Register FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   Evil Empire Forums > Religion & Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 14 votes, 2.50 average. Display Modes
Old 11-06-2012, 01:33 AM   #1
emilynghiem
Senior Member
 
emilynghiem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Freedmen's Town, Houston
Posts: 4,380
emilynghiem has one green dot.  Good for them!
Default Wallis Plad Wouldhe: another example of perception

Dear Wallis, and Plad and Wouldhe:
Here is another example of how we could agree to align our perceptions,
by having faith we are talking about the same things even if our words and ways go in completely different directions or angles:

When you look at a straight stick poking into a pond, we know that because the light travels differently through the water, then the image is "refracted."

Yet we KNOW the "two pieces" of the stick that appear disjoint are actually whole and connected.

So this is like having faith that even though the spiritual laws in the Bible scriptures (which Christian/Jewish/Muslim may use to define and check for truth in resolving error or conflict) are distinct and even appear disjoint from the secular/civil/natural laws that nontheists follow, there is one universal truth about the world and human history which these laws are used to reflect.

We are looking at the same stick, but our perceptions may be biased where we don't see eye to eye on all things. If we know where these distortions cause a bias, then we can still work around those faults and focus on the straight stick underlying our split views.
Attached Images
 

Last edited by emilynghiem; 11-06-2012 at 01:40 AM.
emilynghiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 08:42 AM   #2
OneArm
Senior Member
 
OneArm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,384
OneArm has one green dot.  Good for them!
Default

There's a bit of an issue with your idea.

True, we know the straw is actually one piece. But that's where it stops.

This god of yours only exists because the bible, which was written by a man, says so. So, if there is no bible, then there is no god.

So being able to see past an illusion seems to be extremely hard for "believers". They rather believe in the illusion of a two part straw than understand it's just a play of light and brain farts.
__________________
To Smooth To Be Embarrassed
OneArm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 10:33 AM   #3
Wouldhe
Senior Member
 
Wouldhe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 8,798
Wouldhe has a lot of green dots.  Look at all those green dots!  Wow!!!!!Wouldhe has a lot of green dots.  Look at all those green dots!  Wow!!!!!Wouldhe has a lot of green dots.  Look at all those green dots!  Wow!!!!!Wouldhe has a lot of green dots.  Look at all those green dots!  Wow!!!!!Wouldhe has a lot of green dots.  Look at all those green dots!  Wow!!!!!Wouldhe has a lot of green dots.  Look at all those green dots!  Wow!!!!!Wouldhe has a lot of green dots.  Look at all those green dots!  Wow!!!!!Wouldhe has a lot of green dots.  Look at all those green dots!  Wow!!!!!Wouldhe has a lot of green dots.  Look at all those green dots!  Wow!!!!!Wouldhe has a lot of green dots.  Look at all those green dots!  Wow!!!!!Wouldhe has a lot of green dots.  Look at all those green dots!  Wow!!!!!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneArm View Post
There's a bit of an issue with your idea.

True, we know the straw is actually one piece. But that's where it stops.

This god of yours only exists because the bible, which was written by a man, says so. So, if there is no bible, then there is no god.

So being able to see past an illusion seems to be extremely hard for "believers". They rather believe in the illusion of a two part straw than understand it's just a play of light and brain farts.
Yes, and if the bible said, if you put a stick in the water and it appears to be two sticks it really is two sticks. The believers would swallow that perception hook, line, and sinker even though they could pull the stick out and see that it is one stick. If the bible said it's two sticks then it is two sticks.
__________________
De Opresso Liber.
Wouldhe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 08:06 AM   #4
emilynghiem
Senior Member
 
emilynghiem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Freedmen's Town, Houston
Posts: 4,380
emilynghiem has one green dot.  Good for them!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wouldhe View Post
Yes, and if the bible said, if you put a stick in the water and it appears to be two sticks it really is two sticks. The believers would swallow that perception hook, line, and sinker even though they could pull the stick out and see that it is one stick. If the bible said it's two sticks then it is two sticks.
Yes, Wouldhe, so how do we work with such people unconditionally?
How do we handle people who can UNDERSTAND the split perception is still one stick, and still work with people who insist on calling the one stick as two?

Example: Scott Peck happens to mention a related dichotomy in his book on observing the evil demonic voices that were obsessing schizophrenic patients he was studying the process of exorcism as a form of treatment.

