Intolerance - a new breed of ex-JW

by LittleToe 260 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  funkyderek

  AuldSoul:

  To everyone: My illustration, parable, and analogy ARE NOT designed to prove the existence of God. They are designed to demonstrate one point, and one point only.

  NAMELY: It is possible to have factually accurate knowledge that is not available to everyone and that cannot be demonstrably proven to anyone.

  Is that all? Well, I don't think anybody's denying that. My claim, at least, is merely that such "knowledge" doesn't count for a lot in the real world. If it remains inside your head, it's not available to anyone else. If it's unfalsifiable, it's not useful to anyone else. If it's demonstrably false, then it's false, no matter what you "know". But if it's testable and turns out to be true (or at least more likely than any other possibility) then it enters the realm of useful scientific knowledge. Until then, while I'm happy to tolerate it, such "knowledge" is largely irrelevant to me.
• 

  AuldSoul

  FD,

  Have you been reading Terry's posts on this thread or the other thread where I brought this up?

  Terry: We are all entitled to our own opinions, but; we are not entitled to our own facts.

  The upshot of the statement you just agreed with is that we are not only each entitled to our own facts, we are each in possession of our own facts. Therefore, we each have our own reality. Therefore, we must tolerate the reality of each other or we remove all ethical basis for toleration of our own. And, I think there is someone in this thread who disagrees with that, repeatedly, with ridicule and scorn.

  FD: Until then, while I'm happy to tolerate it, such "knowledge" is largely irrelevant to me.

  While you are happy to tolerate it, some are not happy to tolerate it. That's what these discussions are about, in my opinion. The fact that such knowledge is irrelevant to you does not make such knowledge irrelevant, nor does it mean such knowledge must never impact you in any way. It does. Our perceptions, our facts, our reality affects the perceptions, facts, and reality of others.

  Case in point, simultaneously to my attempt to make a very valid point in favor of tolerance versus intolerance at least three posters perceived an attempt to prove the existence of God. Despite my repeated direct statements to the contrary, that perception persisted.

  In your own case:

  For example, a belief without evidence in a giant invisible man who created the universe and spoke to Bronze Age goatherds and is very concerned about what we do with our genitals cannot be falsified but can be ridiculed because it is ridiculous.

  Ridiculing such a belief would run counter to your acknowledgement in your latest post. The reality is that you do not have the other persons set of facts, because we are each entitled to our own. The reality is that you cannot read the other person's mind, you cannot experience anything, not even color, from the perspective of that person. The reality is that if you were that person you would have the same belief they have, because the combination of genetics and experiences that make that individual who they are and shape their reality would be your set of genetics and experiences.

  Therefore, ridicule is intolerance. As is scorn.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  Terry

  The POINT is that one person can have factually accurate knowledge not possessed by others and not demonstrably provable.

  Your convoluted story about the stop sign presents us with a contradiction to the above statement. Do you know what the contradiction is?
• 

  Terry

  Since that is possible, facts are open to perception—no matter who wants it to be otherwise. Despite Terry's earnest desire, everyone HAS to judge the factuality of all sorts of experiences every day—and (terror of terrors) act based on those judgments. Sometimes these facts are not demonstrably provable, and they are facts anyway.

  Why are you forced to give us parables and analogies? Could it be you have not actual instances which reinforce your assertions?
• 

  Terry

  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.

  Impossible. You have no basis for skepticism of any kind. You removed the wiggle room by your previous statements.

  You've fallen into a trap of your own making.
• 

  Terry

  Subjective experiences shape our reality

  Reality is what it is.

  There is no "our reality".

  That would be the problem you folks are having. There aren't 2 realities!

  Let us try and be practical and ordinary about this discussion for a change. And what about Time Zones?

  People don't all set their clocks at different times within the same Time Zone. Why? Reality requires a firm standard that everybody can agree upon and share in order to function in the real world.

  If a society wants to set an arbitrary value on their coins and paper money everybody has to agree and abide by the value set or the money is valueless. Why? Isn't it clear?

  Your theory about "our reality" is a cry for help from a brain starved for reality. Why choke it off with this nonsense?
• 

  Terry

  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.

  Who do you think you have to be?

  Asserting fiction to be fact is a lie and a delusion if shared.

  If you think for yourself you have the right to accurate information about reality.
• 

  Terry

  wikipedia: In science 'fact' is an objective and verifiable observation.

  The reality is that you do not have the other persons set of facts, because we are each entitled to our own.

  You see the problem?

  Your concept of "fact" is infected with a virus.

  Your definition is aberrent.

  Fix it and we can have discussion in the real world.
• 

  LittleToe

  My my, the pot calling the kettle black. You've been caught with so many aberrant definition it's making my head spin, and now you expect AuldSoul to trust ya?

  It might also be suggested that you're also scholastically dishonest, as your partial quote continues to state:

  In science 'fact' is an objective and verifiable observation.

  Outside of science, a word 'fact' may be associated with some of the following:

  • A honest observation confirmed by widely respected observers.
    • Errors are common in the interpretation of the meaning of observations.
    • Power is frequently used to force the politcally correct interpretation of an observation.
  • A repeatedly observed regularity.
    • One observation of any phenomenon does not necessarily make it a fact. Repeatability of an observation is required usually by using the stated procedures or operational definitions of a phenomenon.
  • Something thought to be actual as opposed to invented.
  • Something concrete used as a basis for further interpretation.
  • Information about a particular subject.
  • Something believed to be the case.

  Reference provided, to allow consideration of full quote:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
• 

  kid-A

  The reality is that you do not have the other persons set of facts, because we are each entitled to our own. The reality is that you cannot read the other person's mind, you cannot experience anything, not even color, from the perspective of that person.

  Yes, we have already agreed to this. But as FD stated, if this so-called "set of facts" remains inside the persons head, it is of no use to me or anybody else. Thats fine and dandy. However, the moment that individual begins to make claims and assertions that their particular "set of facts" is "factually accurate", I am within my rights to analyse, question and even criticize these assertions if I find them to be contrary to my positions. This is NOT intolerance. This is healthy skepticism. If the believer of said facts truly holds to the veracity of their statements, then their statements should be able to withstand ANY form of questioning, testing, experimentation or falsification. Simple as that. I am constantly amazed at how religious believers invariably get their knickers in a knot as soon these beliefs and assertions come under scrutiny. Then comes the inevitable defense: my belief in the supernatural falls outside the realm of empirical knowledge and therefore cannot be proven, disproven or demonstrated in any tangible manner. Like it or not, this is just a cop-out. Why? Because at the very least, I would be open to accepting the reality of the supernatural if a single piece of evidence was presented to me. The believer on the other hand, begins with the a priori assumption that there is a god, angels, spirits, etc etc. No lack of evidence, will convince them otherwise. The agnostic, at least has the humility and honesty to admit that they do not know for absolute certainty whether such phenomena truly do exist outside of their subjective experience. Finally, Auldsoul, I personally do not know where you stand on the whole god/supernatural question. However, the overwhelming majority of religious people I do know, take it as a hard cold FACT that there is a god and that I must also accept this FACT regardless of my skepticism or unanswered questions pertaining to this assumed supernatural "fact". When one makes even a cursory observation on the present state of the world, and realizes the true cost of "belief in the supernatural", I am amazed that atheists/agnostics can somehow be considered the "intolerant" ones.