jj
Junior Member
Posts: 95
|
Post by jj on Aug 27, 2014 1:59:02 GMT -5
Only just the other day, I was reflecting on the past few years, and how thankful I am to be free from all that has held a grip on me in the past. As soon as I realised that questioning and analysing what was going on around me, and using my intellect was NOT a sin, rather I was taught it was a sin because that's what mind control is, labelling anything that challenges the system as evil so that the system won't be challenged, remain stable and retain power over people.
I know that, however much I would wish, I cannot convince any of my friends or anyone else to leave by any way of argument or reason, but I do earnestly hope that those in restrictive situations everywhere will be not afraid to ask questions and to think for themselves, and be set free.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 27, 2014 2:13:16 GMT -5
Only just the other day, I was reflecting on the past few years, and how thankful I am to be free from all that has held a grip on me in the past. As soon as I realised that questioning and analysing what was going on around me, and using my intellect was NOT a sin, rather I was taught it was a sin because that's what mind control is, labelling anything that challenges the system as evil so that the system won't be challenged, remain stable and retain power over people. I know that, however much I would wish, I cannot convince any of my friends or anyone else to leave by any way of argument or reason, but I do earnestly hope that those in restrictive situations everywhere will be not afraid to ask questions and to think for themselves, and be set free. It is often difficult to present an effective logical argument to counter a faith-based belief.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 27, 2014 3:22:28 GMT -5
Only just the other day, I was reflecting on the past few years, and how thankful I am to be free from all that has held a grip on me in the past. As soon as I realised that questioning and analysing what was going on around me, and using my intellect was NOT a sin, rather I was taught it was a sin because that's what mind control is, labelling anything that challenges the system as evil so that the system won't be challenged, remain stable and retain power over people. I know that, however much I would wish, I cannot convince any of my friends or anyone else to leave by any way of argument or reason, but I do earnestly hope that those in restrictive situations everywhere will be not afraid to ask questions and to think for themselves, and be set free. It is often difficult to present an effective logical argument to counter a faith-based belief. The difficulty does not seem to be much of a deterrent.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Aug 27, 2014 5:54:10 GMT -5
Jj
Im pleased you feel free. Its how we are meant to be. I didnt feel the need to convince anyone else to leave meetings until years later. I discovered in my ignorance partly blinded by this passion that had developed in me to hear from God. The friends and family were happy where they were. Sometimes I would (in my eagerness be over zealous) wanting the fellowship id had while attending meetings.) Instead the comments were always the same. math 10, servants going out 2x2, the truth. When I quoted the scripture about 'Jesus is the truth the way and the life. I had a massive arguement. They kept telling me it was the workers. 20yrs passed and then dust had settled. It all calmed down.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Aug 27, 2014 8:39:47 GMT -5
It is often difficult to present an effective logical argument to counter a faith-based belief. I would like to better understand the meaning/intent of your comment, rational. Would you please expand on what compels the need “to present an effective logical argument to counter a faith-based belief”? It is my experience that a person is always encountering views and ideas that are not fully understood or that differ from one’s own views and ideas. I am interested in how you make the choice “to present an effective logical argument” when confronted with such a difference. In my own case, when I encounter views and ideas that I either do not understand or that differ from my own and that I find to be of adequate interest to pursue, I prefer to determine if the other person shares my interest in exploring the topic in greater depth. For instance, I ask you directly, are you interested in pursuing the meaning of your comment quoted above such that I might better understand your intent and meaning? “No” is a perfectly acceptable response. I agree with you, arguments are seldom effective if all parties involved are not committed to mutual understanding of the questions and issues involved. The other question raised in my mind by your comment is whether or not you feel obliged to understand the view(s) of the person(s) to whom you choose to present your logical argument. It has been my experience that respect for the other party/parties and an appreciation for their point of view goes a long way toward the “effectiveness” of arguments presented. It has also been my experience that an appreciation of points of view different from my own cannot always be achieved solely by cognitive processes, sometimes empathy for the feelings of another is required to achieve a foundation for effectiveness. I am interested in your experiences and opinions on these points. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Aug 27, 2014 8:48:54 GMT -5
Only just the other day, I was reflecting on the past few years, and how thankful I am to be free from all that has held a grip on me in the past. As soon as I realised that questioning and analysing what was going on around me, and using my intellect was NOT a sin, rather I was taught it was a sin because that's what mind control is, labelling anything that challenges the system as evil so that the system won't be challenged, remain stable and retain power over people. I know that, however much I would wish, I cannot convince any of my friends or anyone else to leave by any way of argument or reason, but I do earnestly hope that those in restrictive situations everywhere will be not afraid to ask questions and to think for themselves, and be set free. jj, I am happy that you have found freedom. Freeing oneself from the shackles (real or perceived) of past experiences and behaviors is a great feeling. The one part of your post that is unclear to me is your desire to "convince" your friends to do as you have done. I can understand sharing your views and experiences with them but it would seem that your experience of freedom is a consequence of reaching your own conclusions and not being subject to the opinions and convictions of others. Perhaps I misunderstand your meaning.