He RECOGNIZED both the fundamental Christians who stuck with a literal timeline of 6,000 years that does not recognize evolution and science, and world history outside this limited framework; AND the more liberal/figurative interpretations that understand older events in a larger framework of creation that may include evolution and pre-human stages of development.

He bemoaned the false division between science and religion, and urged further research that might bridge that gap, EVEN THOUGH he recognized people's perceptions of the human timeline may not change. The same people may keep framing the timeline in their rigid fundamental way; while the others may continue to integrate both science and religious symbolism into a continuous timeline that accommodates both. Even the scientific proof of the spiritual process may not change the minds of those who don't think that way.

Yet he was confident that bridging the gap would still serve greater interests.

I find this fascinating, Wouldhe. The closest analogy I can make of how the theistic and nontheistic minds work, is how some people's sight and hearing may be on different levels or ranges. So the same spectrum of color or sound could be perceived one way by one person, and another by someone else. And it is still the same spectrum or range, but they will argue what parts of it exist or not, depending on the part they can see or hear. The trick is, can we be okay with the fact that other people may see and hear on a level outside our range,
and NOT reject or judge these people as being out of touch with reality.

If one person sees in black and white, another in color, another without reds or greens, can we still work together and share information without this being a problem. Can we try to accommodate the quirks, flaws, biases and even straight out contradictions in each other's views, and work around both the strengths and weaknesses to map out a complete picture we can all live with?

How can we help each other, KNOWING this is going on?
emilynghiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 08:16 AM   #5
emilynghiem
Senior Member
 
emilynghiem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Freedmen's Town, Houston
Posts: 4,380
emilynghiem has one green dot.  Good for them!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneArm View Post
There's a bit of an issue with your idea.

True, we know the straw is actually one piece. But that's where it stops.

This god of yours only exists because the bible, which was written by a man, says so. So, if there is no bible, then there is no god.

So being able to see past an illusion seems to be extremely hard for "believers". They rather believe in the illusion of a two part straw than understand it's just a play of light and brain farts.
No, there are plenty of people who believe in God without using the Bible.
My boyfriend is one. He is a gentile and has no understanding of Christianity in terms of his belief in God. He looks at it purely objectively from the outside, and decides it is doing more good than harm. But he doesn't believe in that or the Bible, just believes there is a God so intangible and greater than anything in teh world in order for there to be such complex and integrated things going on that are not accidental but part of a larger plan, sort of like intelligent intent.

He does not believe such a God intervenes and controls things, he does believe people have free will and need to live with our own consequences instead of praying to some God to change things. He does not believe in a relationship with God through prayer the same way Christians do. he has not seen proof of that, but I believe proof is possible so that Gentiles can understand also. The gentile/secular mind requires proof of things before believing, and I believe God created the scientific mind to be that way so we would seek proof and establish a solid understanding we can observe and share, so I don't judge myself or others for using scientific proof and observation in order to understand how spiritual forces and processes work. So I don't expect ALL people to use the Bible to reach an understnading of God; that is NOT how I came to understand what the Christian relationship with God means, so I don't expect this of other Gentiles.

There are as many ways to teach what this means as there are people on the planet. Whatever people's experience or understanding is, that is the system they may use to understand what God and Christ mean in our lives and relations and global society.

It is still following the same laws of nature that are consistent with the Bible.
But it may not require people to believe in and use the Bible directly themselves. The same laws, if they are truly universal, apply to all people and are expressed in both scriptural laws of religion and the natural laws of science and secular/civil laws.

Whatever laws people believe in, the same spirit of truth and justice fulfills all of them, so any set of laws people prefer can be used to express universal concepts and agree what is the meaning so we can work together as neighbors.

Last edited by emilynghiem; 11-09-2012 at 08:18 AM.
emilynghiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 08:20 AM   #6
OneArm
Senior Member
 
OneArm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,384
OneArm has one green dot.  Good for them!
Default

I would teach the people that think it's two sticks, the science behind the illusion. Then, I would remove the stick to prove to them that it is one stick, not two. After that, if they choose to continue being ignorant, or stupid to reality, then they are a lost cause that is no longer worth my time. I then focus my time on someone new that has yet to see the truth.
__________________
To Smooth To Be Embarrassed
OneArm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 08:36 AM   #7
OneArm
Senior Member
 
OneArm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,384
OneArm has one green dot.  Good for them!
Default

For the people like your boyfriend, that believe in a God, but don't read the bible. Where do you think they got the idea of God from?

