This page is part of the archives of the IshCon.org discussion forums, as they existed from November 2002 to January 2007. Some links and other content references may be outdated or broken. For more information about IshCon, visit www.ishcon.org.
Topic: Why people refuse to change
Part of the forum "Speakers Corner" in the IshCon Forum Archive
| Poster and Date | Post |
| maha Sun May 8th, 2005 at 09:19 AM |
When we talk about "being the change" and leading by example, this means that we are trying to influence others by showing them how to live in accordance with certain principles. However, I've noticed that this is often counterproductive when it comes to changing minds. You would think that people would see you behaving in such a way, and that they too would try to emulate that. I mean, if you were doing something positive, the intuitive thing for them to do would be to follow suit. However, I've noticed that people will not only continue in their ways unabated, but that their resolve to "misbehave" is often strengthened when they see someone doing what they themselves should be doing. It's like they realize that you are doing something positive and that they know they are doing something wrong, but yet they don't care. And just to spite you, they continue to remain fixed in their behaviors, and often, will even embelish their negative behavior as a result of your own positive actions. My belief is that they do this because they know they are in the wrong, and they are really mad at themselves. But instead of taking accountability for their actions and changing, they just shift the blame on you, and in some way, try to make themselves feel better by saying "See, I don't care what you do, I'll do what I want, even if it's to my own detriment." I was wondering if you all had any experience with this, or any insight you could share about this phenomenon. To me, it's quite perplexing. :?: |
| Nene Sun May 8th, 2005 at 09:46 AM |
Hey -- My first reaction is that you are talking aplles and oranges.... When someone tries to behave 'better' than his neighbors, there is a (quite natural, IMHO) backlash because people don't LIKE to be made to feel guilty. They don't like the cockiness/arrogance/etc implicit in such 'better behaved people'.... But when we talk about being the change you want to see.... we are not (or at least I am not) talking about showing people how to be better.... we are talking about showing people how they can have happier, more comfortable, more secure lives. For illustration.... imagine Jane Homemaker, twenty years ago, with the only house on the block that recycles. She has six bins set up in her kitchen, she runs around the neighborhood sorting through here neighbors garbage for recyclables, and she at least, implies, that she is better for doing so (even if she is blatently sweet, her actions make here neighbors feel like they aren't doing enough...) Now, switch that around and imagine Judy Homemaker, with a fabulous vegetable garden in her back yard.... out there whiling away her summer afternoons, offering an occasional tomato or cucumber to her neighbors, talking about how much she loves that fresh produce as compared with the stuff you can buy at the grocy store.... willing to help any of her neighbors that maybe are interested but don't know how to go about setting up a garden of thier own.... and so forth. In the first case, a few neighbors might be 'guilted into' sorting thier trash. In the second case, any number of neighbors may come peering over the fence to see what she's doing, how its done and wondering how they can get a piece of that. Janene |
| PiperErickson Sun May 8th, 2005 at 11:31 AM |
Hey I'm with Janene here. "Trying to change" people doesn't work, I think we can mostly agree on that. Assuming one is doing things the right way is a good way to tick off other people. I think most people have pretty finely tuned "arrogance" detectors. Sharing with open-minded people is much more fruitful, because there is respect and reciprocity. You learn something from them, they learn something from you. :) Nobody has a monopoly on wisdom or knowledge (except maybe.... - Joe |
| maha Sun May 8th, 2005 at 12:22 PM |
Hey, good examples Janene. And I know what you and Joe are talking about with the whole "coming across as arrogant thing." However, this is all part of this phenomenon that I'm wondering about. Because there may or may not be any intentional arrogance being cast out by the person doing the "positive" things. It's just a matter of people perceiving it as arrogant. Here's an example of my own: There's two roomates... One roomate works out; lifts weights all the time so he can stay in shape. He has a high metabolism and does eat a lot of junkfood, but it doesn't matter, he never gets fat (in part because he works out). He doesn't smoke cigarettes and tries not to drink because of his healthy lifestyle he's trying to live. That's the first guy... The other roomate--he is very different. He is naturally heavy set. He hardly ever works out because he cannot commit to it. He smokes cigarettes and eats just as much junkfood, if not more, than the other roomate (even though his metabolism is much lower). This roomate is very jealous of the other because he is fat and has a lot of unsightly stretchmarks--no doubt because of his ridiculous eating habits. He is very self-conscious about his physique, especially when he is around his fit and attractive roomate. He is also deeply jealous that his roomate can go around without his shirt off, to the pool or beach or what not, yet he cannot because he is so ashamed of his body. He resents his roomate because he knows that he knows he looks better than him and women like his body more. He thinks that he is flaunting it in his face and he has animosity because of it, but he hides it well so as not to reveal his true feelings of inferiority. Sometimes he feels like his roomate is just trying to show him up, even though the other roomate is just working out and living a healthy lifestyle because that's what he personally wants to do--because he enjoys the benefits of physical well being. That's just a hypothetical example of course, but do you get were I'm going with it? |
