed Sriram. I have always accepted the possibility of a spiritual dimension, but all it remains is a possibility and no more unless and until you can give reason and evidence to support that this spiritual dimension actually exists. That's always been my position.
I notice you don't take note of the points I make, seemingly preferring to claim some sort of victory. Why do you do that? Is it some sort of massaging of your ego perhaps?
About the telescope/microscope analogy, both add to our knowledge of the natural world, but in different areas. Just not a good analogy, that's all.
You are again making the same mistake. Asking for evidence through your same old perception. That can't be done. Change it and look again.
It is like looking out of a window and seeing trees. Someone else looks out of another window and sees a lake. You can't insist...'show me evidence of the lake through my window'....and then I will believe. That can't be done. You have to take the trouble of looking out of the other window. If not, you can't see it.
-
I think you need to drop your microscope analogy Sriram. You have a mindset to, a set of filters you view the world through. Your filters and mindset or not superior or more developed than anyone elses, they are just different based on your 'nature and nurture'. If you accept that it would certainly help when it came to discussing phenomena and experiences.
Yes....everyone has a different mindset depending on ones culture. A Hindu and a Christian have different cultures....but there are meeting points. Mindsets will not be different, only the specifics will be different.
With science it is different. It is an entirely different 'program' running in the head. It completely changes ones perception and viewpoint. There is no other word for it except 'microscopic'.
-
Yes....everyone has a different mindset depending on ones culture. A Hindu and a Christian have different cultures....but there are meeting points. Mindsets will not be different, only the specifics will be different.
With science it is different. It is an entirely different 'program' running in the head. It completely changes ones perception and viewpoint. There is no other word for it except 'microscopic'.
You say the daftest things! ::)
-
Yes....everyone has a different mindset depending on ones culture. A Hindu and a Christian have different cultures....but there are meeting points. Mindsets will not be different, only the specifics will be different.
With science it is different. It is an entirely different 'program' running in the head. It completely changes ones perception and viewpoint. There is no other word for it except 'microscopic'.
Science deals with the things which can be measured and tested. That's what defines it and so it should remain. But this is a different thing from your implication that people who don't see things the way you do are missing evidence because they have a narrow/restricted/limited view. That stance is unhelpful, being somewhat insulting presenting your way as being superior. Drop that, accept that people see things differently and be willing to discuss stuff without resulting to your inaccurate analogies and somewhat superior tone and discussions might be more fruitful.
Edit: Others need to change their tone though of course for this to happen.
-
Science deals with the things which can be measured and tested. That's what defines it and so it should remain. But this is a different thing from your implication that people who don't see things the way you do are missing evidence because they have a narrow/restricted/limited view. That stance is unhelpful, being somewhat insulting presenting your way as being superior. Drop that, accept that people see things differently and be willing to discuss stuff without resulting to your inaccurate analogies and somewhat superior tone and discussions might be more fruitful.
Edit: Others need to change their tone though of course for this to happen.
'Science deals with things which can be measured and tested'. Therein lies its limitations.
What is there to discuss if I drop my analogy?
-
There is no other word for [science] except 'microscopic'.
Yes, there is: "objective".
-
'Science deals with things which can be measured and tested'. Therein lies its limitations.
What is there to discuss if I drop my analogy?
The word science has a certain Kudos in the modern world. People who want to redefine science do so because they want some of that kudos for their area of interest. Rather they should accept what science is, a method to study things which can be measured and tested, and accept they are doing something different.
I can't believe you're not able to discuss your points without use if your inaccurate analogy.
-
It is like looking out of a window and seeing trees. Someone else looks out of another window and sees a lake. You can't insist...'show me evidence of the lake through my window'....and then I will believe. That can't be done. You have to take the trouble of looking out of the other window. If not, you can't see it.
Again with the rubbish analogy. You are not talking about comparable things. In this analogy, seeing lakes or trees depending on your vantage point is comparable. What you are asking is for us to compare trees with Game of thrones. I only need a window to see trees I need a TV to see GoT.
Now, what is your equivalent to the TV to enable us all to see what you see?
-
The word science has a certain Kudos in the modern world. People who want to redefine science do so because they want some of that kudos for their area of interest. Rather they should accept what science is, a method to study things which can be measured and tested, and accept they are doing something different.
I can't believe you're not able to discuss your points without use if your inaccurate analogy.
The analogy is certainly wrong. I think what Sriram means is critical and analytical thinking.
Now, there are other ways of approaching our life experiences, however science allows discussion and agreement on objective aspects of the world. Other ways of thinking do not and cannot come to any practical or useful conclusions on what is "true" or not.
-
Again with the rubbish analogy. You are not talking about comparable things. In this analogy, seeing lakes or trees depending on your vantage point is comparable. What you are asking is for us to compare trees with Game of thrones. I only need a window to see trees I need a TV to see GoT.