If the bible never existed, then your god would have never existed. It would be like in the roman and Egyptian times. A god for everything going that can't be explained. That is, until it is explained, then that God wouldn't be needed anymore. Kinda like the way all their gods are no longer needed now.
__________________
To Smooth To Be Embarrassed
OneArm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 08:57 AM   #8
Wouldhe
Senior Member
 
Wouldhe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 8,798
Wouldhe has a lot of green dots.  Look at all those green dots!  Wow!!!!!Wouldhe has a lot of green dots.  Look at all those green dots!  Wow!!!!!Wouldhe has a lot of green dots.  Look at all those green dots!  Wow!!!!!Wouldhe has a lot of green dots.  Look at all those green dots!  Wow!!!!!Wouldhe has a lot of green dots.  Look at all those green dots!  Wow!!!!!Wouldhe has a lot of green dots.  Look at all those green dots!  Wow!!!!!Wouldhe has a lot of green dots.  Look at all those green dots!  Wow!!!!!Wouldhe has a lot of green dots.  Look at all those green dots!  Wow!!!!!Wouldhe has a lot of green dots.  Look at all those green dots!  Wow!!!!!Wouldhe has a lot of green dots.  Look at all those green dots!  Wow!!!!!Wouldhe has a lot of green dots.  Look at all those green dots!  Wow!!!!!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by emilynghiem View Post
Yes, Wouldhe, so how do we work with such people unconditionally?
How do we handle people who can UNDERSTAND the split perception is still one stick, and still work with people who insist on calling the one stick as two?

Example: Scott Peck happens to mention a related dichotomy in his book on observing the evil demonic voices that were obsessing schizophrenic patients he was studying the process of exorcism as a form of treatment.

He RECOGNIZED both the fundamental Christians who stuck with a literal timeline of 6,000 years that does not recognize evolution and science, and world history outside this limited framework; AND the more liberal/figurative interpretations that understand older events in a larger framework of creation that may include evolution and pre-human stages of development.

He bemoaned the false division between science and religion, and urged further research that might bridge that gap, EVEN THOUGH he recognized people's perceptions of the human timeline may not change. The same people may keep framing the timeline in their rigid fundamental way; while the others may continue to integrate both science and religious symbolism into a continuous timeline that accommodates both. Even the scientific proof of the spiritual process may not change the minds of those who don't think that way.

Yet he was confident that bridging the gap would still serve greater interests.

I find this fascinating, Wouldhe. The closest analogy I can make of how the theistic and nontheistic minds work, is how some people's sight and hearing may be on different levels or ranges. So the same spectrum of color or sound could be perceived one way by one person, and another by someone else. And it is still the same spectrum or range, but they will argue what parts of it exist or not, depending on the part they can see or hear. The trick is, can we be okay with the fact that other people may see and hear on a level outside our range,
and NOT reject or judge these people as being out of touch with reality.

If one person sees in black and white, another in color, another without reds or greens, can we still work together and share information without this being a problem. Can we try to accommodate the quirks, flaws, biases and even straight out contradictions in each other's views, and work around both the strengths and weaknesses to map out a complete picture we can all live with?

How can we help each other, KNOWING this is going on?
Outlaw religion.

Make it illegal to indoctrinate children under 12 to the God concept, religion, and the Bible. This would cut the perpetuality of children being frightened into believing lies, inaccuracies, falsehoods, and fairy tails as being true. It would take a couple of generations for this to have an effect but it has to start somewhere. Right now, children (we) get baptized at birth, get forced to Sunday school where all the fairy tales are told and the fear is implanted. They grow up going to church every weekend still believing in the fairy tales and believe them as truth and pass the same indoctrination on to there children. This is the link that needs to be severed. Once we can get people from believing the biblical malarky and being (key word here) judgemental towards others perhaps we can all get along.
__________________
De Opresso Liber.

Last edited by Wouldhe; 11-09-2012 at 09:05 AM.
Wouldhe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 12:50 AM   #9
emilynghiem
Senior Member
 
emilynghiem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Freedmen's Town, Houston
Posts: 4,380
emilynghiem has one green dot.  Good for them!
Default

No problem with outlawing religious abuse. If you target the "abuse" as the unlawful action, then this could apply equally not just to religion, but also to legal/judicial abuse, or any other form of bullying, harassment, coercion or obstruction of freedom of association, etc. regardless what "religion" or system (from union to corporate bullying) was abused to commit these wrongful acts.
If you just outlaw religion, then people can get around what constitute a religion. But if you ban the specific actions that are harmful, that covers all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wouldhe View Post
Outlaw religion.