|
|
jj
Junior Member
Posts: 95
|
Post by jj on Aug 27, 2014 9:07:48 GMT -5
Only just the other day, I was reflecting on the past few years, and how thankful I am to be free from all that has held a grip on me in the past. As soon as I realised that questioning and analysing what was going on around me, and using my intellect was NOT a sin, rather I was taught it was a sin because that's what mind control is, labelling anything that challenges the system as evil so that the system won't be challenged, remain stable and retain power over people. I know that, however much I would wish, I cannot convince any of my friends or anyone else to leave by any way of argument or reason, but I do earnestly hope that those in restrictive situations everywhere will be not afraid to ask questions and to think for themselves, and be set free. jj, I am happy that you have found freedom. Freeing oneself from the shackles (real or perceived) of past experiences and behaviors is a great feeling. The one part of your post that is unclear to me is your desire to "convince" your friends to do as you have done. I can understand sharing your views and experiences with them but it would seem that your experience of freedom is a consequence of reaching your own conclusions and not being subject to the opinions and convictions of others. Perhaps I misunderstand your meaning. Thanks @ynot yes my freedom was a result of reaching my own conclusions and also listening to that voice deep deep down inside somewhere, that knew it was all too good to be true, that I had suppressed. If I'm being brutally honest, I would say my desire to 'convince' my friends is based on my wanting to help them, and also perhaps from a desire to 'fix' people and their problems (I know of course I cannot do this). I'm not sure where that comes from, maybe its some insecurity in me that I need to feel 'useful' or worthwhile as a person, I'm not too sure
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 27, 2014 10:21:35 GMT -5
It is often difficult to present an effective logical argument to counter a faith-based belief. I would like to better understand the meaning/intent of your comment, rational. Would you please expand on what compels the need “to present an effective logical argument to counter a faith-based belief”? In this case I was responding to: I know that, however much I would wish, I cannot convince any of my friends or anyone else to leave by any way of argument or reason, but I do earnestly hope that those in restrictive situations everywhere will be not afraid to ask questions and to think for themselves, and be set free. And voicing my experience in doing as the poster mentioned: I cannot convince any of my friends or anyone else to leave by any way of argument or reason...Since beliefs are faith based and do not require any logical or material support/explanation any attempt to convince the believer of another point of view cannot be based on any logical argument. As far as what compels the need, I am not sure of jj's motives but they appear to be driven by the desire to allow his/her friends to experience the same freedoms by convincing them to examine/change their beliefs. Personally, I have attempted to do the same thing in the past but have come to realize that a belief cannot be argued away even if the belief is that there are reptilian beings living in tunnels connected to a hollow earth. Looking at it from the other side - since their belief is supported only by their faith, their arguments also provide nothing that I require on which to base my decisions. This is true and my method of evaluating the claims/views is to seek support for the ideas. Support that can be tested and reproduced by any interested party. In general, logical arguments are how I would evaluate claims and as such would present the same to others. That being said, I made the statement not as a course of action but as a point to a poster who was bemoaning the idea that their arguments did not convince their friends.You will have to ask jj about this but I think the goal was to allow friends to experience the same degree of freedom.And there you have it! It is difficult for me to present non-material or illogical arguments since they form a a minor part of my belief system. When a person states something as faith based belief I have little desire to try to convince them otherwise. When someone says they believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead three days later there is little to offer that will convince them otherwise. If they are interested, presenting some alternative explanations or the reasons why such a story might have developed is something I would engage in and in the process possibly increase my own knowledge.My experience has been that people somehow think that being an atheist carries a lot more meaning than simply the lack of belief in a paranormal being. I think the thing that people may not understand is that I am also a skeptic and that is more the reason that I raise question when beliefs are posted as