|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 31, 2009 14:25:47 GMT -4
Uh oh. I agree with Jason ... noted and logged...
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 31, 2009 14:36:44 GMT -4
Exactly. But what really bugs me about religion is when people try to persuade me that what's inside their head is the "truth" for me too. Isn't that what this website is about, though? People telling hoax believers that the version of the Apollo missions they have in their head (in which they really happened) is the more correct one? Well to start with, try to view them as trying to give you something that they feel benefits them instead of as trying to correct you or tell you you are wrong. They generally really believe that they are trying to do you a favor. They aren't really showing disrespect to your beliefs - they don't know what your beliefs are when they first meet you. That approach might help you to see them more charitably. Mormon missionaries will (usually at least) leave someone alone who simply says they are not interested. Sorry, they might indeed show up every six months or so - that's because they rotate out in that time period - but they are still likely to take "not interested" politely each time a new pair shows up. The Jeohovah's Witnesses who come to my door every once in a while or meet me on the street usually act equally politely when I tell them I am not interested. Occasionally I have invited them in and talked things over with them too. I have a small store of JW material I have collected over the years and I find discussing someone's beliefs with them an interesting topic, regardless of whether I find them of personal value to me.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 31, 2009 16:04:36 GMT -4
Your analogies suck, Jason, they really do...
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 31, 2009 16:22:37 GMT -4
Your analogies suck, Jason, they really do... It appears that your problem isn't that you don't like people trying to convince you that their version of reality is correct, it's that you don't like religious people trying to convince you that their version of reality is correct.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 31, 2009 16:43:10 GMT -4
Your analogies suck, Jason, they really do... It appears that your problem isn't that you don't like people trying to convince you that their version of reality is correct, it's that you don't like religious people trying to convince you that their version of reality is correct. I'm laughing too hard to respond... maybe after the New Year!
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 31, 2009 20:47:22 GMT -4
But what really bugs me about religion is when people try to persuade me that what's inside their head is the "truth" for me too. I mean this respectfully, Jason, I think they should keep it to themselves! I've had various people come to my door or stop me on the street (usually Mormons or Jehovah's Witness). How do I politely say to them to please respect what I may or not believe in and leave me alone? My personal Hell is filled with proselytizers, and they all think their way of seeing things is objective.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Dec 31, 2009 21:25:06 GMT -4
All of our experience is at some level just happening in our heads. We can't possibly prove that some of our sensory input really is coming from some outside cause and not just our imagination, but we choose to believe that it is. Are you really saying that your own personal experience with God, that no one could possibly have witnessed, is just as credible as the sensory input that we can verify? If I pick up an ice cube I would describe it as being cold. I could pass the ice cube to ten other people and they would likely also describe it as cold. We can verify our sensory input through testing... we can't test whether your experiences really happened or whether they were imagined. You, the Pope, and Osama bin Laden all claim to know God. You can't all be right and none of you can prove your beliefs, so I choose to believe none of you. I think they should keep it to themselves! I could not agree more. I'm wondering why I should even bother being polite. They don't mind insulting people by essentially telling them that their religious beliefs are wrong, so why should we be polite to them? On December 23 a woman came into the store where I work and handed my Muslim coworker a pamphlet. I knew right away that it was religious. Then the woman looked at me and I could tell she was thinking to herself "he's a white man... he's probably a Christian... but I better give him one too just in case." I bit my tongue because I was at work, but she really annoyed me. If a Muslim woman tried to convert a Christian it would create an uproar of controversy, but for some reason we tolerate it when Christians try to impose their beliefs on other people.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Dec 31, 2009 21:35:52 GMT -4
they don't know what your beliefs are when they first meet you. Yeah, right. That woman that came into my store made a beeline from the door straight to the young Muslim girl wearing the Hijab. She walked past two other uniformed employees who just happened to be white males. My Muslim friend told me that they frequently get people like that knocking on their front door. And you don't think it's because word has gotten out that a family of Muslims live there?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 1, 2010 2:52:10 GMT -4
It's true that Mormons will occasionally bother as many people in my apartment complex as they can before they're kicked out for soliciting, but does that make it better? It means it assuredly isn't out of any concern for me or any awareness or interest in my personal experiences. They just know that I'm home.
