Printable View
Supporters of the Bible enjoy using 'substitutive meaning'. They will say, "Well if you take this word to mean this, then it makes sense." Is that not falsifying what was originally said? Does that not directly imply that the original statement had an erroneous or misleading element to it?
[Edited by dvst8 on 07-26-2000 at 08:10 AM]
I recall the original question to be "why do we attempt to disprove the bible?"
Your right, there really is no need to disprove it at all. All the conflicting statements and rules do it for us. Besides any true believer would never accept any real proof that the bible or any part of it was incorrect.
I think we do it, so that we may free just one person from getting trapped in the brain washing fear we call Religious Belief.
So I assure you, we are not trying to take you from GOD. We just want to help others make an educated decission before deciding to disable a large part of thier ability to accept facts for the rest of there lives. Its like this code
'**********************
'Defaults when you are born
blnAcceptFacts = True
blnFearHell = False
Do Until blnDead = True
If blnBelieveBible = True Then
blnAcceptFacts = False
blnFearHell = True
Else
blnAcceptFacts = True
blnFearHell = False
End if
If blnAcceptFacts AND Not blnFearHell Then
MsgBox("Your Smarter and living fear free.")
End if
strLearnNewFacts = strLearnNewFacts & NewFact
Loop
MsgBox("Your dead and nothing matters anymore.")
Most religious people were captured while very young, never having a chance to hear the other side of the story. Once you have lived believing these stories as fact for so many years it becomes difficult for the mind to even accept truth when it is presented. It creates a society of people in denial of the real world around them. I think it is a terrible thing. That is why we attempt to provide the other side of the story to people before deciding to commit them selves to a GOD they will never see. That, and the devil asked me to do it.
Yes of course, as soon as you become religious you become a miserable, idiotic, mindless zombie, and the only reason you don't top yourself is because it's against your religion.
Maybe you have never met anyone religious. Most religious people I have met are in a state of near-constant happiness, not quite sure why. I suspect it's the fact that they feel loved by God and they are friends with millions of people that they meet in their religious community. They don't fear hell because they think it's somewhere other people go.
I think someone on this forum said that hell doesn't appear in any Christian writings until the middle ages, and that it was made up to get the peasants to work hard and pay taxes.
I will accept that perhaps religion can get in the way of some ideas, I mean in one US state (Texas?) it is illegal to teach kids about evolution or the big bang, they have to teach creation. That sucks.
I don't think that anybody, let alone someone who would post a message like that, is smart enough to figure out if there's a God. I'm pretty sure that nobody will ever prove or disprove it to anyone else. They might prove it to themselves, but then they just appear to be a bit of a lunatic and people tend to ignore them.
Well HarryW,
I didn't mean to upset you. You are correct, in all the years I have debated religion with Religious people, they appeared the happiest of all the people I knew. However, I personally could not be happy living the way they did. The idea of accepting the Bible as truth without ever questioning it was to difficult for me to do, and I suppose that is why I am not a believer.
In this world of instant knowledge, via the internet, I think we should all try and challenge everything we believe to be true in order to discover the greater truth. Science does this all the time and finds greater knowledge in the process. Yes, theories are disproven everyday. But, at least science accepts the new truths and moves forward.
It is very dangerous for us to teach our children to never challenge things we consider sacred. Anything that is true can only be strengthen at the attack of disproving it. But before we can honestly challenge our beliefs we must first be willing to accept the answer, what ever it should be. In that we find our problem with religion because it is based on unwaving belief in the face of any contrary facts. Nothing good can come from such a principle and nothing has.
The very idea of believing anything without the willingness to accept contrary facts should be considered close minded and dangerous to society. This is true for anything from believing UNIX is the best operating system to not eating meat. So its not just religion but the manor in which we require people to join our faiths. We demand total acceptance without question, for salvation. Its like giving up your mind for the promise of eternal happiness. I guess its true what they say, ignorance is bliss, thats why my religious friends are so happy!