facts. If you raise questions when people present what is clearly a belief it will, at times, cause them to examine their beliefs. For example, if you believe the workers can do no wrong it is not only a belief but it is an unsupported fact that may cause harm to others. Raising questions, presenting known data, and asking for verification hopefully raises awareness. It has also been my experience that on a message board like this a person can get into trouble if every time someone posts the existence of god as a fact the question of proof is raised! On the other hand, when it is posted as fact that those who lack a belief in a paranormal being have lower moral values than those who do believe in a paranormal being it is difficult not to post facts and question the veracity of the poster's data. This, in many cases, leads to the challenge of "Can you prove there is no God." Followed by the Sagan quote "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." (or from a mathematical standpoint sufficient evidence is needed to lift a highly improbable claim into the highly probable area) and once again the atheist has sidetracked a discussion with discussions about the existence of god! I have no idea if this answers your question(s) but feel free to ask again if I did not complete the task.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Aug 27, 2014 13:13:16 GMT -5
Ynot and rational
Didnt you do a debate together a few yrs back? Oops sorry off topic
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 27, 2014 13:18:30 GMT -5
Ynot and rational Didnt you do a debate together a few yrs back? Oops sorry off topic Don't think so. There was an interesting (well, to me) discussion about first cause and related topics.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 27, 2014 14:32:41 GMT -5
Only just the other day, I was reflecting on the past few years, and how t hankful I am to be free from all that has held a grip on me in the past. As soon as I realised that questioning and analysing what was going on around me, and using my intellect was NOT a sin, rather I was taught it was a sin because that's what mind control is, labelling anything that challenges the system as evil so that the system won't be challenged, remain stable and retain power over people. I know that, however much I would wish, I cannot convince any of my friends or anyone else to leave by any way of argument or reason, but I do earnestly hope that those in restrictive situations everywhere will be not afraid to ask questions and to think for themselves, and be set free. Thank you for your post, jj.
I have been thankful also for finally being free. I also knew trying to explain myself or what I now believed to the friends around me was really useless.
I had already heard many times how those still in, viewed those that had left. I also realized that was how they needed to think in order to not doubt the "TRUTH" themselves.
It was a automatic defensive mechanism that they didn't even realize was there.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 27, 2014 14:41:26 GMT -5
jj, I am happy that you have found freedom. Freeing oneself from the shackles (real or perceived) of past experiences and behaviors is a great feeling. The one part of your post that is unclear to me is your desire to "convince" your friends to do as you have done. I can understand sharing your views and experiences with them but it would seem that your experience of freedom is a consequence of reaching your own conclusions and not being subject to the opinions and convictions of others. Perhaps I misunderstand your meaning. Thanks @ynot yes my freedom was a result of reaching my own conclusions and also listening to that voice deep deep down inside somewhere, that knew it was all too good to be true, that I had suppressed. If I'm being brutally honest, I would say my desire to 'convince' my friends is based on my wanting to help them, and also perhaps from a desire to 'fix' people and their problems (I know of course I cannot do this). I'm not sure where that comes from, maybe its some insecurity in me that I need to feel 'useful' or worthwhile as a person, I'm not too sure Perhaps it comes from thinking that your subjective reality is in some way objective? It might not be the case at all. It's just a question I pose. To illustrate what I mean, if you like chocolate ice cream, and you live in a world where everyone likes vanilla, then your perception of freedom when you leave is more or less a subjective thing. You'll not likely convince anyone in the vanilla ice cream loving world to join you in your chocolate-ly existence. At the opposite end of the scale, if you live in starvation conditions, say in a Soviet gulag, and escape to a country like the USA, one could hardly argue that your perception of freedom was purely subjective. So, when you left the friends' religion was the difference subjective or objective? If objective, it should be relatively easy to convince the "captives" that your new found existence is better, should it not?
