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.
I agree with the first two. Disagree with the rest. I'm not sure why you would want to know why, I doubt you are open to change your views. Maybe you want to debate, so you can change others' views, which would be a waste of time. You have posted your beliefs, there's nothing more you can add. There's no one to convince. You can only preach to the choir who share your views.
Suffice it to say your reasoning lacks the experience of others, so you have nothing to discuss about their experiences and beliefs other than your views and opinions, which are irrelevant to them.
I don't agree faith is speculation. For those who really believe it's a matter of experience.
You haven't experienced it so you are like a blind man speculating about the color red. No one can teach true belief, it has to come from within a person based on that person's experience. And it's a waste of time to share those experiences because you would just look for a way to rationalize them to fit your views. I guess you will just have to wait for your own epiphany, but here's no way to tell if it will come or not. Wait and see is the only advice I can give you.
I agree the universe is unknowable. I disagree that science makes it more knowable, it just reveals another layer of an infinite onion, the current view.
Anyone with real faith doesn't reject science. They recognize it's strengths and weaknesses. There is no conflict between belief and science. Only with believers and non-believers. There is no need to pick a side, nor would it make any sense to do so. You have created a false premise so you can argue against it. Face it, you are not a seeker of truth, you just want others to believe you are right. How can you judge the merits of beliefs and opinions about something you already claimed is unknowable? It's nonsensical to try.
I always enjoy reading your posts. You have said everything I have felt but was unable to vocalize it adequately. Maybe I lacked the patience to do so as well. I hope this is helpful for LearnMe.
I always enjoy reading your posts. You have said everything I have felt but was unable to vocalize it adequately. Maybe I lacked the patience to do so as well. I hope this is helpful for LearnMe.
Thank you. I don't believe LearnMe wants to learn anything.
Sorry, but this too is not being properly understood...
Yes of course how history is written and/or recorded is something of a subjective matter, but this does not mean there is not what actually happened objectively speaking. What actually happened no matter how the alternative is written. Alternative versions about how the indigenous people were treated when the colonists arrived in America, South America, for example. All over the world. There is what actually happened in Nazi Germany, regardless who decides to tell the tale. There is what actually happened on January 6 at the U.S. Capital, and on and on...
Our job is not to point at all the challenges that work to keep us from knowing the truth. Our job, if any real progress is to be made (AKA not repeating our mistakes) is to distill what is the truth as best we can from all sources we deem helpful in this regard. What I sometimes refer to as "triangulating for the truth."
Believe it not possible, and all is lost. Strive for the truth despite the challenges, and we have a fighting chance to make the sort of progress I try to describe in my Ten Truths. Also what I call the "slow maturing of man."
History is the last place to seek truth. Ask the Palestinians how history has treated them. History is written by the victors is not just a truism, that is how it IS. You don't like it, rewrite it to suit the present powers. You don't like it? Silence those other voices, and write THEIR histories and publish them as the truth, because you can. Nobody knows what really happened unless you were on the spot where it happened when it happened. Even then you only know what you saw. We will only know bits and pieces of events.
What we can do with those pieces is establish facts so we can obtain justice. Justice is based on fairness, compassion, what is a fair punishment, what is equitable division. Not truth. Truth is fickle.
I have not seen any post where he has stated he might be wrong and others might be right either. He's actually pretty condescending, fairly passive aggressive, in his guise as a seeker of truth. Kind of a troll if the truth be told.
I haven't found that to be true at all.
And by the way, calling someone a troll is, if my memory serves me right, a violation of the TOS.
And by the way, calling someone a troll is, if my memory serves me right, a violation of the TOS.
From WIkipedia. "Troll: In internet slang, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory ... messages in an online community, with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses, or manipulating others' perception."
Now consider the OP's "8th TRUTH" posted in this Religion and Spirituality forum: "EIGHT: ... Faith forbids followers to question thus retarding Man's progress. Science encourages inquiry thus expanding Man's awareness and enlightenment. Faith typically deems any question about God's existence as evil in nature, not to be tolerated..."
