Question for everyone..
- Thread starter Megan
- Start date
I don't understand. And it feels right.
It feels good to allow others to believe whatever they want to. In that way I can continue believing whatever I want to without having to justify or defend myself.
Then I can be an island of stupidity without having to confront a challenge.
I think all beliefs are equally valid and respectable.
It’s called Democracy.
It feels right.
Oh…unless what the other believes is prejudice, sexist, atheist or racist…then they should be shown the error of their demented ways.
Furthermore I believe, because it feels right, that Atheists must disprove God and not theists prove God.
Thanks Sciforums.
Stupidity is nice.
Then I can be an island of stupidity without having to confront a challenge.
I think all beliefs are equally valid and respectable.
It’s called Democracy.
It feels right.
Oh…unless what the other believes is prejudice, sexist, atheist or racist…then they should be shown the error of their demented ways.
Furthermore I believe, because it feels right, that Atheists must disprove God and not theists prove God.
Thanks Sciforums.
Stupidity is nice.
That is just plain wrong, if not evil.original said:
This forum has taught me that we are all of the same space-stuff, all vibrating energy fields.
We all deserve the same respect and love and compassion.
Nobody’s opinion is inferior or superior but equally valid, if it does not hurt anyone.
Our essence carries on and is reintegrated within a new material form, so we carry the wisdom of generations within us.
Thanks Sciforums.
Here are some examples:
http://911-for-dummies.blogspot.com/
http://www.thesignsofthetimes.net
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
http://911-for-dummies.blogspot.com/
http://www.thesignsofthetimes.net
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
Megan said:
There are people who just don't understand.
There are people who fear because they do not understand.
There are people who are decieved.
There are people who Love evil and Hate good.
There are all different types. You cannot lump everyone into one group.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
Ross and Ward of Stanford University give a detailed outline of a similar concept (pp. 110–11). They coin the phrase ‘naïve realism’, and describe the concept as follows:
1 - That I see entities and events as they are in objective reality, and that my social attitudes, beliefs, preferences, priorities, and the like follow from a relatively dispassionate, unbiased and essentially ‘unmediated’ apprehension of the information or evidence at hand.
2 - That other rational social perceivers generally will share my reactions, behaviour and opinions—provided they have had access to the same information that gave rise to my views, and provided that they too have processed that information in a reasonably thoughtful, and open-minded fashion.
3 - That the failure of a given individual or group to share my views arises from one of three possible sources:
***The individual or group in question may have been exposed to a different sample of information than I was (in which case, provided that the other party is reasonable and open-minded, the sharing or pooling of information should lead us to reach an agreement);
***The individual or group in question may be lazy, irrational, or otherwise unable or unwilling to proceed in a normative fashion from objective evidence to reasonable conclusions; or
***The individual or group in question may be biased (either in interpreting the evidence or in proceeding from evidence to conclusions) by ideology, self-interest, or some other distorting personal influence.
I prefer the term ‘subjective realism’ to the more pejorative ‘naïve realism’; for me, ‘naïve’ tends to make this syndrome sound undesirable. Rather, thinking in these ways is natural—it is clear that this influence is frequently at work in most people’s lives—the only undesirable part is when we don’t recognise it in others or ourselves.
1 - That I see entities and events as they are in objective reality, and that my social attitudes, beliefs, preferences, priorities, and the like follow from a relatively dispassionate, unbiased and essentially ‘unmediated’ apprehension of the information or evidence at hand.
2 - That other rational social perceivers generally will share my reactions, behaviour and opinions—provided they have had access to the same information that gave rise to my views, and provided that they too have processed that information in a reasonably thoughtful, and open-minded fashion.
3 - That the failure of a given individual or group to share my views arises from one of three possible sources:
***The individual or group in question may have been exposed to a different sample of information than I was (in which case, provided that the other party is reasonable and open-minded, the sharing or pooling of information should lead us to reach an agreement);
***The individual or group in question may be lazy, irrational, or otherwise unable or unwilling to proceed in a normative fashion from objective evidence to reasonable conclusions; or
***The individual or group in question may be biased (either in interpreting the evidence or in proceeding from evidence to conclusions) by ideology, self-interest, or some other distorting personal influence.
I prefer the term ‘subjective realism’ to the more pejorative ‘naïve realism’; for me, ‘naïve’ tends to make this syndrome sound undesirable. Rather, thinking in these ways is natural—it is clear that this influence is frequently at work in most people’s lives—the only undesirable part is when we don’t recognise it in others or ourselves.
so if its true I guess the next q is what to do when others don't see it as true