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Aug 27, 2014 18:46:41 GMT -5
I have no idea if this answers your question(s) but feel free to ask again if I did not complete the task. Indeed you did address all of the questions posed, ahead of schedule and under budget. Very good, Sir, your task is complete. Go in peace. I am unable to say that my questions have been answered, however, since an answer to the questions I raise would involve an understanding of motivations and motivations are none of my business if not freely offered. I, for example, have not encountered a single individual in my long life who believes “that there are reptilian beings living in tunnels connected to a hollow earth”. Since the questions posed and answers proffered pertain to “faith-based beliefs”, the metaphor chosen seems irrelevant and could be interpreted as disrespectful by those who hold opinions and beliefs different from your own. The motivation for the choice of that specific metaphor remains unknown and unimaginable to this reader. I have read through your response a few times and fully acknowledge and accept the sincerity of your opinions and rhetorical style. Prior to closing, I will add one personal note. I am an agnostic. As such, I retain an active curiosity in a variety of phenomena, some of which may well be beyond any capacity to observe. As you know from quantum theory, absent an observer (which collapses the wave function such that matter assumes an actual position and assumes a physical reality) reality is merely a swarm of unmanifest probabilities. Therefore, I believe that to assume the role of “’fact’ thought police” imposes arbitrary restrictions on rational discourse. Restricting conversations to the sphere of observed phenomena appears to me to be arbitrary, unwarranted and imprudent. There are some (myself included) who choose not to limit their mental excursions to the sphere of the observable. Speaking only for myself, I prefer having an opportunity to express myself without the persistent testimonials about the non-existence of god by a variety of individuals who choose not to make similar excursions. The conceptual leaning of most contributors to the board are reasonably well established by this time and simple non-badgering queries should be sufficient to establish intent where it may be unclear. Further, it seems to be unnecessary to repetitively challenge expressions of belief. In exchange for freedom of expression, I pledge to use the most appropriate and non-confrontational vocabulary available to convey concepts and questions that are of interest to me. I will readily and freely acknowledge absence/ignorance of observable facts where appropriate. I will attempt to clarify meaning/intent where and when requested.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Aug 27, 2014 18:51:18 GMT -5
Ynot and rational Didnt you do a debate together a few yrs back? Oops sorry off topic Don't think so. There was an interesting (well, to me) discussion about first cause and related topics. Yes, I also fondly recall that discussion. I think there was another conversation one time where I became hopelessly lost in the weeds regarding "Maxwell's Demon". That was fun but much less enlightening than the more substantive conversation about first cause.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Aug 27, 2014 19:12:50 GMT -5
Perhaps it comes from thinking that your subjective reality is in some way objective? It might not be the case at all. It's just a question I pose. To illustrate what I mean, if you like chocolate ice cream, and you live in a world where everyone likes vanilla, then your perception of freedom when you leave is more or less a subjective thing. You'll not likely convince anyone in the vanilla ice cream loving world to join you in your chocolate-ly existence. At the opposite end of the scale, if you live in starvation conditions, say in a Soviet gulag, and escape to a country like the USA, one could hardly argue that your perception of freedom was purely subjective. So, when you left the friends' religion was the difference subjective or objective? If objective, it should be relatively easy to convince the "captives" that your new found existence is better, should it not? What Hat, I am having some difficulty understanding why you suggest that motivations can be segregated into one of two arbitrary categories. Often decisions of the type described by jj are complex and highly nuanced before making the decision, at the time of the decision and for long intervals thereafter. Intuition, love, friendships, compassion, fear, rebellion are all intellectual and emotional contributors to the complexity of these types of decisions. The extent to which such a decision my be considered objective/subjective may also depend on the extent of responsibility the individual may be willing to shoulder at the time of decision and thereafter. I would suggest that being unable to accept full personal responsibility at the time of decision may well cause one to seek external validation for the decision taken. As one becomes more comfortable and confident in their personal decisions the need for external validation often diminishes. Perhaps I missed the larger context of your comments What Hat, if so please elaborate.
