Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
try and see the individual and not lump all religious people into one category.TeddyKGB said:My "way of thinking" is that religion becomes postmodernist when it is no longer supported by science (or when science finally escapes the bondage of religion). All of a sudden, a "personal relationship" with the creator is paramount.
Accept it or don't. Matters less.
Why are these subjective truths true at all?if you can not get past the words and recognize individual perception you can not comprehend personal truth, individuality and therfore will never know MY truth.
Tenka said:Why are these subjective truths true at all?
Are there 6 odd billion universes because everyone perceives it in a different way?
Why "truth" and not opinion?
why is grass green? don't go into a scientific explanation, if you can avoid it. why do i percieve it to be green? and what is green if not just an expression of what i observe? how do i know you don't actually see green as blue? think about it.Why are these subjective truths true at all?
i don't know, do you? refer to the above response. honestly look at it.Are there 6 odd billion universes because everyone perceives it in a different way?
because its a cognitive reality, not a maybe so.Why "truth" and not opinion?
It isn't to everyone, but it can be measured independantly and objectively with a spectrometer, which will give everyone the same result.Navebob said:why is grass green?
That can be simply and quickly resolved, with little or no ambiguity.how do i know you don't actually see green as blue? think about it.
The earth was spherical even when people thought it was a flat disk siting upon great pillars with a dome holding the stars on top.i don't know, do you? refer to the above response. honestly look at it.
Tenka said:It isn't to everyone, but it can be measured independantly and objectively with a spectrometer, which will give everyone the same result.
We can define green as being within a certain measurement range and grass can be agreed "green" in colour.
That can be simply and quickly resolved, with little or no ambiguity.
The earth was spherical even when people thought it was a flat disk siting upon great pillars with a dome holding the stars on top.
i'm talking about human perception of existence but if you look to a machine to validate what you view, more power to you. i don't think its gonna give you any answers.spectrometer
That can be simply and quickly resolved, with little or no ambiguity.
The earth was spherical even when people thought it was a flat disk siting upon great pillars with a dome holding the stars on top.
p.s. if you do respond, please respond to the original post. in advanced mode - delete the original post, so i can view it more easily. i'm in threaded mode, thank you.navedub said:try and see the individual and not lump all religious people into one category.
If I perceived grass to be blue, I would perceive all objects reflecting such wavelengths as blue. In that case, it would be a physiological issue, similar to red-green colorblindness.navedub said:why is grass green? don't go into a scientific explanation, if you can avoid it. why do i percieve it to be green? and what is green if not just an expression of what i observe? how do i know you don't actually see green as blue? think about it.
you're missing the heart of the metaphor and going off on some tangent about psychology. its a reflection on personal perception as relating to the discussion, which is about tolerance for different points of view concerning existence and the question of a creator/governing of existence.TeddyKGB said:If I perceived grass to be blue, I would perceive all objects reflecting such wavelengths as blue. In that case, it would be a physiological issue, similar to red-green colorblindness.
I don't like metaphors that are not intuitive.navedub said:you're missing the heart of the metaphor and going off on some tangent about psychology. its a reflection on personal perception as relating to the discussion, which is about tolerance for different points of view concerning existence and the question of a creator/governing of existence.
intuition: The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition.TeddyKGB said:I don't like metaphors that are not intuitive.
thelittlegosling said:not quite a debate, think outside the box does not seem an intelligent thing to say. What exactly was meant by these words? Sometimes i feel that it is those who will not use logic to rationalise their beliefs that need to 'think outside the box'. So many young christians i have met refuse to think freely and seem quite ignorant. I hope to meet with a good intelligent debate.
does not seem an intelligent thing to say
also, the metaphor was a response to another conversation i was having with another user. if you wish to fully comprehend why i used it please follow the line of thought we were discussing which was on personal perception.navedub said:intuition: The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition.
take a long look, we're one in the same if you still agree with your above statement.
dunno what that means but every fights a good fight if the fight is for tolerance.b4uris said:Stop the flame wars! Por favor!
1) I have no reason to think you have anything "outside my comprehension", just because I don't believe it, doesn't mean I cannot comprehend it.NaveBob said:oh damn, and we were so close. i thought for a minute there human beings were capable of honoring things outside their own comprehension, of actually being truly humble and seeing the value in all conscious perspective if there's virtue to be found in it.
This discussion started strange and got progressively less lucid.this discussion is not about atheists and christians. are we all starting to see that yet?
You didn't say "you people", who are you talking about/to ?when i say you people i mean the "arrogant assumers of omnipotence".
Can you please explain who you are talking to and what you are talking about here, it might be obvious to you, but possibly you haven't expressed what you mean as well as you could have.yes, even the christian voyeurs who choose not to chime in on this discussion but claim they know the "whole truth" as well. you're all a cut of the same mold. hypocrites
Not by the 1/2 that was understandable.i'd really appreciate it, unless of course you're too upset by my above statement
Tenka said:1) I have no reason to think you have anything "outside my comprehension", just because I don't believe it, doesn't mean I cannot comprehend it.
2) I have no reason to honor people's belief in imaginary friends, nor see any value in it.
This discussion started strange and got progressively less lucid.
You didn't say "you people", who are you talking about/to ?
Can you please explain who you are talking to and what you are talking about here, it might be obvious to you, but possibly you haven't expressed what you mean as well as you could have.
Not by the 1/2 that was understandable.
plain english for those who need it: you intend only to serve you. you do not intend to serve truth. you do not see value in that which you cannot comprehend because you conciously choose not to comprehend it. i have a feeling your brain won't soak that in properly either.1) I have no reason to think you have anything "outside my comprehension", just because I don't believe it, doesn't mean I cannot comprehend it.
2) I have no reason to honor people's belief in imaginary friends, nor see any value in it.
regarding your lucid comment - i am not a robot, you are speaking to a human being who conveys not simply logic when he speaks but also emotion. if you can not make an effort to feel what i feel, i often have to resort to even more emotion filled language. when i ask "are we all seeing this yet?" i mean everyone in this forum who are just as closed off as you.This discussion started strange and got progressively less lucid.
regarding "you people", i guess i made that statement in another response, in which i said, "you people are all the same?", my mistake.You didn't say "you people", who are you talking about/to ?
Can you please explain who you are talking to and what you are talking about here, it might be obvious to you, but possibly you haven't expressed what you mean as well as you could have.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?