Well, I have chosen to keep my mind and freedom of thought, you can have my soul.
For me, my personal proof exists within my own experience of God. My personal proof convinces me that God exists, but my personal proof may well not extend to convince others that God exists.
I'm not here to try and press my beliefs on to others, but simply to give my point of view. For me I believe in God due to my own experiences and the way I see things. I may be wrong or I may be right. But for me it is something that I believe is right and that is what I will try and live my life to.
The only way that we can really tell (that is, for everyone to be convinced that God exists) is to wait until we are dead, and see what happens. But unfortunately that is a bit late to let the rest of the world know what is happening.
So for me I have a faith and a belief that covers that uncertainty.
Please don't take my comments the wrong way. I'm not here to say that you are wrong and I am right, but simply to state my personal point of view.
Harry
I have a genetic desire to eat, and another to breath
Are you saying that eating and breathing are in my mind?
No? Well don't twist my words ;)
HarryW,
Thanks for referring to my post about hell being created in order to subjugate peasants. (At last, someone has referred to a post of mine!)
Gen-X
Breathing is a reflex action and eating is an impulse, I desire a Ferrari (how shallow am I).
:)
vbsquare
In "Mere Christianity", C.S Lewis puts forth a similar argument. He suggests (paraphrasing here...don't have the book in front of me) that a reason to believe in JC is that when we die, if Christians were right, 'who's side do you want to be on?'. You advance this same argument saying that we'll see when we die, and that you have covered that uncertainty.
At the time I read this book, I classed myself among the Believers. When I read the above passage, I was highly impressed, and figured that this would strengthen my Faith.
But now that I see things from a different perspective, I realise how empty such an argument is. 'Believe in something because you don't want the OPPOSITE to be true'.
Such statements play on the fear of death that many people have. It's almost a threat: 'You'd better Believe, OR ELSE ...' I personally don't fear death in any way, so it's an empty threat.
dvst8
Your right dvst8,
Everyone I ever asked said they originaly came to believe in JC or GOD for fear of HELL. Once, committed they no longer feared and therefore were happy and content. I was the same way when I was young and almost opened my heart to JC for fear of the consequences, now I am glad I did not.
HarryW tells me religious people do not fear hell, but I say thats balony. Everyone fears HELL and desires heaven. So, lets settle this by suggesting that religion stops pushing HELL and Heaven. Lets just see how many followers they get if there are no consequences or rewards.
Everyone I every asked tried to get me in there religion by asking me "What if your wrong?" There right, this question was powerful because initially it seems like I would be giving up nothing more than offering my mere belief in and acceptance of some heavenly ruler. But, if I every did give my unwilling love to a ruler based on these concerns, it would not be sincere. I would think the only way JC could accept my belief in him would be if I had no fear or reward tied to such a faith. So until the threat of HELL and the promise of Heaven are removed from religion, I could never freely and sincerely accept a ruler in heaven and neither can anyone else.
I don't believe what I do because I am scared of what might happen to me if I don't believe. As I said, the reason that I believe in God is because of the experiences that I have had.
I totally disagree with the attitude that 'if you don't believe then you will goto hell!' etc etc. I think that is wrong.
But for me, my experiences of God make me believe and that is enough for me.
Well David, I agree with you that a refusal to receive any different ideas is a bad thing. I think that's one of the ways in which people decide what they think is a cult and what they thing is a religion. Perhaps religion does impair the judgement of new evidence by creating a bias, but that is nothing peculiar to religion.
vbsquare, that is very very close to my outlook on religion.
Gen-X, yes, (surely you were expecting this) I would say they are in your mind. The fact that you need to do both of them to live is the reason that they are present in your mind.
Frank, you're more than welcome :) and I hope one day you get your Ferrari. I'll settle for a Lear Jet. Apparently you can get a Russian jet fighter (with all military ordnance removed ;)) from http://www.iwantoneofthose.com for only 150 grand. Do you think they take credit cards? :D
Oh my mistake, a snip at £175,000 ;)
Read (or listen to) the Book of Job.
http://www.bible.com
http://www.bible.com/bibles.html
Posting of these sites does not necessarily attest to agreeing with their published doctrine.