| Bongcart Sun May 8th, 2005 at 02:16 PM |
I have found that people arent as rigid as I once thought they were. After I read Ishmael my constant thought was "people will never accept this". But this only made me act strange and avoidant. And people dont like that kind of attitude. They like someone who is sure of what he is doing and of what he can do. I personally feel that the worst people are the meeks, those who cant decide for themselfes what to do, and they always has to ask anyone else for everything. Weakness is frustrating and turns down the quality of life. And I think maybe this is the syndrome of takerdom. The belief that knowledge on how to live isnt attainable, makes people constantly reaching out for guidance from someone else. Yet at the same time feeling inferior and jealous of people who manage to live on their own steam and doesnt have the same "strange illness" as they have. The guy you take as an example, the one who feels embaressed about his own body, I dont think he is really ashamed of his body, he is just kicking his own butt because he doesnt believe that he can succeed with something himself. What he could do is to put that butt kicking energy into something that is a bit more rewarding but first one thing has to be realized. Everyone has a positive source within themselfes. Its the ability or talent for life and positive life. Without having to get religious here I can take an example. A person who is convinced of his own worthlessness, seeks and sees affirmations everywhere on how worthless he is, like that roommate of yours. The other guy doesnt have that idea about himself so he can put his energy in things that gives a more rewarding outcome. Kicking oneself in the butt just doesnt work as long as you hold on to the idea that you are worthless. It just turns into a negative spiral. People with low self-asteem will go on and on testing people around them, to see if they can validate their feelings. Bringing change into the world means that you naturally stop agreeing with people who come with these suggestions. By simply refusing to play the game of these people you automatically show another way for them to relate to things. Taker culture is a culture of dependancy and infantility because there is almost seen as a virtue to not know how to live life. It is seen as humble and what not. But it is not humble, it is stupid and arrogant because when you think you dont know what you want, you welcome the tyrant into your life. And the tyrant doesnt have to be a real one, although in taker culture it is. But for that roommate of yours, his tyrant was one who perhaps demanded change. As long as he keeps his image of himself as a meek, the tyrant wont go away. This is typically taker to me. A culture of meeks and tyrants. The meek has to stop acting like a stupid dependant child, then the tyrants will automatically disappear. Besides, that roommate shouldnt perhaps even have to compare himself to that other fellow. He should first of all find out about his own strengths, his own mana - spirit. Really believe that he has something that is worth much more than a sixpack on the beach. |
| Ludi Sun May 8th, 2005 at 02:39 PM |
Some people may refuse to change because they feel they are already doing the right thing or doing it "their way." |
| Killer Sun May 8th, 2005 at 04:45 PM |
Hey Maha, I think trying to change people is pointless. I've been debating on the other forum for a long time and no matter how compelling my arguments against the existence of gods are, people will choose to believe whatever they want. You can't really make someone do something they don't want to. The only responsibility you have is to yourself and your beliefs. I believe that morality is subjective and it is up to the individual to decide what is "right" and what is "wrong." Killer |
| Killer Sun May 8th, 2005 at 04:48 PM |
BTW, I liked your "hypothetical" roommate scenario. It made me laugh. Killer |
| mindtear Sun May 8th, 2005 at 05:15 PM |
Maha, I used to have problems with arrogance too. Edit: In fact, I still do. I know exactly the frustration of people "just perceiving" me that way, as if I didn't contribute to it. I was also arrogant. Not that I knew it or anything, or that I believed other people when they said it, but I was. It came across in my approach to people, my concern only for myself, my vast bitterness and contempt for the general public, and lastly, of course, in my blatant arrogance. So if you're confounded by other people's perceptions of you, it might be helpful to actually LISTEN to them. Like when I told you a few weeks ago that you come across as arrogant - that was my attempt to not attribute it to your personality, such that you might be able to accept it and change. But rather, you brushed it off as other people's fault, and so now here we are again. You can't try to change someone, and not be arrogant. Obviously, if you are expressing