Now, what is your equivalent to the TV to enable us all to see what you see?
Yeah, he has a TV where he can watch whatever he chooses, while some of us are trying to find a window.
-
'Science deals with things which can be measured and tested'. Therein lies its limitations.
What is there to discuss if I drop my analogy?
Sriram ,
I think I'm starting to get it now . Rather than look at the world with a scientific eye and that entails , you are saying we should look at the world with an artistic eye where things are not precise or require evidence . The world can be what you want it to be , no evidence required and that can lead you to all kinds of experiences . (but they're not real)
-
The word science has a certain Kudos in the modern world. People who want to redefine science do so because they want some of that kudos for their area of interest. Rather they should accept what science is, a method to study things which can be measured and tested, and accept they are doing something different.
I can't believe you're not able to discuss your points without use if your inaccurate analogy.
Its not because I want to redefine science. Its because you and others are bringing in science into matters where you require more than a microscopic mind. I did not ask for science to be applied here.
I understand science is defined in a certain way and has its scope and limitations. Then you should stop using science to discredit spirituality which is completely outside its scope. Just because you people used science to debunk religious mythology does not mean you can do the same thing with spirituality.
You require a very different mindset to understand spirituality and the 'scientific mind' is not that. It is too microscopic. That is the only word for it.
-
Its not because I want to redefine science. Its because you and others are bringing in science into matters where you require more than a microscopic mind. I did not ask for science to be applied here.
I understand science is defined in a certain way and has its scope and limitations. Then you should stop using science to discredit spirituality which is completely outside its scope. Just because you people used science to debunk religious mythology does not mean you can do the same thing with spirituality.
You require a very different mindset to understand spirituality and the 'scientific mind' is not that. It is too microscopic. That is the only word for it.
You make it up as you go along. You think you are right and everyone else who doesn't see it your way is wrong! ::)
-
You think you are right and everyone else who doesn't see it your way is wrong!
So does everyone. To think otherwise is logically contradictory.
-
Sriram,
This requires lot of mental discipline, introspection, stillness of mind and so on. Constantly running the same old 'program' again and again will not help. Change is called for.
Let's say that I've done all that and I've arrived at the sincerely held conclusion that leprechauns are real. Can you think of any reason for someone to think that your claims of objective fact are any more true than mine?
Your problem here remains that, no matter how much "stillness", navel gazing etc you do unless you kind find some way to map your conclusions of objective fact about the world to a verifiable reality your guesses are precisely as worthless as mine.
-
Sriram,
Let's say that I've done all that and I've arrived at the sincerely held conclusion that leprechauns are real. Can you think of any reason for someone to think that your claims of objective fact are any more true than mine?
Your problem here remains that, no matter how much "stillness", navel gazing etc you do unless you kind find some way to map your conclusions of objective fact about the world to a verifiable reality your guesses are precisely as worthless as mine.
Refer to the Beyond Science thread. You are under the impression that personal experiences are all vague and cannot have a common base. That is wrong. Spiritual practices have a common base and individual progress can even be monitored and regulated.
-
Sriram,
Refer to the Beyond Science thread. You are under the impression that personal experiences are all vague and cannot have a common base. That is wrong. Spiritual practices have a common base and individual progress can even be monitored and regulated.
Wrong again. "Personal experiences" can have have common psychological characteristics, but the objects of objective fact they claim are as many and as widespread as there are people to have them.
Have you any sense at all here of how out of your depth you are? Anything?
-
The 'tool' is a certain state of mind. I can't provide it.
The state being "gullible".
-
Yes...I am in fact saying exactly that....'try the telescope'. But its not a physical instrument I can buy and provide you.
So there's no reason to believe that this "telescope" of yours really exists.
-
Sriram, no one seems to be able to get you past the Burtrand's tea pot stage, it's you that's stuck, not the rest of us on this thread.
I would imagine you are aware of Burtram's tea pot and how it applies to you as much as anyone else, try to be a little, a jot more humble about it, about something I'm sure you see as some sort of spiritual journey, whatever that is supposed to add up to?
Cheers ippy
-
So does everyone. To think otherwise is logically contradictory.
That's not completely true as I have had my mind changed when shown to be wrong
-
Its not because I want to redefine science. Its because you and others are bringing in science into matters where you require more than a microscopic mind. I did not ask for science to be applied here.
I understand science is defined in a certain way and has its scope and limitations. Then you should stop using science to discredit spirituality which is completely outside its scope. Just because you people used science to debunk religious mythology does not mean you can do the same thing with spirituality.
You require a very different mindset to understand spirituality and the 'scientific mind' is not that. It is too microscopic. That is the only word for it.
You have tried before to say science should change, so glad you've changed your mind.
Where have I tried to use science to discredit spirituality? I have always said you can believe what you want as far a I'm concerned but its when you try to use science to support your beliefs I will try to get involved. Is that discrediting spirituality?