Interesting.
So Breathing is a reflex action? Actually its not... Its called a "Semi-Autonomous Impulse". I can stop myself from breathing but if I pass out my body will instinctively breath again.
Harry, I am sorry to say this but based on your last comment your a moron ;)
At a genetic level my body requires food to survive, my lungs require air to breath.... and at a genetic level my instincts will attempt to save my life to whatever capacity it can.
While the mind can impose control over these, the end result is always DEATH.
What you are saying is that If I stop thinking about eating I could live forever. :D
No, you are confusing concious thought with the mind.
I am sorry to see that you have stooped to insults because you cannot prove your point and may have to admit you're wrong. It reflects badly on you.
There are only 2 parts of the body which send out nerve impulses to the rest of your body - the brain and the spinal cord (for some reflex actions). If someone removed your brain you would not breath, and you would not eat, in fact you wouldn't do much. Now that's bloody obvious, but you still seem to have this thing about genetics being something to do with thoughts. Genetics obviously will put instincts in place , but how are those insticts enforced? They are somewhere in your mind.
As you say you can impose control over these instinctive, vital functions, but that has nothing at all to do with genes.
What YOU seem to be saying is that if you suppress your instincts with concious thought, you are changing the effect of your genes, something which is completely laughable. Once your instincts are in place in your mind, your genes have nothing more to do with it.
As I said, the reason these instincts are present in your mind is that you need them to live. That's a result of whichever evolution theory you want to believe, and if you didn't have the instincts you would probably die.
Your genes are just a blueprint for your body to be built by, surely you can agree with that? Your very own 'genetic code' is a set of preprocessor instructions run at compile time.
Quite honestly I am amazed that you think people find murder 'genetically' abhorrent, this is one of the strangest opinions I have ever come across. What about murderers, are they genetically defective? Were they born murderers? Come on, explain it, tell me that murderers and those who don't have a problem with murder feel the way they do because of their genes.
*Walks off shaking head*
Harry
Are you saying that the human genetic code does not include something about self-preservation? I'm quite sure that's written into every living organism's genetic code.
Also, there is quite a bit of evidence to show that behavious IS infulenced by genes. So in fact, murderers may quite possibly be predispoped to murdering people. I'm not saying this is absolutely true, it's just something that is being researched quite heavily right now. It comes down to the argument of NATURE vs NURTURE.
dvst8
No that's not what I mean. My point is that genes are a run-once operation. Once your brain has been constructed they have no further effect on your mind. My argument was that the feeling that murder is bad is in your mind, and Gen-X said it was in your genes, not in your mind.
Perhaps we are misunderstanding one another, because in some ways both are true, but in that case it is in both your mind and your genes. My initial statement was that it was in your mind, so if it's in both that validates my statement, and invalidates Gen-X's argument that it is not in your mind.
I almost wrote something in my last post about nature/nurture, and I agree that it is a debatable point whether behavioural deficiency is genetic, but if that is the case, then the behaviour is carried out through the mind, conciously or not.
[Edited by HarryW on 07-28-2000 at 08:56 AM]
Harry
I believe we are misunderstanding each other.
To me the term "mind" and "brain" are 2 different things.
Something which is "in your mind" indicates a conscious thought, a "choice" as it were.
Something which is "in your brain" indicates an autonomous or instinctual reaction.
Genetics is certainly NOT "run-once", they impose upon you every single moment of your lives because they are the whole reason why you remain in the structure you are.
What is it that stops you from turning into an amorphous blob? Or your cells simply wandering into different corners of the room? Genetics.
I disagree with your belief that it is "in your mind" because as I have said it is not a choice. It is however "in your brain" as your brain is the ONLY place that transmits signals (the spinal column sends signals that originated from neural responses).