that the other person is inadequate and that they need to do these things, you are either 1. a hypocrite or 2. thinking that you are better. Trying to change someone is the ultimate slap to their existence - you're sending all kinds of messages by doing that. Think of an evangelical Christian. I shudder when I think of them, because they annoy the crap out of me. But why do I shudder? Because they are arrogant, because they believe that I am somehow inadequate, because they tell me that they have a ebtter way, and because often, they're the biggest fucking hypocrites I've ever seen. Now, I imagine that you're coming across the same way. I don't know how you approach people "in public" or what you say, but if it's remotely similar to how you come across here, it's simply no wonder why they think you're arrogant. so. This might have been a bit harsh, but it's all been completely honest. If you want to change, and consequently what you do to change is up to you. What helped me get past my own arrogance was realizing that I can learn from everyone, and that trying to change people didn't work. That's why I've often said that changing minds is not an action - changing minds is not active-voice in my mind - it is rather a retrospection after the connection and communication of ideas. Maybe this thread should be re-titled "Why trying to change people fails"... To note - overcoming my arrogance has taken immense conscious effort, but I notice that people around me have warmed up to me an incredible degree already. I often revert back into some of my older communication styles, however - and am able to feel the person withdrawing. I find that it helps to focus on the other person, to find common ground, to help them feel listened to... and if they are ready for a piece of my message, only then will I communicate it. Hope that helps in some way, shape, or form... Peace, Devin |
| raku Sun May 8th, 2005 at 05:17 PM |
Hey Killer, nice to meetcha. Just out of curiosity... why do you feel the compulsion to convince people that gods don't exist? Raku |
| JCamasto Sun May 8th, 2005 at 05:23 PM |
May the not-gods have mercy on Maha's roommate. The whole scenario got me thinkin' - maybe there is a hell on earth....? -Jim |
| MidnightBoos Sun May 8th, 2005 at 05:49 PM |
{baleeted!! :D } anyway, this doesn't address the real question. the real Q being: "Why do people do the opposite of what you show them, even to their detrement? ok. my sister has celiac disease. she got tested and everything (she's also...a hypochondriac rather). she cannot understand why i do not want to suddenly go gluten free and be all wonderful and thin and happy and fit and a shiny happy shithead. just like her. why? because i trust myself to figure myself out. i am not my sister. my sister actually represents everything i can't stand about people. maybe people know they'd like to be themselves and do things themselves. they don't want you to tell them, or do in front of them. "Cooking gluten free is sssoooo easy" "here, try this, it's gluten free" "_____ hasn't been sick since we went gluten free" "do you want to come to the gluten free pot luck dinner?" "you'd lose that weight if you went gluten free" "you're so pale, are you sure you're ok?" "you'd have so much more energy if you went gluten free" "i think you have this too, you should get tested" "it's hereditary" "your daughter could have it" "Gluten free cures autism" (false) "how can you call yourself an advocate for the disabled if you don't put your daughter on this diet?" "don't you care?" finally i told her to fuckoff. MB[/color] |
| ProjectPurity Sun May 8th, 2005 at 11:43 PM |
initiating the use of another's kids as a leverage point is one of the worst mistakes someone can make in attempting to alter someone's mindset. True understanding of that right here. :wink: anyway, I think the idea of preaching a change is really hit and miss. Your technique of pointing out what you are doing may repell some. Others that you know would completely get it and welcome the change if they weren't so stuck in what they are doing at the moment. Either way, there is certainly a tossup in which works better, and i think it boils down to an individual level. You can either live the way you wish and figure out how to do it well, or you can do all that and tell everyone else how great it is and how they should do it, or you can just tell people how you'd LIKE to be living even though you aren't doing it at the moment. I guess my bias comes out in that statement. This is certainly something that i am becoming increasingly capable of doing. My case is always that my methods of going through life are brought into question, and i always explain it as that i am handling this specific situation with the same mindset that i would handle any other situation. My mindset going into that decision or whatever is (insert personal belief system here) and i value that, so i try to live it out as best i can. That seems to at least bring understanding to people. JB |
| tonyz Mon May 9th, 2005 at 08:09 AM |
Getting people to change is still the same meme as conquering tribes, evangelism, and all the other attempts and successes to make the world a one way order! When civilization no longer works for the people who are still in it, they will look for a better way, just as you have. The only way to help others is to be a living example of something other than civilization. TonyZ |
| Bongcart Mon May 9th, 2005 at 09:16 AM |