-
That's not completely true as I have had my mind changed when shown to be wrong
All intelligent non-bigots are open to having their minds changed if the arguments, evidence, or both are strong enough, but at any given moment, you think that what you believe is true, because that's what believing means. You must logicall also believe that anyone who believes something contrary to your beliefs is wrong.
-
All intelligent non-bigots are open to having their minds changed if the arguments, evidence, or both are strong enough, but at any given moment, you think that what you believe is true, because that's what believing means. You must logicall also believe that anyone who believes something contrary to your beliefs is wrong.
I do not believe thi is to absolute certainty.
My beliefs are tentative and held to a level I determine the evidence suggests to me.
A lot of things I kind of believe but to very little certainty.
Like space has 11 dimensions, well ok if that's what the evidence suggests then so be it, but I do not feel comfortable with it, and I know that not all scientists agree, so it is tentatively held.
-
I do not believe thi is to absolute certainty.
My beliefs are tentative and held to a level I determine the evidence suggests to me.
A lot of things I kind of believe but to very little certainty.
Like space has 11 dimensions, well ok if that's what the evidence suggests then so be it, but I do not feel comfortable with it, and I know that not all scientists agree, so it is tentatively held.
Doesn't matter, if you believe something you believe you are right to believe it, and others who believe differently are wrong. That you accept that you could be wrong, or that are less convinced by some beliefs than others doesn't mean that you don't believe you are making the right decision.
-
Doesn't matter, if you believe something you believe you are right to believe it, and others who believe differently are wrong. That you accept that you could be wrong, or that are less convinced by some beliefs than others doesn't mean that you don't believe you are making the right decision.
Exactly.
-
Doesn't matter, if you believe something you believe you are right to believe it, and others who believe differently are wrong. That you accept that you could be wrong, or that are less convinced by some beliefs than others doesn't mean that you don't believe you are making the right decision.
please allow me to simplify;
If I believe what you believe and we believe that others beliefs are wrong then whose to say what they believe might just be a belief in something no one believes in and has no right to believe it But I also believe that belief about beliefs can be very misleading and wrongly believed beliefs are no good to man nor beast. If I can believe the children are our future, teach them well and let them lead the way ,show them all the beauty they posses inside
I also believe for every drop of rain that falls a flower grows
So there you have it NS , much clearer
no , you're welcome ;)
-
I do not believe thi is to absolute certainty.
My beliefs are tentative and held to a level I determine the evidence suggests to me.
A lot of things I kind of believe but to very little certainty.
Like space has 11 dimensions, well ok if that's what the evidence suggests then so be it, but I do not feel comfortable with it, and I know that not all scientists agree, so it is tentatively held.
that sounds like a Richard Feynman quote , have you pinched it ?
-
please allow me to simplify;
If I believe what you believe and we believe that others beliefs are wrong then whose to say what they believe might just be a belief in something no one believes in and has no right to believe it But I also believe that belief about beliefs can be very misleading and wrongly believed beliefs are no good to man nor beast. If I can believe the children are our future, teach them well and let them lead the way ,show them all the beauty they posses inside
I also believe for every drop of rain that falls a flower grows
So there you have it NS , much clearer
no , you're welcome ;)
Thank your for your explanation of Labour Brexit policy.
-
Thank your for your explanation of Labour Brexit policy.
Ive decided to stand as an Independent at the next election on the
Beliefs not Facts ticket
Its all the rage at the moment , I've got a great chance of success
-
Doesn't matter, if you believe something you believe you are right to believe it, and others who believe differently are wrong. That you accept that you could be wrong, or that are less convinced by some beliefs than others doesn't mean that you don't believe you are making the right decision.
You have convinced me, because I think you are wrong.
-
Ive decided to stand as an Independent at the next election on the
Beliefs not Facts ticket
Its all the rage at the moment , I've got a great chance of success
It always has been. Politics can be based on facts but without beliefs you have no position. Facts not Beliefs ticket is a pub quiz.
-
You have convinced me, because I think you are wrong.
Thank you, I will now ride around the forum on the giant white horse 'I won' for the requisite twenty three minutes five hemisemisemibreves'
-
It always has been. Politics can be based on facts but without beliefs you have no position. Facts not Beliefs ticket is a pub quiz.
NS
are you using a random sentence generator at the moment?
-
NS
are you using a random sentence generator at the moment?
Why not? Everyone else is.
-
FYI
I've just noticed there's a program on telly at 11pm on channel 4 called 1000 VAGINAS ,
I was quite surprised when I looked to see what it's about that it isn't about the Tory Party
-
FYI
I've just noticed there's a program on telly at 11pm on channel 4 called 1000 VAGINAS ,
I was quite surprised when I looked to see what it's about that it isn't about the Tory Party
I suppose I'm not supposed to. But I did. I laughed.
-
I suppose I'm not supposed to. But I did. I laughed.
you can have that one on me Trent ;D