U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-15-2010, 08:40 PM
 
6,637 posts, read 3,858,410 times
Reputation: 654

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden View Post
He's referring to a phenomenon that doesn't change regardless of perceptions or beliefs of a person observing that phenomenon.

Gravity is a universal truth. Two people can both release apples and watch them drop towards the Earth. One person would claim it's a result of the fabric of space-time being folded by the mass of a large object (in this case, the Earth), and that because the fold of the Earth is larger than the fold of the apple, we perceive the apple moving towards the Earth more than we observe the Earth moving towards the apple.

The other person would claim it's actually an invisible fairy pushing the object towards the Earth.
So, Konraden...scarmigs' statement, "And to that end, it is imperative to the human race that the commonalities be defined as stringently as possible, to allow for the greatest amount of freedom and respect for each other possible.".....only counts for "facts" and not for "concepts"?

Why not? If it is the standard for determining what "facts" are true...then it should be acceptable as the standard for determining what "concepts" are true....MOF, I think what scarmig said was really cool (and deeper than even he knew it to be), and is an excellent standard to ensure fairness to, and the contentment of, the most people possible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-15-2010, 08:46 PM
 
3,614 posts, read 2,950,599 times
Reputation: 909
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
So, Konraden...scarmigs' statement, "And to that end, it is imperative to the human race that the commonalities be defined as stringently as possible, to allow for the greatest amount of freedom and respect for each other possible.".....only counts for "facts" and not for "concepts"?

Why not? If it is the standard for determining what "facts" are true...then it should be acceptable as the standard for determining what "concepts" are true....MOF, I think what scarmig said was really cool (and deeper than even he knew it to be), and is an excellent standard to ensure fairness to, and the contentment of, the most people possible.
Claiming fairies are the reason things fall to the ground doesn't help you put things in orbit. More importantly, claiming there are three types of fairies, and that the red fairies don't like blue fairies, and that some of these people not only say that the fairies are pushing the apple to the Earth, but develop complicated social power structures around their preferred color fairy.

So, like I said before--if Jesus matters that much to you, get the Jefferson Bible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 09:02 PM
 
2,893 posts, read 5,165,166 times
Reputation: 1973
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
So, Konraden...scarmigs' statement, "And to that end, it is imperative to the human race that the commonalities be defined as stringently as possible, to allow for the greatest amount of freedom and respect for each other possible.".....only counts for "facts" and not for "concepts"?

Why not? If it is the standard for determining what "facts" are true...then it should be acceptable as the standard for determining what "concepts" are true....MOF, I think what scarmig said was really cool (and deeper than even he knew it to be), and is an excellent standard to ensure fairness to, and the contentment of, the most people possible.

I stand by that statement, and it is as deep as you think. Because one of the universal truths of concept that should be recognized is that people believe different things. That *is* a truth.

But understand, when a truth is universal, 90% doesn't cut it. 99% doesn't cut it. 100% is what is required for a human condition to be a universal truth.

So when someone, states that God is truth because 90% people agree, that sets the stage for the inhumane treatment of other people. These truths must be set at the common denominators for people. Everything above that commonality should be considered belief, not truth.

When we recognize the universal truths, and separate them from beliefs, we begin to see people as individuals instead of targets. By seeking universal truths, we find less to delineate and discriminate against other people. Gravity pulls on all of us. Death finds all of us. Light and heat illuminate our world. Sound traverses us. DNA defines us. These are universal regardless of belief. Everything after that is preference and negotiation.

In Mystic's case, he wants to override a universal truth with belief, at the cost of humanity. The universal truth of the origins of existence is, "none of us know". To make any decisions affecting other humans on a specific belief about the origins of existence is to lord the beliefs of one over others. Not the truths, the beliefs.

This is why it is so important for people to accept that, quite often, "we don't know", and by extension we can't act against others on what we don't know. And it is also why any claims of knowledge must be proven to be objective truths. To act on them against other people when they are unproven is wrong.