Tonyz "Changing someones mind" doesnt have to look the same all the time. We are dealing with existential questions and I think that most of the time people are informed enough to change their position on things once the issues has been raised. I have seen that people actually LIKE to be informed on these things because they are on a deep level very interested about them. I cant see this as being the same thing as how people used to evangelize or convert others in historical times, wich were not seldom done under threats to violent retribution. Some people that are harder to discuss with becomes scared of the questions and usually try to lead the discussion into a competition. If you go back to Ishmael the protagonist is actually angry with the ad because it reminds him of his own struggle of asking questions that were never answered or perhaps answered in a way that was confrontational. This has to be taken into account when discussing with people who feel confronted with these things. They may associate the issues to a situation where they themselfes felt completely helpless in the face of an "omnipotent" representative of mother culture. To set an example is ofcource the first thing one has to do in order to even begin to accomplish any change, but it doesnt have to stay there. But Im all for having to have a good hold on the ideas you are about to discuss with other people before you engage in a dialouge. Knowing what kind of questions people will raise once a subject is being raised. To avoid confrontations and conflicting situations. But we shouldnt be afraid of these issues, and we shouldnt be afraid of voicing them. Because they are absolutely perfectly valid questions that has been overlooked or ignored for a long time. We has to realize that they are existential questions too, because whenever we discuss our lifes and what we are doing we will inevitable have an existential discussion. We have had these discussions before, so you recognize my arguments here but I bring them up once more. In our modern post-modern times when it is fashionable to have the attitude of "noone can know anything anyway so anything is equally valid" we have to disagree with this. We cant on the one hand claim to have the answer to the dilemma of world destruction, while on the other hand say that any way to think about the world is okay or doesnt matter. We are forced to take a stand on what we know to be facts. On our side we have things that can be proven and understood through logic and empirical observations, so we dont just have to put our faith in some text, even if we do have a text that is excellent in bringing light to the blind spots of the cultural worldview. It is about choosing sides in matters of facts, but taking a side doesnt mean that it has to lead to violent conflict. What matters most is that you protect your ability to think for yourself. And thats the attitude in changing minds as well, you cant shove facts down peoples throats, but give room for them to develop their own minds. Ishmael gets tired of the protagonist because he didnt think for himself but were beginning to become a passive listener. So my question is how do you foster this attitude in others as well? How do you draw out the inquisitive, positive, curious and active qualities that we are looking for here? Ishmaels method was maeutics, I have found others that are of a more artistic form. The key is to activate. |
| Nene Mon May 9th, 2005 at 09:22 AM |
Hey -- On plan old changin minds... Quinn was spot on when he said (paraphrased) 'a person is either ready for an idea, or not.' If someone is ready for our ideas, they will soak it up like a sponge. If not, then no amount of logic, reasoning or impassioned plea will make the slightest difference (except, perhaps, to engage their resistance) Janene |
| tonyz Mon May 9th, 2005 at 10:01 AM |
A fact is only a fact if it belngs to both parties. You have fact A:Civilizaiton is the cuase of huan suffering They have fact B:God will take care of the suffering in the afterlife You can't reason or wrestle facts into, or out of, a person. You may have success in creating change in peope who already listen to you, like your friends and your family. But just because something has become empirical to you doesn't mean it will even become empirical to everyone, not even those who are self evident. How many people who have seen or read this left behind shit, or watched the revalations movie on NBC, are going to be just standing around doing nothing in the evvent of ac rash, because they think it is the rapture, and God is about to Zap them to heaven? How many people are going to starve to death waiting for that to happen? Even in the crash, the cause of suffering, and the end of suffering, won't even be seen as that. What about the people who lose their faith, and care about nothing once the crash settles in? How many people will die of suicide, nihlism, lonliness, depression, and anger? On the other side, what if civilization bounces back? What if the melt the moon and turn it into a giant solar factory? Then there's biodiesel... but I'm not making that arguement today. What I'm saying is that in it's smallest possibility, in the romantic Ayn Randian sense, our "facts" may not be facts in the future. Really, the truth is relative once it is expressed outside of it's "bubble." What needs to change from today is that we don't have a one world "bubble" of truth, the one right way, and we don't have individual "bubbles," either. We need bubbles of truth that are about 50-150 people large! That is what has demonstrated itself as the way that works "best." The individual "bubbles" must begin to see how it can connect with other bubbles. They can only form their objective truths INSIDE these bubbles. There can never be an injected truth! TonyZ |