When you put your hand near a fire you pull it away, that is an instinctual response. The same goes with hunger, breathing, defication and preservation of life.
They are all instinctual responses and Murder is not a case of personal disgust or a moral "choice" but simply the extension of an autonomous response to remain alive.
Well if you want to redefine the terms, then I will agree that it is 'in your brain' as you put it. I don't really consider 'in your mind' to mean only concious thought, but if you have different definition then that's fine.
Your examples of cells turning into amorphous blobs of organic matter - yes that is in some part genetics at work, but those cells are being built at the time genetics come ito play - recompiling a module if you will.
If a tribe across the next hill are stealing your food supply then murdering them must be a good thing because once you've killed them all you and your food supply are safe.
But, for them it is a bad thing (obviously).
Murder then must be contextual.
War is murder, true or false?
Gen-X, will you please just, like, try to understand what I say for once?
Quote:
I don't really consider 'in your mind' to mean only concious thought
I think your definition of 'in the mind' is a bit odd, but I'm willing to accept that maybe you were thinking differently so I'm not going to keep on at you about it.Quote:
Your examples of cells turning into amorphous blobs of organic matter - yes that is in some part genetics at work, but those cells are being built at the time genetics come ito play
And where are you missing the point about genetics and cells? They are involved in the construction of new body parts, I already said that - they are not constantly involved, they are involved in the building of cells. Cells which are then used after they are built. Thus not actually involving the genes any more.
Look, if you haven't got anything useful to say then just don't say anything, this subject is dead, it was dead as soon as it was established that we have different definitions of 'the mind'. I think I'm right by my terms, but if you have different terms then I cannot reasonably say you are wrong, because your opinion is based on your terms.
Frank
Firstly, murder isn't contextual... whether it is seen as good or bad is ;)
Secondly, It is interesting you brought up the issue of War. Some would call it murder and others would not.
The point which I am always curious about is whether a soldier who is performing his duty for his country and following the orders of his superiors would be considered a "murderer".
There is a saying... "All is fair in love and war", which I think kind of explains how war is "exempt" from the murder situation to a degree.
Harry
If I switch a gene on within a cell then that cell changes. Thus genetics are ALWAYS in use.. not just in the cells creation.
But your right... There is nothing more to say on this topic because you aren't willing to even try to redefine what you are getting at under any "mutual" terms of agreement... I'm happy to redefine mine if it will help your understanding... but if you ain't going to move there isn't much point.
Why would I change my standpoint when I'm right? I don't think we're ever going to agree on this, so I'm not going to bother to bang my head against your brick wall any longer. I don't need any help understanding your point of view, you have explained it and I don't agree. I have already said that in your terms I cannot say you are wrong, so I'm not going to. Why sould I redefine my terms to suit your needs? I am happy with my own terms thank you very much.
You're right though, I'm not going to move, and there isn't much point.
Harry
So we are both right but both say the other is wrong because we use different terminology????
Great lot of sense that makes.
The original postulation was you saying Murder is something that a human being has no "explaination" of finding disgusting.
I then told you that there is PLENTY of explaination and gave it to you, indicating it right down to a genetic level.
So going back to the beginning (which all good debates should) do you still believe after all of my explainations there is no explaination of why murder is disgusting???
That was not the original postulation. The original postulation, by kedaman, was that the fear of death is in your mind.
You have decided to have different terms for the mind, and thus have been arguing a different point to me, as far as you are concerned.
You have made no useful comments regarding the way I think of it, so I see no need to bother with your explanations of something totally different, the way you think of it.
How can you be so blind as to think this is a sensible comment? The idea you have presented here is both an inaccurate account of what I said, and flawed anyway.Quote:
So we are both right but both say the other is wrong because we use different terminology????
Great lot of sense that makes.
If I am making my point and you are using terms in a way other than the way I am using them, then we are quite bloody clearly saying things about different points, and neither of us can reasonably say the other is wrong. I have never said you are right about this and I don't intend to. I have also said that since you are using different terms I will not say you are wrong.