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
Post by lonewulf on Jan 1, 2010 4:30:04 GMT -4
Exactly. But what really bugs me about religion is when people try to persuade me that what's inside their head is the "truth" for me too. Isn't that what this website is about, though? People telling hoax believers that the version of the Apollo missions they have in their head (in which they really happened) is the more correct one? Hm. I thought we covered this in the Age of Enlightenment and the scientific revolution. I think there was a word commonly used... wasn't it "empirical"? Evidence, too, I think was pretty big. Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe science was just "arguing what's in our head". Maybe the scientific process really did go: 1) Come up with an idea. 2) Write it down/proselytize it. 3) Pass it around. 4) Declare it objective. Somehow I don't think I'm wrong on this, though.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jan 1, 2010 11:08:15 GMT -4
All of our experience is at some level just happening in our heads. We can't possibly prove that some of our sensory input really is coming from some outside cause and not just our imagination... How did you find this out?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 1, 2010 16:21:27 GMT -4
It appears that your problem isn't that you don't like people trying to convince you that their version of reality is correct, it's that you don't like religious people trying to convince you that their version of reality is correct. I'm laughing too hard to respond... maybe after the New Year! Okay Jason... I don't mind discussing religion with someone - we've done that many times here on the forum. I have a lot of books at home on world religions - texts, histories, commentaries etc. It certainly is an interesting subject. I choose to read a book, or watch a program, or post in a thread. But that is different from unsolicited interruptions on the street and at my door. Can you understand that? Oh, and it wouldn't matter if it is religious in nature or not - philosophical outlooks on reality would have the same effect. It wouldn't matter if a God is involved in the conversation or is absent. I find a lot of philosophy tinged with religious elements anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 1, 2010 16:31:29 GMT -4
All of our experience is at some level just happening in our heads. We can't possibly prove that some of our sensory input really is coming from some outside cause and not just our imagination, but we choose to believe that it is. Hmm... sounds like more of a philosophical statement than a religious one... Phenomenological realityOn a much broader and more subjective level, private experiences, curiosity, inquiry, and the selectivity involved in personal interpretation of events shapes reality as seen by one and only one individual and hence is called phenomenological. While this form of reality might be common to others as well, it could at times also be so unique to oneself as to never be experienced or agreed upon by anyone else. Much of the kind of experience deemed spiritual occurs on this level of reality.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealityReality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. ~Philip K. Dick No man will be found in whose mind airy notions do not sometimes tyrannize, and force him to hope or fear beyond the limits of sober probability. ~Samuel Johnson There is an objective reality out there, but we view it through the spectacles of our beliefs, attitudes, and values. ~David G. Myers, Social Psychology There are no facts, only interpretations. ~Friedrich Nietzsche Reality leaves a lot to the imagination. ~John Lennon ;D
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 1, 2010 18:51:16 GMT -4
Oh, and it wouldn't matter if it is religious in nature or not - philosophical outlooks on reality would have the same effect. Political ones, too. I've had some fine conversations about politics--but I don't initiate them with every stranger I can.
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
Post by lonewulf on Jan 1, 2010 18:54:48 GMT -4
To be fair, science has a basis in philosophy. It's just one that works, and has been shown to work (if you don't agree, then stop using the majority of inventions that have a basis in science).
And as to whether or not astronauts really went to the moon, there is only one objective answer to that, subject to the evidence. The people that support the missions have the evidence. The ones that claim it's a hoax, do not. They cannot explain the telemetry, the arguments are built on ignorance and are objectively wrong, etc.
However, there is no objective reason for me to go with any section of Christianity vs., say, becoming a Buddhist. Or a Druid (not a neodruid; I'm down with the sacrifice stuff). Or worship the Egyptian gods. People that converted to the new religion did not do it based on evidence, but rather shed old beliefs for a new one like you would a coat; the new one just happens to be in fashion, and people are less likely to kill you if you wear it.
Or discard it altogether and worship no gods without definitive proof altogether.
The latter is the most logical way to live, for me. It isn't built on an assumption with no definitive evidence. It also keeps me away from pretentiousness, like say, telling people that having sex with the same sex is morally wrong and God hates them and considers them abominations.
It also keeps me from icky cosmic moral situations, like claiming that there's this all-loving being out there that's okay with allowing children to die from cancer, and is okay with people dying in great amounts just dependent on their geographical region.
YMMV.
And to those that think that what goes on in your head must be true and objective reality: Take a hit of LSD. It'll blow your world.
|
|