The Word

T

Tyler

Registered Senior Member
My Problem

I've decided to finally write this down. Despite the fact that I don't believe I am intelligent enough to express my thought on this. So try and follow me on this.

Truthseeker, Loone and just about every religious person, this is aimed mainly at you, though I hope everyone considers it.

You guys (I'll use nelson as my primary example as most people here have read my struggles with the infinetly wise nelson) all seem to have the same comment and belief. Something along the lines of; 'I can't prove to you the truth, it is something you must experience. I can only tell you that I have experienced the truth and I am telling you of the truth. I have put much thought and experience into this and I know for certain that I have experienced truth.' (If this was nelson, of course, he would have capitalized 'truth').

You'll notice about now that I'm going to spread sentances out so that it's easier to follow. Like I said, I don't think I'm smart enough to fully express this concept.


So here's what I'm getting from these kinds of statements. You guys are saying that you have experienced this truth. That some form of enlightenment has come to you.

Let's say, as a hypothetical situation, that this enlightenment was religious. That you experienced and now know the truth of God.

So now we havce a situation where a person believes they have seen truth and that God exists.

But what if you then have a person who also had an enlightenment period. What if a man meditated and meditated and the 'truth' came to him and the truth was that there was no God and that there was no meaning to life because there was no God.

And if these two people meet? And the dialogue goes;

Religious Guy - I have seen truth, and it is that God exists.
Non-Religious Guy - I have seen truth, and it is that God does not exist.
R.G. - No, for I have personally experienced this.
NRG - As have I.

How does either person remain confident in their belief? If so many people with opposing views are 100% confident that they are 'enlightened', how does any one of them truly believe their enlightenment is the true one?

Perhaps, despite knowing I wasn't smart enough to say this, I still over-estimated my ability to write all these thoughts.

Let me tell it in short story form, maybe that'll work. Keep in mind, this is all metaphorical, so don't consider it a work of non-fiction. (and yes, I realize a man without hearing could not carry on a debate vocally, but pretend for a second people. It's the only way I can explain what I mean!)



Two men decide to take a journey to a holy temple which, it is said, contains a God in the form of an earthly being. The first man has hearing as his only sense, the second man has only touch has his senses. Both men reach the temple and they enter the temple at the same time. The first man, who has only his hearing waits eagerly for a sound. Immediatly he hears a loud roar and the truth hits him. "The Lord is a lion!" says the first man. "No other beast can make that sound, so God must be a lion!" Just then the second man, who has only touch to sense things by reaches out and feels a rough, hard surface. He remembers that exact sensation and exclaims; "The Lord is an elephant! For I have felt that sensation beforre and it was the same exactly as an elephant!"

The man of sound begins to argue with the man of touch that an elephant does not make the roar of a lion, which the latter man argues that no lion feels the way the elephant did. Neither will budge from his place, and neither will have it any other way.

Now we have two men, both of whom have sensed something, but neither the same thing. Both of whom have seen part of a picture, but not the whole. And both of whom believe ignorantly that they must be right.





I hope that made sense.
 
Last edited:
Tyler
Neither will budge from his place, and neither will have it any other way.


I think you made your point very eloquently.
And the above quote is the crux of it. Maybe the point is that what's been happening is the both of you are trying to convince the other that you're right.

How can you make a blind man see and how can he make you hear?

Stop the fight and agree to differ.
If it gets on your tits so much, put him on your ignore list like I did with Bowser.

Is it the case that you need to convert these people into 'rational' beliefs or that you really want to believe what they say, but don't have the mechanisms?
Either way the path is difficult

You are an extremely intelligent and rational individual for your years (Sorry to patronise but I'm an old fart and it's allowed :D )
So why pull your tripe out for the benefit of these people. They thrive on your input. Don't give it.

Carry on with your excesses, and your moonlit entanglements on rooftops you will find greater pleasure there, and if you go to hell... at least it's warm.
 

I'll go further with an excerpt from a book called 'Small Gods' by Terry Pratchett:

"In the beginning was the word and the word was... Hey you"

"There were all sorts of ways to petition the Great God, but they largely depended on how much you could afford, which was right and proper and exactly how things should be. After all those who had achieved success in this world, clearly had done it with the approval of the Great God because it was impossible to believe that they had managed it with his disapproval.
In the same way, the quisition could act without possibility of flaw. Suspicion was proof. How could it be anything else? The Great God would not have seen fit to put the suspicion in the minds of His exquisitors unless it was right that it should be there.
Life could be very simple if you believed in the Great God Om."

It's a 'good book'

Bill
 
Thank you bbcboy!

"How can you make a blind man see and how can he make you hear?"

An impossibility, of course! I think the difference between myself or Cris or Xev or you and Nelson or Jan or Loony is that the latter group have decided they must be right. I can't speak for all of us in the former group, but I certainly know from previous changes in my philosophy that I could easily be wrong.
 