|
|
jj
Junior Member
Posts: 95
|
Post by jj on Aug 27, 2014 20:21:47 GMT -5
Thanks @ynot yes my freedom was a result of reaching my own conclusions and also listening to that voice deep deep down inside somewhere, that knew it was all too good to be true, that I had suppressed. If I'm being brutally honest, I would say my desire to 'convince' my friends is based on my wanting to help them, and also perhaps from a desire to 'fix' people and their problems (I know of course I cannot do this). I'm not sure where that comes from, maybe its some insecurity in me that I need to feel 'useful' or worthwhile as a person, I'm not too sure Perhaps it comes from thinking that your subjective reality is in some way objective? It might not be the case at all. It's just a question I pose. To illustrate what I mean, if you like chocolate ice cream, and you live in a world where everyone likes vanilla, then your perception of freedom when you leave is more or less a subjective thing. You'll not likely convince anyone in the vanilla ice cream loving world to join you in your chocolate-ly existence. At the opposite end of the scale, if you live in starvation conditions, say in a Soviet gulag, and escape to a country like the USA, one could hardly argue that your perception of freedom was purely subjective. So, when you left the friends' religion was the difference subjective or objective? If objective, it should be relatively easy to convince the "captives" that your new found existence is better, should it not? I guess it should be, but it is difficult to describe or categorise the freedom of the mind, which to me, is a bit of both. Subjective in that I felt as though I'd woken up from a illusion, and my mind was free, I can break all the unwritten rules without guilt or fear. With regards to the decision, I really think it was a bit of both, like @ynot has mentioned such decisions are complex. To be honest, when I left I simply stopped lying to myself and listened to my true instincts, inner reason, whatever it is that is often labelled as 'human reasoning' and something to be gotten rid of. So that part was very subjective. More objectively, perhaps, few years ago I read a book about cults and it hit very close to home. Many of the characteristics mentioned were familiar to me. The following is an excerpt from that book, titled, 'Cults: too good to be true' by Raphael Aron, pages 21-22. The author is referring to religious groups as well as personal development groups. "Good questions to ask •What is so appealing about what the group offers?... •Do the people seem too friendly, loving, smiling or happy? •Does the group claim to have a special mission or unique calling? •Does the leader claim to have unique powers, vision or knowledge? • Do the people talk about their leader as though they were next to God? •Does the group motivate its members through fear or guilt? •Are there any disgruntled former members? •Does the group promise happiness, total fulfilment, greater self confidence and a solution to all your problems? If so, beware, it's too good to be true." With regards to freedom: I no longer have to conform to unwritten rules, and my mind is now my own, rather than being divided in two halves which are constantly in opposition to one another. I can actually enjoy life, instead of struggling through it, towards an uncertain eternity, with rare moments of 'happiness' which are supposed to make the struggles all 'worthwhile' . Sorry about the lengthy post! The more I think about the question, the more I feel it is difficult to answer.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 27, 2014 21:47:09 GMT -5
Perhaps it comes from thinking that your subjective reality is in some way objective? It might not be the case at all. It's just a question I pose. To illustrate what I mean, if you like chocolate ice cream, and you live in a world where everyone likes vanilla, then your perception of freedom when you leave is more or less a subjective thing. You'll not likely convince anyone in the vanilla ice cream loving world to join you in your chocolate-ly existence. At the opposite end of the scale, if you live in starvation conditions, say in a Soviet gulag, and escape to a country like the USA, one could hardly argue that your perception of freedom was purely subjective. So, when you left the friends' religion was the difference subjective or objective? If objective, it should be relatively easy to convince the "captives" that your new found existence is better, should it not? What Hat, I am having some difficulty understanding why you suggest that motivations can be segregated into one of two arbitrary categories. Often decisions of the type described by jj are complex and highly nuanced before making the decision, at the time of the decision and for long intervals thereafter. Intuition, love, friendships, compassion, fear, rebellion are all intellectual and emotional contributors to the complexity of these types of decisions. The extent to which such a decision my be considered objective/subjective may also depend on the extent of responsibility the individual may be willing to shoulder at the time of decision and thereafter. I would suggest that being unable to accept full personal responsibility at the time of decision may well cause one to seek external validation for the decision taken. As one becomes more comfortable and confident in their personal decisions the need for external validation often diminishes. Perhaps I missed the larger context of your comments What Hat, if so please elaborate. Most decisions can't be separated into purely subjective or objective categories. I presented two extreme decisions, but any actual decision will have both subjective and objective elements. But the distinction is useful and worth thinking about. I would add, that as a rule, we tend to think that our decisions are made on more objective grounds than they actually are. And rational is coming from the same place with his posts here; generally any personal decision about religion is highly subjective, although there may well be objective aspects to it. We resort to seemingly objective reasons in order to feel justified in what we've done. And in making ourselves right, we then feel we have to make others wrong. Convince the unwashed. Why can't we just say that this or that didn't work for us, for this or that reason, and let that be the end of it?