Now I know that immediately someone is going to come in and say, "Evolution isn't proven but they are teaching it schools, so that is lording a belief over people!" But this is why we have a methodology, an objective way of removing personal bias and opinion, as much as possible, from any claims of knowledge. Methodologies are, by design, impersonal. They very strictly seek to strip belief and bias out of a claim. It is by a methodology as impersonal and inhuman as the universe the can we understand the objective and impersonal truths of the universe. Essentially, by eliminating all human opinion from the truth, we learn the things that are essentially common to all humans. Theories such as evolution are fraught with emotion, but when all bias is removed through the methodology, some theories, while incomplete, still fulfill the mission of understanding the common truth. And the common truth is, "living things change over successive generations".

In the end, it is discrimination and segregation that we seek to destroy, and to do that, we find the truths we all share, regardless of our opinions, beliefs, or preferences, because it is in the false perception of beliefs as truth that prejudice and hatred seed and grow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 09:28 PM
 
6,637 posts, read 3,858,410 times
Reputation: 654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden View Post
Claiming fairies are the reason things fall to the ground doesn't help you put things in orbit. More importantly, claiming there are three types of fairies, and that the red fairies don't like blue fairies, and that some of these people not only say that the fairies are pushing the apple to the Earth, but develop complicated social power structures around their preferred color fairy.

So, like I said before--if Jesus matters that much to you, get the Jefferson Bible.
You are grabbing at straws Dude. Please address the question I asked in my post....If that standard of truth [commonalities be defined...to allow for the greatest amount of freedom and respect for each other possible].....is acceptable for facts, why would it not be acceptable for concepts?---That is, without a doubt, the fairest way.---Your argument about "Claiming fairies are the reason things fall...doesn't help put things in orbit" is ridiculous and fails miserably because you are never going to get anywhere near the consensus you would need to determine that as "truth" under the aforementioned standard. Any concept that does, would be determined meritorious enough to have "earned" it's truthful designation by allowing for the greatest amount of respect for the most people possible. That's as "fair" as it gets...and THAT'S the truth.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh, but, of course, I know why you are arguing against that "absolutely fair" standard----Because under that "truth standard" the concept of the existence of God is determined to be true (to allow for the respect of the most people possible), and you don't like that, since you don't agree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 10:26 PM
 
3,614 posts, read 2,950,599 times
Reputation: 909
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
If that standard of truth [commonalities be defined...to allow for the greatest amount of freedom and respect for each other possible].....is acceptable for facts, why would it not be acceptable for concepts?---
Which concepts? Facts are not debatable--they are true regardless of personal beliefs and biases. Concepts are just ideas, and are judged based on their validity and utility. If something is deemed invalid or defunct, why should it deserve the respect of more valid or more functional ideas?

Quote:
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh, but, of course, I know why you are arguing against that "absolutely fair" standard----Because under that "truth standard" the concept of the existence of God is determined to be true (to allow for the respect of the most people possible), and you don't like that, since you don't agree.
We are not required to see competing ideas as fair--and rightfully so. If every concept was on equal footing, we wouldn't be able to discern fact from falsity, and truth from belief.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 11:41 PM
 
6,637 posts, read 3,858,410 times
Reputation: 654
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarmig View Post
I stand by that statement, and it is as deep as you think. Because one of the universal truths of concept that should be recognized is that people believe different things. That *is* a truth.

But understand, when a truth is universal, 90% doesn't cut it. 99% doesn't cut it. 100% is what is required for a human condition to be a universal truth.

So when someone, states that God is truth because 90% people agree, that sets the stage for the inhumane treatment of other people. These truths must be set at the common denominators for people. Everything above that commonality should be considered belief, not truth.

When we recognize the universal truths, and separate them from beliefs, we begin to see people as individuals instead of targets. By seeking universal truths, we find less to delineate and discriminate against other people. Gravity pulls on all of us. Death finds all of us. Light and heat illuminate our world. Sound traverses us. DNA defines us. These are universal regardless of belief. Everything after that is preference and negotiation.

In Mystic's case, he wants to override a universal truth with belief, at the cost of humanity. The universal truth of the origins of existence is, "none of us know". To make any decisions affecting other humans on a specific belief about the origins of existence is to lord the beliefs of one over others. Not the truths, the beliefs.

This is why it is so important for people to accept that, quite often, "we don't know", and by extension we can't act against others on what we don't know. And it is also why any claims of knowledge must be proven to be objective truths. To act on them against other people when they are unproven is wrong.

