Steve:
While I work in Mental Health Services I'm not a patient! If you are genuinely suggesting that every believer is a fruitloop then methinks you may need to take a wider sampling of the audience you're claiming to know so well...
Intolerance - a new breed of ex-JW
by LittleToe 260 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
LittleToe
Just about to hit the sack (a reasonably early night at 1am), after getting home from visiting freinds jsut a few minutes ago. This part of Scotland is famous for night-owls and hospitality
-
stevenyc
LT:
I do not think believers are "fruit-loops". Absolutely not ! "looping the fruit" is available to us non-believers too.
The point I was trying to put across was, that even though I can understand that the "real" universe is something other than how I perceive it to be, my personal experiences make my perception different to yours.
Does that make sense?
steve
-
LittleToe
Sure, but then I'm not the one suggesting that you may have a mental illness just because you don't see the world as I do...
-
stevenyc
LT:
My suggestion was that perhaps he didn't have a mental illness. That he could have channelled to supernatural entities.
This has nothing to do with you.
It's all about personal experience and perception.
steve
PS, is this getting into a discussion where someone is going to demand us to "put the spif down" ?
-
LittleToe
It's all about personal experience and perception.
Isn't it always?
Night
-
stevenyc
Isn't it always? ABSOLUTLY!
sleep tight
steve
-
AuldSoul
stevenyc: But there has to be limits, especially if I am going henceforth to live my existence based on a single experience. And, if there are more compelling experiences contrary.
I agree. However, it is a limit that each person must set for themselves and their personal limit is not ever objectively right or wrong. It is subjective, like intolerance, bringing us full circle.
Which is why have no problem with atheism, theism, agnosticism, or quite a lot of other "isms". I recognize that each of these position is superior in the eyes of the one who possess it (hopefully) and only compelling experiences to the contrary should sway their perspective. These "isms" are subjective. They can't be clinically dissected because they are not objective.
I am a skeptic about quite a lot of things myself. So how am I in any way qualified to judge the validity of the things someone else chooses to be skeptical of.
My biggest complaint with the "isms" doesn't really apply to all of its adherents, but many of them seem to confuse subjective and objective reality.
Many atheists I interact with seem to presume that their viewpoint is more correct because I have no scientific proof. How can one individualized subjective perception be more correct than another? It depends entirely on individual experience. I have heard the theory that it is more correct because it requires a less complex reality, I have heard that it is more correct because there is no burden of proof (which is never present for any subjective experience, anyway), and I have heard other reasons.
Many theists claim their viewpoint is more correct because it accounts for (fill in the blank), or because (fill in the blank) could not (fill in the blank) without a God. Many of them claim that due to their personal experiences they know for certain that God exists, and they try to compel others to accept the existence of God based on their experiences.
Many agnostics believe they are more correct (but seem, in my opinion, to be more lax about what others believe) and claim that God may exist, but if God exists it is in some form that we cannot perceive. Or they claim that if God exists, God's existence could be easily proven anytime God chose to be bothered, therefore God must not care. Or that any God worth serving would not allow (fill in the blank) to occur.
ALL of these positions rest on the same underlying reality. Subjective experiences shape our reality, perception affects our reality every day in thousands of ways. We are not just affected by our own perceptions but also by the perceptions of others, even as our perceptions affect others.
Tolerance acknowledges that reality and allows that reality to influence treatment of others, permitting empathy. Intolerance rejects that reality and destroys empathy, and only allows room for sympathy at best (a pretty word for pity).
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
stevenyc
Auldsoul: ALL of these positions rest on the same underlying reality. Subjective experiences shape our reality, perception affects our reality every day in thousands of ways. We are not just affected by our own perceptions but also by the perceptions of others, even as our perceptions affect others.
Bingo !!
I agree.
steve
-
stevenyc
Adding to this thread, I will say that I think I'm allowed to set a limit on my tolerance of information given to me. I think it is only reasonable, at some point to say," for gods sake, that's ridiculous". Because some things are. We all must admit that we all set limits.
As an example: I personally find it bizarre that someone could view the Bible as written from God. To me that's ridiculous.
But, who am I to judge.
There are people who would say that the Koran, is written from God. To me, that's ridiculous too.
But, how could someone who would take offense to my position on the Bible, and not take offense on my position with the Koran retain any credibility.
From my experience with mystical writings, there are a lot of people promoting the "right way" to nirvana. And, here too, From Terry to LittleToe, funcyderek to BrownBoy, they are all great examples of the complexity of possibilities. Each one is valid in there own interpretation or explanation.
But, I will retain the right to my tolerance of this information. And, I will express it as necessary. For me expression of personal understanding is a quality of human interaction that should never be suppressed. The imposition of belief is something I will always be intolerant to.
steve