Make it illegal to indoctrinate children under 12 to the God concept, religion, and the Bible. This would cut the perpetuality of children being frightened into believing lies, inaccuracies, falsehoods, and fairy tails as being true. It would take a couple of generations for this to have an effect but it has to start somewhere. Right now, children (we) get baptized at birth, get forced to Sunday school where all the fairy tales are told and the fear is implanted. They grow up going to church every weekend still believing in the fairy tales and believe them as truth and pass the same indoctrination on to there children. This is the link that needs to be severed. Once we can get people from believing the biblical malarky and being (key word here) judgemental towards others perhaps we can all get along.
emilynghiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 01:26 AM   #10
emilynghiem
Senior Member
 
emilynghiem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Freedmen's Town, Houston
Posts: 4,380
emilynghiem has one green dot.  Good for them!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneArm View Post
For the people like your boyfriend, that believe in a God, but don't read the bible. Where do you think they got the idea of God from?

If the bible never existed, then your god would have never existed. It would be like in the roman and Egyptian times. A god for everything going that can't be explained. That is, until it is explained, then that God wouldn't be needed anymore. Kinda like the way all their gods are no longer needed now.
1. He came to his own conclusion just by looking at the collection of intricate patterns and processes of life in the world, simple things like how cutting a flatworm in half generates a whole other flatworm. And decided whatever it is that governs all these laws of life in the world comes from a central source.

For every person it is different. For me, I sense that connection to this bigger plan going on, whenever I encounter a really well-produced story or movie that to me is clearly inspired on a divine level in order for all the people and parts to work together that perfectly. Or little things like the simple beauty in wild animals or undersea ecosystems that seem designed to be admired and enjoyed. Whatever brings such great joy, that it feels like a gift, that love comes from somewhere and is meant to be enjoyed and shared. Even when I look at my boyfriend, and his thinking is so different from mine, where we complement each other even when we argue, there is a divine match that is not just random, but I can feel our chemistry was designed to interact together.

2. With other people, the most common themes for what God is to them are things like: love, truth, WISDOM, creation/universe, good will or greater purpose, the faith in good things overcoming the bad side of life, and also the abundance mentality winning out over the scarcity mentality, or faith in love and sharing being more powerful than the fear of not having what you need in life. Variations on those themes. With my friends who are nontheistic about life, we can still talk about what the forces or direction of "life" or "the universe" is heading for or bringing in, and it means the same things as God's will being good and trusting that things are for a purpose to work toward improvement.

These things always existed independent of the Bible. Like the laws of gravity or physics exist independently of expression, before we developed terminology to write them down and show the mathematical calculations involved in explaining the 'relationships' between energy and mass, force, waves, particles, etc.

The relationship between the individual and collective humanity is always there, independent of expression, but then we develop terms in sociology to explain how these relationships work or influence actions or events in life.

So every system of explaining relationships is different, and can be used as a tool to explain and share knowledge and understanding of certain concepts.
Religions are the same way. They can either be used in positive productive ways, or abused in negative destructive ways. The relationships are still there, just like energy, which can be used to either create and benefit the world, or can be abused as a weapon to destroy. And the bigger process going on around all systems is the human learning curve of developing awareness of how we are learning by experience, by trial and error and correction. So even if the systems we create are abused for tribal wars and cause suffering, that is still part of the human learning process of overcoming this stage, and growing to maturity.

We learn by comparing the different systems, and seeing the common flaws but also recognizing the universal truths that each one can be used to teach. And by putting this knowledge together, we can eventually compile the best wisdom and knowledge from each system while correcting the flaws.

3. RE: not needing God anymore after things have been explained
yes and no. We may not need to use these systems for proving or sharing with others if we already reached agreement on those. but for laws facilitating or governing relations, like Constitutional principles, we may continue to refer to those to keep people on the same page, especially when resolving conflicts.
So we may not need to keep teaching from the older textbooks, but for the policies or principles we apply in life, those will continue to be relevant.

the way the Bahai teach it, the different religious leaders were like "history teachers" giving a recap of what went on before, the changes to take place now, and what to work for in the future. So these history lessons were geared for each audience at that point in time, and every stage adds more knowledge to help humanity develop toward maturity. So yes, in a way, we no longer need the old lessons once they are learned and accepted as part of the pattern. But it seems we do need to be REMINDED of our history, to learn and remember the changes we made in the past to correct problems, so we don't repeat them.
emilynghiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off




All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:53 AM.

Copyright 2005 Evil Empire