I've seen that discussion before somewhere. Might have been in philosophy class in school, not sure.
 
Tyler

Yes indeed we could all be wrong.
Just remember that in many years to come when you've finished living your life and following whatever urges you may. If you find that some of them have gone against the doctrines these people advocate all you have to do is say sorry.

HEAVEN AWAITS YOU!

Enjoy your time here in hell :D
 
The best hope is to convince those who insist they are right that they can't possibly know if they are right.

It is not a matter of convincing them they are wrong or that you are right. It is a matter of how to approach an issue that has no apparent easily provable proposition.

The believers only have one methodology - faith.

Non believers only have one methodology - reason.

The argument ultimately boils down to which can determine truth, reason or faith. And that is the study of epistemology.

It is not too difficult to show that faith has no value, however you are then presented with having to use reason to convince people that faith has no value. You can't do that since they are not using reason.

There seems to be no way to win.

However, I believe early education and training on critical thinking may be sufficient. But religions love to gain access to children at an early stage to begin their indoctrination.

Cris
 
Cris:
It is not too difficult to show that faith has no value, however you are then presented with having to use reason to convince people that faith has no value. You can't do that since they are not using reason.

There seems to be no way to win.
Click to expand...

It's worse than that. They've invested so much, emotionally and often financially, in thier delusions that to give them up would be a great shock.

Many people fear change. The thought of losing one's sense of superiority, one's faith in an afterlife, one's justification in this life, must terrify a true believer.

Add to that a basic unfamiliarity with critical and logical thinking, and they will have a devil of a time freeing themselves.

However, I believe early education and training on critical thinking may be sufficient. But religions love to gain access to children at an early stage to begin their indoctrination.
Click to expand...

Yes. That is why we must oppose thier efforts to propagandize in the public schools. But more than that, we must teach our own children to think rationally.

I am quite proud of the fact that my little sisters are learning to think rationally, without the constraints of superstition.

If my mother gave me anything, it was that I was not inculcated in belief. For that I am gratefull.

Preaching to the choir, I suppose.
 
An impossibility, of course! I think the difference between myself or Cris or Xev or you and Nelson or Jan or Loony is that the latter group have decided they must be right. I can't speak for all of us in the former group, but I certainly know from previous changes in my philosophy that I could easily be wrong....
Click to expand...

Tyler, I don’t know about anyone else, but I haven’t accepted that those in the “latter group” are all that they claim to be. Don't think many would disagree that these folks are “too much.” But if you stand back just a bit and take a good look... they are actually way too much. Entirely too much. Lots and lots of evidence showing just how waaaaaaaayyyy too much they are.

And how much energy and effort is put into responding to these people by sciforums members? --hundreds of responses to folk who have not given any evidence so far of being anything more than deliberate spammers. How do we know they believe what they claim to believe? How do we know they are “children” or possess *special* understanding of Vedic and other scriptures--or philosophies? Ask them for anything resembling an intelligent or reasonable reply, and you get nothing but nonsense and/or childish hostility. They give more evidence of being game-players than of anything else.

They have no reason to “budge” from their unswerving “we are right!” positions. Why should they when they’re getting all the attention they could ever want by posting the same ol’ ridiculous stuff over and over?

I can only guess at the reasons behind why some members do respond to them, and one of those reasons would be to keep them here and arguing. Works both ways, though. If no one responds to the nonsense, then the “nonsense” has little cause to stick around (in their current incarnation at least.) And as for that, they're not really "responding." They are reacting or baiting more traps.

I enjoyed your post and appreciate some of the insight you’ve shared with us all. Your choice, of course, to post as you like and to whom you like, but I’ve yet to see how responding to these individuals is doing anything worthwhile for these forums.

Granted, just one member's opinion.

thx,

Counterbalance
 
Counterbalance,

I see my posts here as training for myself. It doesn't matter if my posts are not read, although I do value interactions. But in the end I will have gained invaluable practice at explaining myself and occassionaly having to research something that I hadn't considered before.

If along the way I help others to understand something new then that is a bonus.

At some time in the middle distant future I must take to writing a book or two and/or go into politics for a while.

So sciforums is a good training ground for many basics, although I wish there were more mature and challenging members. No disrespect to anyone here of course, the youngsters are great fun, even truthseeker is good for a laugh.

Cris
 
Cris, for what it’s worth, you are already quite accomplished at “explaining” yourself. If you’ve not attempted to publish so far but really wish to do so, then I’d be amiss if I failed to say: Go For It. Plain and simple: You have the ability.

Publishing successfully usually takes a serious commitment, as you likely know. If you also have the time and don’t object to the amount of effort required to produce a marketable manuscript, then I can’t imagine a more appropriate venture for someone with your “word-wielding” talent.

As for the rest, we all have different values.

“to each his own.”

(and good luck)

~~~

Counterbalance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top