Doesn't the above definition of trolling fit the OP's post?
From WIkipedia. "Troll: In internet slang, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory ... messages in an online community, with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses, or manipulating others' perception."
Now consider the OP's "8th TRUTH" posted in this Religion and Spirituality forum: EIGHT: ... "Faith forbids followers to question thus retarding Man's progress. Science encourages inquiry thus expanding Man's awareness and enlightenment. Faith typically deems any question about God's existence as evil in nature, not to be tolerated..."
Doesn't the above definition of trolling fit the OP's post?
I'm going to get into a long back and forth with you about this. I stated what I thought I heard was a TOS rule.
I'm going to get into a long back and forth with you about this. I stated what I thought I heard was a TOS rule.
You may be right, but I haven't seen anyone punished for calling someone "kind of a troll" if that person posted inflammatory and condescending comments as the OP has. On the one hand he states religion (which he attributes to mere speculation) brings people together, but then he states it retards man's progress, while science expands enlightenment and awareness. That provoked an emotional response from me. The OP's posts put down religion and spirituality rather just discussing it.
I have not seen any post where he has stated he might be wrong and others might be right either. He's actually pretty condescending, fairly passive aggressive, in his guise as a seeker of truth. Kind of a troll if the truth be told.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
I haven't found that to be true at all.
And by the way, calling someone a troll is, if my memory serves me right, a violation of the TOS.
I have long considered the bold characteristic of LearnMe's posting.
You may be right, but I haven't seen anyone punished for calling someone "kind of a troll" if that person posted inflammatory and condescending comments as the OP has.
"Kind of a troll" is not "Troll." The two are distinct and different. If I say someone kind of talks like a duck, it does not mean I am saying he is a duck. It actually means he is NOT a duck, only kind of talks like one. Distinct and different.
When we lean toward "cherry picking" whatever facts or truth that "support our dogma" we are again veering in that direction driven by bias and prejudice that is NOT the sort of objective critical thinking I advocate. As I have noted along these lines many times before as well, we should want the truth and nothing but the truth REGARDLESS how it makes us feel. REGARDLESS how it fits whatever we WANT to believe.
Objective reason is not driven by personal wants and desires. This is a great challenge, no question, because we humans are full of wants and desires, but ultimately there are methods of establishing the truth that can and do overcome those challenges. Again this is an important part of how we make progress despite the ignorance that tends to retard that progress.
Reason infers personal wants and desires. When we say, what is the reason for doing this, there is almost always human want and desire. Sure, we might say, let's listen to all possibilities of why this happens and in this way attempt to be objective, but we only do this when we want to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
You can't fault something that is a "very human thing to do?"
Sorry but I have some trouble with this sort of "pass" when it comes to all too many "very human things" we humans do that should not get such a pass.
How do you, we -- anyone -- do better if we can't fault people for all the things we humans do that are simply not right? Everything we humans do is because we are humans, but we can't fault humans for doing what they do because they are humans?
This I cannot abide.
And you shouldn't. Human conflict has been a big motivator for progress. As you said yourself below, humans cannot know all that exists. When a new generation is born, they seek and learn "truths". Sometimes the truths of others resonate with them. Sometimes they don't and they ignore it. Then they cherry-pick the parts that support their beliefs and cherry-pick the parts that give them conflict as you have done to my post.
If I say humans do a particular action because it is human to do so, this is simply stating a fact about humans. You decided that my statement had negative implications, which is typical human behavior. You decided to cherry-pick a particular part of my post and assign a meaning to it that I did not intend. Again, a typical human behavior. And while it sounds like I am trying my best to stay objective, it will not stay that way. The reason is that one way to make progress, especially in a conversation between two people, any fact that is mentioned needs to have meaning and implications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
TWO: Human beings cannot know all that exists in the universe. The universe is forever in flux, full of mystery that will forever be marveled and explored by Man as long as he survives.
Last edited by elyn02; 01-04-2022 at 06:34 PM..
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.
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.