Now I know that immediately someone is going to come in and say, "Evolution isn't proven but they are teaching it schools, so that is lording a belief over people!" But this is why we have a methodology, an objective way of removing personal bias and opinion, as much as possible, from any claims of knowledge. Methodologies are, by design, impersonal. They very strictly seek to strip belief and bias out of a claim. It is by a methodology as impersonal and inhuman as the universe the can we understand the objective and impersonal truths of the universe. Essentially, by eliminating all human opinion from the truth, we learn the things that are essentially common to all humans. Theories such as evolution are fraught with emotion, but when all bias is removed through the methodology, some theories, while incomplete, still fulfill the mission of understanding the common truth. And the common truth is, "living things change over successive generations".

In the end, it is discrimination and segregation that we seek to destroy, and to do that, we find the truths we all share, regardless of our opinions, beliefs, or preferences, because it is in the false perception of beliefs as truth that prejudice and hatred seed and grow.
And you know, full well...Things don't work like that in a world where, "people believe different things"...and we are faced with mostly concepts/beliefs to make determinations on...and very, very few "universal truths" as a factor in our decisions.
Why not apply the base point of your standard [commonalities be defined...to allow for the greatest amount of freedom and respect for each other possible] to concepts not universally held as well as "universal truths" that are categorical? Which, "in a nutshell"...is your basic democratic society where the will of the majority rules all...so as to be fair and show respect to the most people possible. It's how all "fair societies" elect leaders, and determine what "the law" is. I may not like the law..but I still have to live with it...and many times it can be VERY oppressive and even determine life and death. Case in point:I prefer the law to be the way it was before I was an adult, and abortion is considered murder...but the majority of just a handful of people (the Justices on the Supreme Court) determined it was, by law, acceptable...so that became the law EVERYBODY had to live by in the country I reside in. That decision, by just SEVEN PEOPLE, created the circumstance, whereby, in my life, 4 children I have fathered were allowed to be, in my view, executed, by their mothers. Every time it was against my fervent protest..but because a majority of 7 out of only 9 people said that was the rule of law...I had no say about the life of my own children.

So, as it is in all democratic societies, the rule of the majority, "lords over...and discriminates against", the minority that doesn't agree. Sometimes it will go your way, sometimes it won't...but I STILL understand that LOGICALLY it's the best, and only way to be fair. To claim that you need 100% consensus, or a "universal truth", to determine how things should or shouldn't be...is not only unrealistic, but NEVER the way the world has ever worked, ANYWHERE, AT ANY TIME. We've had "might rules", the determinations of one person enforced on others, and other ways of running societies...but NEVER "full agreement/universal truth is all that will determine how things should be". We WILL have a "Universal Truth" someday...but not in any secular society.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2010, 02:01 AM
 
6,637 posts, read 3,858,410 times
Reputation: 654
As I was reading back my last post after I put it up, it made me wonder about something. Keep in mind, I'm just talking about democratic countries.

Why is it, what with all their criticism of Believers not being "realistic"...replete with Pink Unicorn, Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, FSM, Sky Daddy, and all the other examples pointing to the foolishness of placing stock in "pie-in-the-sky" concepts...do the Atheists continue to live in the Twilight Zone World of:::If it isn't empirical data, it doesn't count---Unless a thought or concept passes the muster of "The Scientific Method" it should be dismissed and given no weight---Only proven information, never beliefs and opinions, should be considered to have merit---and the ever chanted mantra...FACTS over FAITH!

What planet are you people living on?!!! Those ideas may be noble and truly fair, and a nice, clean, and pretty "Perfect World" senario...but it is so far away from reality it makes you guys appear to suffer from some kind of "Mad Scientist" syndrome to even put such an out-of-touch way of reasoning out there. It might be good for a short discussion, but some of you guys have spent YEARS and THOUSANDS of hours on this board (and probably others) expounding upon a protocol that has no practical application in the real world.

To say that, because they aren't "scientifically based"... concepts/beliefs held by the vast majority of the people shouldn't influence the government, schools, workplace, or laws...when that is EXACTLY the system we have...is just spitting into the wind. It's such a waste of great talent and minds.

