Intolerance - a new breed of ex-JW (page 12)

Robdar

You are locked in to a one to one with your God idea and can't really see how it is for the rest of us out here.

I am drawn back to the above sentence. How is it for the rest of you out there?

kid-A

According to what I read from Terry, kid-A, and Funky Derek, it seems that given these parameters you three would not believe in bees unless you had personally seen and/or been stung by a bee.

Auld, I fully understand your point here. But I have two issues with this analogy. First, in this case, we could indeed verify this event. The person would have a red wound and inflammation. We could perform blood tests and look for venom traces. Even if I had never seen a bee, I would have enough real world experience to understand that such events do occur, and that nasty insects sometimes bite humans. Now, if the same person said they had been bitten by a 10 headed dragon, I would rightly question that experience based on the fact that I have never seen such a beast nor heard of them and I would logically assume that they had instead been bitten by some other likely suspect. The point is, I would rightly question the validity of that testimony using my own set of experiences and knowledge base. I may be wrong, I may be right, but I would be extremely ignorant to blindly accept such a testimony in the absence of further evidence. Second, the magnitudes and implications of these two beliefs (the existence of a bee versus the existence of a supreme, all knowing being in the sky that will judge and assign us mortals our eternal fates) reside on rather separate scales. Whether I believe in bees or not is likely inconsequential. However, as you are well aware, the collective beliefs in the millions of gods that have lived and died throughout the history of humanity have been responsible for the vast majority of mayhem on this earth, and even worse, have chained humanity to superstitions, irrational rituals and beliefs, "holy wars", terrorism, etc etc. So, I would say the suspcicions of the atheist/agnostic front have been more then justified over the millenia of humanities experiments with organized religions and cults.

Having said that, I ask you: do you accept everything you are told? Of course not. However it seems from your posts, you are always willing to give the benefit of the doubt to those believing in the supernatural. From my perspective, if someone tells me "I believe in god" or "I have been saved by Christ", I most certainly "believe" that they believe this. However, it does not follow that I consider the subject of their belief to be true or to represent reality. People possess psychological constructs and cognitive frameworks, this I accept. However, I maintain that we must always be aware of the fallibility of these constructs, particularly those for which we have no collectively agreed upon, observed and tangible evidence. Again, our beliefs are completely and utterly intertwined with motivations and emotions, all of which are ephemeral as the neurochemical molecules cascading through our synapses.

Terry

Really, Terry. What's it to you? Why does it bother you so? The last sentence above is almost an us v. them mentality. Do you feel that you are lacking something that others may have? So what if your reality doesn't include a one on one with God. So what if AuldSoul's does. It really doesn't have much to do with the price of cheese in China. Why waste all your energy? For you not to be a believer, you sure do think a lot about it.

Heavens! Let's not get all hysterical here.

First, this is a "discussion forum". That means we discuss.

It won't be a discussion unless we put a bit of mental energy into it. To do that we have to think about it.

Chinese cheese? What does it go for these days?

Terry

Insistence on tangible evidence for all reality is, in my opinion, a higher standard than can be justified by reason and logic.

Well, this is the problem in a nutshell!

REALITY is what it is whether you and I even exist to bump into it. Reality is in no way contingent on our OPINIONS.

Having said that I say this.

The task of the human brain is to encounter reality because survival takes place there!

Secondly, the only tools we really have are our senses. That means we can only access reality by making it sensible.

Evidence comes from the senses.

Reason and logic stem from our encounter with reality BECAUSE WE HAVE TO MEASURE IT AND QUANTIFY IT LOGICALLY FOR IT TO BE USEFUL in our survival scheme.

If you go fishing for Marlin in your swimming pool---good luck!

LittleToe

Terry:Your definitions suck.

What is intolerance? To me it means you are unwilling to be wrong yourself and change your opinion when confronted with falsifying evidence.

No, that's a form of dogmatic bigotry. Intolerance has to do with your levels of toleration for third parties/substances.

Intolerance fights when it should listen.

It may do, but it isn't only intolerance that does that. In this particular case maybe it exemplifies your own intolerance, however.

Facts become facts when everybody has access to them and can measure them by the same standards.

Agreed, and on that basis "God" isn't a scientific fact.

Fictions are what you may find "obvious" but, everybody else finds invisible.

Another overly narrow and poor definition. You must be having a bad day - you aren't usually quite so sloppy in your language.

AuldSoul:The headache analogy wa a good one. Fellow headache sufferers can also empathise, even though they haven't got your precise headache.

Terry

Personal experience is personal proof. It is not and never can be demonstrable proof.

Huh?

All knowledge stems from the information that comes through your senses.

The difference between a fool and wise man is in how high their personal standards of reassurance are from testing AGAINST FURTHER REALITIES, CONFIRMATIONS AND DISCONFIRMATIONS.

If you see and feel something others don't it should at least make you cautious about your conclusions.

Experiments serve science because they can be disconfirming of first impressions.

It is possible to get sexually excited from a fantasy to the extent you can physically respond (arousal) and even consummate your fantasy with orgasm. The physical reaction is real, but; the fantasy is illusory.

That is the difference between PERSONAL EXPERIENCE and reality.

Terry

Fictions are what you may find "obvious" but, everybody else finds invisible. Your de

The response from Little Toe is invisible!

Intolerance - a new breed of ex-JW

Share this