Take the word 'Rock'. To an English-speaker, that means a big stone. In German (if my memory serves me correctly) it means 'skirt'. Two meanings for the same word. Neither can be said to be wrong.
It's not that hard to fathom. I am sick of wasting my time explaining this only for you to attempt to patronise me and prove your unimaginable arrogance in your certainty that you are right.
Ah, HArry, have you finally discovered Gen-X real characteristics? A brick wall
I tried to post something a while ago, but i forgot
This shows a one-way path of information coming to you, and the observations being a projection of either reality or illusion. Everything goes trough the Mind part (or the brain you wanted to call it) therefore you can't know if you are in matrix complex or not. A suggestion is that you are alone and therefore murder is impossible.Code:Reality Illusions
| |
\_________/
Observations
||
\/
Mind (or brain or whatever)
||
||
\/
You
OK, i have a very good question for all of you who are stead fast in beleiving every word of the bible. What about all the other religions? What about Greek Gods? What about every single African tribe that pray to 5 or even 10 Gods? Should we dismiss that? Should we go and bang them on the head and say 'No your wrong'? I dont think so. The point im trying to make is if a group of people have nothing to belive in.. they make something. I have never heard of tribes seeing 'religious signs', other than rain or a storm or something like that, and big whooptie doo. We all know where rain comes from and why it happens so it isnt a religious sign. Back to my point, i think that people made all this up. Just like the Easter Bunny and Santa (i know there used to be a real one, but theres no way hes that old).
As Catholic(christian etc) In the past (and still today) most people will go around knocking people around, as far as your question of other religions, we should only tell them the words, and let them decide for themselves, I myself dont belive we should be saying whose right or wrong, it's supposed to be purely out of choice whether or not you want to accept another religion. Also from a biblical point of view, if a certain person had never heard "the word of god" (ie: the bible) they are technically inocent , and have no sins attacted to them, unless otherwise they have heard the laws, and knows the laws of the bible, from a biblical point of view, I belive that if you commit a sin, and you do not know it, then that sin isnt burdened to you, but if you later find out it's a sin you much confess, and so on, blah blah blah.
Romans4:15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.
Reminds me of six years ago when the Attorney General (I think) said, "If we make it legal, crime will be reduced". I got a good laugh out of that one, but it's true.
Do you know how we can have zero crime (against man's law in the U.S.) with one vote?
Can't find the reference now, but there is something about "the law being written on our hearts"; another "everyone is guilty" thing. This one reminds me of my recent speeding ticket when the copper pulled out well over the speed limit after busting my butt.
I went to see an optomologist last week to get my eyes checked.
While sitting there looking at a poster of the human eye I
remarked to the doc that the eye is an incredibly complex
machine. Of course he agreed. Then I said, "Well, what
do you think? Could that be the product of chance?"
He ardently responded, "No sir. That is not the product of mere chance. That is impossible!"
asked a certain singer a few thousand years ago.Quote:
Does not the One who made the eye see?
So, one of the greatest arguments for the existance of God (bible aside) is still the argument from design.Quote:
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree. - Darwin
Sir I. Newton had in his study a celestial globe, on which
was an excellent representation of the constellations and
the stars which compose them. His atheist friend, having
come to visit him one day, was struck with the beauty of
the globe. He approached it, examined it, and, admiring the
work, he turned to Newton and said to him, "Who made it?" "
No one! " replied the celebrated philosopher." The atheist
understood, and was silent.
Some philosopher once said, "the greastest evidence of the existance of God is banana cream pie."
Think it over really long and deep and you'll see that there
is method in that madness! Why does anything 'taste' good?
Why does taste exist. When you answer that then explain the
rest of the human bodily inter-connected functionalities.
They all begin to scream for design and therefore a Designer. Then when you've done that - you'll never
finish - you can start looking at misquitos, birds, plants, etc....ad infinitum.