You will never stop the system, so it would be best if you joined it and influenced it from the inside. It would be hard...I mean, how many atheists are there in the higher echelons of government?...but it's the only way you are ever going to be a factor in the long run.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2010, 05:31 AM
 
1,838 posts, read 1,930,857 times
Reputation: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
As I was reading back my last post after I put it up, it made me wonder about something. Keep in mind, I'm just talking about democratic countries.

Why is it, what with all their criticism of Believers not being "realistic"...replete with Pink Unicorn, Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, FSM, Sky Daddy, and all the other examples pointing to the foolishness of placing stock in "pie-in-the-sky" concepts...do the Atheists continue to live in the Twilight Zone World of:::If it isn't empirical data, it doesn't count---Unless a thought or concept passes the muster of "The Scientific Method" it should be dismissed and given no weight---Only proven information, never beliefs and opinions, should be considered to have merit---and the ever chanted mantra...FACTS over FAITH!

What planet are you people living on?!!! Those ideas may be noble and truly fair, and a nice, clean, and pretty "Perfect World" senario...but it is so far away from reality it makes you guys appear to suffer from some kind of "Mad Scientist" syndrome to even put such an out-of-touch way of reasoning out there. It might be good for a short discussion, but some of you guys have spent YEARS and THOUSANDS of hours on this board (and probably others) expounding upon a protocol that has no practical application in the real world.

To say that, because they aren't "scientifically based"... concepts/beliefs held by the vast majority of the people shouldn't influence the government, schools, workplace, or laws...when that is EXACTLY the system we have...is just spitting into the wind. It's such a waste of great talent and minds.

You will never stop the system, so it would be best if you joined it and influenced it from the inside. It would be hard...I mean, how many atheists are there in the higher echelons of government?...but it's the only way you are ever going to be a factor in the long run.
modern day science is only limited to the material concepts-any thing outside that frame cant be proven bye science-therfore it dosent exist(according to science)but there is so much more beyond this physical realm-and scientist's are always goin to struggle with understanding the underlying workings of the universe-if it cant be seen -smelled-touched-tasted or heard bye our flawed senses then it mus'nt exist-what a waist is right
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2010, 06:27 AM
 
5,463 posts, read 5,781,296 times
Reputation: 1803
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
That is NOT what is done. This undeniable aspect of reality cannot be shunted aside as "unknown" and then categorically dismiss any and all hypotheses about it as if they were completely unfounded (Santa, FSM, Unicorns, Fairies, etc. ad nauseum).
What hypothesis has even been presented? Despite all the bluster, that first step hasn't even happened so there's nothing to dismiss.

Note that "God did it" isn't a hypothesis without doing a lot more work.

Quote:
[/i]There is a reason the universe is comprehensible and intelligible via scientific investigation. It has fixed and knowable parameters established by SOMETHING (WHAT/WHO) that creates the universal field within which every action/interaction is mandated to conform.
What universal field are you talking about here and how should we test for it? Again, you can't complain that people don't explain something they have no reason to believe exists in the first place.

Last edited by KCfromNC; 04-16-2010 at 06:38 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2010, 06:40 AM
 
5,463 posts, read 5,781,296 times
Reputation: 1803
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
As I was reading back my last post after I put it up, it made me wonder about something. Keep in mind, I'm just talking about democratic countries.

Why is it, what with all their criticism of Believers not being "realistic"...replete with Pink Unicorn, Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, FSM, Sky Daddy, and all the other examples pointing to the foolishness of placing stock in "pie-in-the-sky" concepts...do the Atheists continue to live in the Twilight Zone World of:::If it isn't empirical data, it doesn't count---Unless a thought or concept passes the muster of "The Scientific Method" it should be dismissed and given no weight---Only proven information, never beliefs and opinions, should be considered to have merit---and the ever chanted mantra...FACTS over FAITH!
Who do you go to when you have a serious illness or injury - a priest or a doctor? Be honest with yourself answering this question and you'll understand how a non-believer would answer yours.

That answer should both give you insight into why you're asking the wrong question, and also answer why people use science for things science is good at - in particular, answering questions about the behavior of the natural world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top