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 27, 2014 21:55:01 GMT -5
Perhaps it comes from thinking that your subjective reality is in some way objective? It might not be the case at all. It's just a question I pose. To illustrate what I mean, if you like chocolate ice cream, and you live in a world where everyone likes vanilla, then your perception of freedom when you leave is more or less a subjective thing. You'll not likely convince anyone in the vanilla ice cream loving world to join you in your chocolate-ly existence. At the opposite end of the scale, if you live in starvation conditions, say in a Soviet gulag, and escape to a country like the USA, one could hardly argue that your perception of freedom was purely subjective. So, when you left the friends' religion was the difference subjective or objective? If objective, it should be relatively easy to convince the "captives" that your new found existence is better, should it not? I guess it should be, but it is difficult to describe or categorise the freedom of the mind, which to me, is a bit of both. Subjective in that I felt as though I'd woken up from a illusion, and my mind was free, I can break all the unwritten rules without guilt or fear. With regards to the decision, I really think it was a bit of both, like @ynot has mentioned such decisions are complex. To be honest, when I left I simply stopped lying to myself and listened to my true instincts, inner reason, whatever it is that is often labelled as 'human reasoning' and something to be gotten rid of. So that part was very subjective. More objectively, perhaps, few years ago I read a book about cults and it hit very close to home. Many of the characteristics mentioned were familiar to me. The following is an excerpt from that book, titled, 'Cults: too good to be true' by Raphael Aron, pages 21-22. The author is referring to religious groups as well as personal development groups. "Good questions to ask •What is so appealing about what the group offers?... •Do the people seem too friendly, loving, smiling or happy? •Does the group claim to have a special mission or unique calling? •Does the leader claim to have unique powers, vision or knowledge? • Do the people talk about their leader as though they were next to God? •Does the group motivate its members through fear or guilt? •Are there any disgruntled former members? •Does the group promise happiness, total fulfilment, greater self confidence and a solution to all your problems? If so, beware, it's too good to be true." With regards to freedom: I no longer have to conform to unwritten rules, and my mind is now my own, rather than being divided in two halves which are constantly in opposition to one another. I can actually enjoy life, instead of struggling through it, towards an uncertain eternity, with rare moments of 'happiness' which are supposed to make the struggles all 'worthwhile' . Sorry about the lengthy post! The more I think about the question, the more I feel it is difficult to answer. That's a very good answer. I hope over time you see some positive aspects to the friends' experience, and take some of that, whatever it may be, with you. Life's journey is different for everyone; I truly think one person's meat is another person's poison. Like you, after 30 years I decided the friends' fellowship was no longer for me. But they were generally a good 30 years as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 27, 2014 21:57:23 GMT -5
I, for example, have not encountered a single individual in my long life who believes “that there are reptilian beings living in tunnels connected to a hollow earth”. Since the questions posed and answers proffered pertain to “faith-based beliefs”, the metaphor chosen seems irrelevant and could be interpreted as disrespectful by those who hold opinions and beliefs different from your own. The motivation for the choice of that specific metaphor remains unknown and unimaginable to this reader. Just a brief note - it was not a metaphor. These beliefs are held and are not at all stayed by the presentation of any of the collected information that is available. I used it not as a sign of disrespect but to illustrate just how firmly a belief is embraced by some in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Even with observation would the wave collapse to a single state?Speculation is what drives discovery. It allows the development of theories. No one is restricting conversations. Just questioning when things presented as facts don't seem quite right - keep Pons and Fleischmann in mind. Again, this is not, or should not be, a restriction.I will try to keep this in mind. OK
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 27, 2014 23:06:35 GMT -5
I do hope you both, Rational & yknot, will give us a debate on a subject with some depth.