It is far more ridiculous to suppose that all this intricately
desiged universe, built with obvious purpose and astounding
inter-connectivity just 'evolved' or Big Banged into being
than it would be to state that the Windows operating system
and all it's functionality and apps (that you and I write
with significant efforts to design) just fell into place.
The majority of micro-biologists KNOW there is a God.:eek:
However, they cannot speak too loudly about this since all
of their project supplies, fundings, their credibility and
their chances of getting more work would be abruptly cut
off by government agencies dedicated to theories of
origins based on.Quote:
natural selection
In the words of one such micro-biologist - when candidly asked whether the complexities of the human genome could be the result of chance functions of an un-directed nature -
"No. This requiresand could not possibly be the results of chance". An echo of theQuote:
genius beyond genius
words of Dr. Duquette mentioned above.
Waht is life exactly anyway? Does anyone really know what life itself is?Quote:
In china you can critisize Darwin but not the government.
In America you can critisize the governement but not Darwin
//***************
Besides the great points made by C.S. Lewis in his the abolition of man masterpiece is that without an absolute
intelligence defining an absolute rule of action there are
absolutely no grounds of defending any moral issue
whatsoever and in fact morality itself could not exist.
Read it you skeptics if you dare - no one has ever refuted it!
Without absolute moral law there is no foundation for
arguing any one thing against any other thing (morally).
Who defines right and wrong? Right and wrong themselves cease to exist without the absolute from which to measure.
In fact if no measuring rule exists nothing can be right or wrong.
As for the bible it has been the most hated book in the world since always. Why? This itself is evidence or argument in it's favor.
Voltaire arrogantly claimed that the bible would cease to
exist within his own life time once he got finished proving
it wrong.
25 years after his death a bible publishing house was built where his house stood.Quote:
In twenty years Christianity will be no more. My single hand shall destroy the edifice it took twelve apostles to rear.
The bible has defended itself throughout all centuries in spite
of unending and relentless efforts to destroy it's credibilty.
As for the argument proposed above concerning Adam and God. "Where are you?"
It has little to do with symbolism.
Are you a parent? Have you never said to your child, "What
have you done?" Knowing very well what the kid did! Well
it's the same principal. "Where are you?" Waiting to obvserve the response.
It may be a tender expression of a responsible parent than
some super-spiritual symbolism. Besides, who has never
heard someone cry out things like,"What have you done?!!?" when someone
did something that would bring dire consequences?
These types of arguments against the bible are simply dumb questions with simple straightforward answers to anyone who
takes the time to reflect on the subject.
Most arguments against the bible have been more thanQuote:
Hear the meaning within the word.-
Shakespeare
adequately refuted time and time again - indeed the same old
Bull S*** comes back in every generation. The reason is because
those who dislike it's teachings or whatever never bother
to read the opposition's refutations before opening their mouths!
As for the devil? Well if you don't believe there is an absolute evil and so an absolutely evil one then you're notQuote:
man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but usually manages to pick himself up, walk over or around it, and carry on. W.S. Churchill
living on the same planet as the rest of us.
Go tell that parent who's missing son was just found raped and
mutilated in a city dump garbage can that there is no devil!
Go make friends with some genuine long time satanists and then put yourself on
their bad side and see what happens to you - then come and tell us there is no devil!
Take a good look at the atrocities committed in this present
year. Timor, Kosovo, Africa, the list is long. Last century
was loaded - WWI, WWII the holocaust, the slaughter of millions in China,
an estimated 20M religious and political prisoners living in concentration camps
in former atheist USSR not to mention an estimated 165M
christian martyrs, Pinochet & cie.,
the list is staggering.
Have you never looked real evil in the face? And shuddered?
You've been living in american comfy, easy freedom with all
of our technological conveniences and gadgets for so long
you can't see the devil for the fire!
In the end what you believe or not will not effect facts.Quote:
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.