I probably won't always be able to follow your ideas very well, -my knowledge of science as well as some other academic studies isn't all that good,- but I sure would like to listen in.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 27, 2014 23:40:22 GMT -5
Ynot and rational Didnt you do a debate together a few yrs back? Oops sorry off topic Don't think so. There was an interesting (well, to me) discussion about first cause and related topics. Rational ~ Was this debate on TMB, and if so, do you remember the thread where it transpired and can give me a link? i'm sure DMG would like to view it, too, from her last comment?
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Aug 28, 2014 7:20:35 GMT -5
A funny thing . . . . happened on the way to the forum!
On August 27th, 2014 at 19:46:41 GMT -04:00 a post was recorded on TMB from myself in which I said:
"The conceptual leaning of most contributors to the board are reasonably well established by this time and simple non-badgering queries should be sufficient to establish intent where it may be unclear. Further, it seems to be unnecessary to repetitively challenge expressions of belief."
On August 27th, 2014 at 22:57:32 GMT -04:00 a post was recorded on TMB identified as having been submitted by rational. Based on the format used in this post (as recorded at 22:57:32) it appears as if I said:
"But presenting god as an entity that will take care of people's needs or protect them is a dangerous The conceptual leaning of most contributors to the board are reasonably well established by this time and simple non-badgering queries should be sufficient to establish intent where it may be unclear. Further, it seems to be unnecessary to repetitively challenge expressions of belief. "
To be completely clear: I did not post "But presenting god as an entity that will take care of people's needs or protect them is a dangerous" at 19:46:41 GMT -04:00 on August 27th, 2014, I have not posted "But presenting god as an entity that will take care of people's needs or protect them is a dangerous" at any time in the past (that I can recall, but then again, I am getting old), nor do I plan on ever posting "But presenting god as an entity that will take care of people's needs or protect them is a dangerous" at any time in the future.
I am sure that the inaccurate attribution in the post recorded at 22:57:32 GMT -04:00 on August 27th, 2014 was a mere technical glitch and/or an insignificant editorial error. Regardless of cause, I post the details of this incident to illustrate how very easily inaccurate attributions/interpretations can be associated with one individual and potentially lead to interminable debates and/or hurt feelings. ________________________
jj, I have stolen your thread. I apologize for the digressions. Later, I would like to respond to rational's last points and questions but after that quick response, I will cease and desist from this regrettable high-jacking. I have very much enjoyed reading your earlier comments and the responses.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 28, 2014 8:02:48 GMT -5
Rational ~ Was this debate on TMB, and if so, do you remember the thread where it transpired and can give me a link? i'm sure DMG would like to view it, too, from her last comment? I don't recall when or where it was but I do remember that it did take up a considerable amount of time.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 28, 2014 8:30:01 GMT -5
A funny thing . . . . happened on the way to the forum! On August 27th, 2014 at 19:46:41 GMT -04:00 a post was recorded on TMB from myself in which I said: " The conceptual leaning of most contributors to the board are reasonably well established by this time and simple non-badgering queries should be sufficient to establish intent where it may be unclear. Further, it seems to be unnecessary to repetitively challenge expressions of belief." On August 27th, 2014 at 22:57:32 GMT -04:00 a post was recorded on TMB identified as having been submitted by rational. Based on the format used in this post (as recorded at 22:57:32) it appears as if I said: " But presenting god as an entity that will take care of people's needs or protect them is a dangerous The conceptual leaning of most contributors to the board are reasonably well established by this time and simple non-badgering queries should be sufficient to establish intent where it may be unclear. Further, it seems to be unnecessary to repetitively challenge expressions of belief. " To be completely clear: I did not post " But presenting god as an entity that will take care of people's needs or protect them is a dangerous" at 19:46:41 GMT -04:00 on August 27th, 2014, I have not posted " But presenting god as an entity that will take care of people's needs or protect them is a dangerous" at any time in the past (that I can recall, but then again, I am getting old), nor do I plan on ever posting " But presenting god as an entity that will take care of people's needs or protect them is a dangerous" at any time in the future. I am sure that the inaccurate attribution in the post recorded at 22:57:32 GMT -04:00 on August 27th, 2014 was a mere technical glitch and/or an insignificant editorial error. Regardless of cause, I post the details of this incident to illustrate how very easily inaccurate attributions/interpretations can be associated with one individual and potentially lead to interminable debates and/or hurt feelings. ________________________ jj, I have stolen your thread. I apologize for the digressions. Later, I would like to respond to rational's last points and questions but after that quick response, I will cease and desist from this regrettable high-jacking. I have very much enjoyed reading your earlier comments and the responses. placid-void - Why not (see how that worked into the phrase?) start a new thread? The error you spotted is not much of a mystery. It was a thought I was going to elaborate on but decided not to include. Possibly inserted into the post by an errant CTRL-v or CTRL-y command following a CTRL-x or CTRL-w command. Sorry. If I repeat the same thing in another post and had not acknowledged the first error then it would indeed be a mystery.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Aug 28, 2014 9:42:30 GMT -5
Responding to rational’s earlier post: That is my understanding of the currently accepted explanation of innumerable “single photon, double-slit experiments”. Perhaps my understanding is dated. Again, I did not say it was a restriction for me, I said that I have a preference not to encounter persistent testimonials about the non-existence of god when I express myself on matters that may lie beyond the sphere of the observable and measurable. Thanks for the correction in your post. A state of equilibrium has been reestablished in out little world on TMB, thank you. Thank you also for the opportunity to express my POV and for your sincere responses. JJ, thanks for your forbearance.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Aug 30, 2014 7:31:48 GMT -5
I do hope you both, Rational & yknot, will give us a debate on a subject with some depth.
I probably won't always be able to follow your ideas very well, -my knowledge of science as well as some other academic studies isn't all that good,- but I sure would like to listen in. I enjoyed sitting in the corner listening to the verbal exchange of minds that fascinated me.
|
|
jj
Junior Member
Posts: 95
|
Post by jj on Aug 31, 2014 1:13:59 GMT -5
Responding to rational’s earlier post: That is my understanding of the currently accepted explanation of innumerable “single photon, double-slit experiments”. Perhaps my understanding is dated. Again, I did not say it was a restriction for me, I said that I have a preference not to encounter persistent testimonials about the non-existence of god when I express myself on matters that may lie beyond the sphere of the observable and measurable. Thanks for the correction in your post. A state of equilibrium has been reestablished in out little world on TMB, thank you. Thank you also for the opportunity to express my POV and for your sincere responses. JJ, thanks for your forbearance. No problems I actually enjoy the twists and turns that a thread takes sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 31, 2014 10:03:57 GMT -5
Responding to rational’s earlier post: Thanks for the correction in your post. A state of equilibrium has been reestablished in out little world on TMB, thank you. Thank you also for the opportunity to express my POV and for your sincere responses. JJ, thanks for your forbearance. No problems :) I actually enjoy the twists and turns that a thread takes sometimes. I don't know what happened with this post but there are things attributed to me that were clearly stated bu Yknot.
|
|