- Albert Einstein
If you don't believe that men have walked on the moon (I met
a guy who doesn't) that won't change the fact that they
have. And if one believes a lie that doesn't make the lie truth.
After all's been said and done there's a lot more been said than done.Quote:
...man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but
usually manages to pick himself up, walk over or around it,
and carry on. A lie gets halfway around the world before
the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
I am ready to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter.
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'd like to continue this pleasant discussion (I could go on for days) but I have some VB etc to do. ;)
...you said that Microsoft Programs went through a design phase.
While I am on your side for this discussion, I must apply this present point for the Design Argument to the side that design is NOT required for typical Microsoftian results.
Remember this the next time you hit Ctrl-Alt-Delete and end up Cold-Starting anyway.
I will now resume reading the rest of your post.
I'll play along with this....
If the design of us is the proof of Gods existence...
Then the design of disease, mutation, plagues, killer bees, grizzly bears, great white sharks, tidal waves, hurricanes, tornadoes etc is the proof of his utter and total contempt for his creation and his wish for us all to die
Makes sense to me :)
We all die one day.
Jeez, some people are said to be looking at the world through rose-tinted glasses - what kind are you wearing Gen-X? Lighten up, sit back, relax a bit, get one of your millions of girlfriends that you tell us all about to give your shoulders a massage. Drink some cold draught beer. Go to your happy place, and everything will suddenly seem so much better :)
Harry
I would say my glasses are realistic but you have all heard my argument on Optimists and Pessimists and Realists ;)
As for the chill factor, your right, but I don't drink beer and the girls are getting restless that they aren't "the only one" which is causing me grief.
:D
I think Gen-x is a bit more pessimistic than that, but for the glasses, i think they have a variety of filters that you'll never see, even if you compare with your friends. I had an idea that the more different we are, the more realistic we can be, but since 99.9% (or something like that) of our DNA is the same, there's probably only 0.1% of the filters we know about ;)
Then perhaps I see more realistic than anyone.
Who knows where my DNA came from and unlike MOST people my mental conditioning in childhood was given by people other than those who gave me my genetics so it wasn't reinforced.
Perhaps you are, but i don't think you should call youself a realist amongst others then.
What i meant was that the scope of humanity is small, and your scope as an individual is even smaller.
I would actually disagree with that Kedaman.
It takes but a single individual to increase the scope for ALL of humanity so while humanity "as a whole" is limited in the scope that it may have, a single individual can focus to expand that scope and therefor would have a larger scope than the whole.
If this were not the case humanity would never discover anything or get anywhere... only by people who HAD broader scopes than humanity were we able to understand the earth wasn't flat and we were NOT the centre of the universe.
That is something I dislike about a lot of people on this list. They rattle out the "If people who are smarter and more into this than I am haven't thought of it then what chance do I have to think of it"... so they immediately stop thinking and stop searching believing they wont get as far as other people... If everyone had this attitude nothing would ever get done... Einstein would have never bothered because if "other" scientists couldn't come up with Relativity how could he possibly have.
It takes but a single step to get the ball rolling... to question if the rest of the world is taking that SAME step before doing yourself is to force yourself to sit in a small room and NEVER come out.
You may have missunderstood me, Gen-x
I didn't place the common known information as humanitys scope, i placed, by all individuals known information.
Furthermore these individuals can trade this information, and compare it to each others, the common parts are expected to be more true, therefore you have a "wider" scope, therefore you know more.
My point is that does that make it anymore true that 3 people believe in something, than that one does?
Does that make it anymore true that 3 people observe something?
A)
No, not if you believe in a objective universe, if something is true, then it actually is, for everyone.
B)
Yes, if you believe in QM, it's both true and false, but it's more true than false than before.
I have a good example, let's say three spotlights in a dark room. You point them all at the same place, you may see everything verý clearly than if you point just one on that spot, but the scope isn't any larger. But if you adjust the spotlights a bit so that they just overlapp each other a bit, you have a much larger scope.
I think i can build more on this sample, i just want to check if you agree on this,,,