| Hypnopompia Mon May 9th, 2005 at 10:36 AM |
"tonyz" wrote: A fact is only a fact if it belngs to both parties. You have fact A:Civilizaiton is the cuase of huan suffering They have fact B:God will take care of the suffering in the afterlife You can't reason or wrestle facts into, or out of, a person. I think a better phrase than fact here would be "acceptable premises." Our arguement goes: Civilization causes suffering. We want to avoid and/or minimalize suffering. Therefore: We want to avoid and/or minimalize civilization. Only if one can accept the first two statements can the arguement be sound and cogient. If, however, you have the additional premise that God wants man to be civlized and will save everyone from suffering in the afterlife, then the arguement goes like this: Civilization causes suffering. We want to avoid and/or minimalize suffering. God wants us to suffer now to prove our worth to not suffer in the afterlife. Therefore: If we do not stick with civilization we will not not suffer. (I use the double negative due to the nessesity of the arguement. In logic "not not suffering" is not the same as "suffering". Just go with it.) They add one more premise and the conclusion changes. Now, we don't consider that premise acceptable, but they do. In order to get around it you must either get them also consider that premise unacceptable or to add a fourth premise that pushed the conclusion back in the other direction. Most of us would be objectively categorized as animistic, panthestic, agnostic, or atheist (regardless of whether or not we personally object to any form of categorization) and do not believe that God, presuming the existance of such a being, would want us to suffer for the purpose of suffering. Nor do we believe that God would want us to destroy the rest of his creation. Perhaps the argument: Civilization causes suffering to all of creation. We want to avoid and/or minimalize suffering. God wants us to suffer now to prove our worth to not suffer in the afterlife. That suffering should be limited to humans. Therefore: We should find a way to suffer without harming the rest of creation, and we should, therefore, develop something that is not civilization. Here is an example sub-argument in favor of "That suffering should be limited to humans." Humans carry the burden of original sin. Nothing else sined in such a way. That burden should cause the carrier to suffer. Therefore: That suffering should be limited to humans. Would be a step in the direction of a paradigm change. I don't know what the change would be, where it would end, what it would do, or how effective it would be, but...perhaps. The problem here would be arguing that civilization inherently causes that suffering, and that the rest of creation can suffer. |
| tonyz Mon May 9th, 2005 at 11:41 AM |
Hey those aren't bad ideas at all. Even fundamentalist christians will agree with you. However in your arguement, it doesn't deal with the root of the suffering of civilization, patriarchy. This is the trick. You may be able to sneak in feminism, enviromentalism, peace, and allthese other programs, but then why do we still ahve just as much suffering now as ever? It's the patriarchy. It's the heirarchy that patriarchy creates. People are verycomfortable in their patriarchy, that even for those in the throes of it's oppression, anything other than it is too unfamiliar, to uncomfortable to deal with... TonyZ |
| Bongcart Mon May 9th, 2005 at 11:50 AM |
No, a fact is a fact regardless if someone believes in it or not. A fact doesnt appear because people agree with eachother, a fact is something that is shown to be correct every time it is being demonstrated. Then there will always be those who refuse to look or understand because the fact conflicts with some cherished belief of theirs. And thats the conflict that the religious has with science. They just cant get their heads around that they may be wrong and that what naturalistic science can show is correct. But in my opinion, those people are best left alone. |
| tonyz Mon May 9th, 2005 at 11:59 AM |
When you let go of Empirical Truth, you can see the lights of truth that pops up here and there. But that means letting go of all Empirical Truth, including things like Science(as a belief system). TonyZ |
| maha Mon May 9th, 2005 at 12:16 PM |
Bongcart wrote: Quote: No, a fact is a fact regardless if someone believes in it or not. A fact doesnt appear because people agree with eachother, a fact is something that is shown to be correct every time it is being demonstrated. Then there will always be those who refuse to look or understand because the fact conflicts with some cherished belief of theirs. And thats the conflict that the religious has with science. They just cant get their heads around that they may be wrong and that what naturalistic science can show is correct. But in my opinion, those people are best left alone. Exactly! I knew there was a reason I liked you bongcart. :wink: However, most Ishies will of course disagree with your statement because you used the word "wrong"--a big taboo no-no here at Ishcon. Plus, they don't like to think of things as having a true answer or an absolute factual foundation. You know, the whole "everything is relative" thing. But my standpoint is this: It is error alone that needs belief and opinion to support it; the truth can stand for itself. Nene wrote: Quote: On plan old changin minds... Quinn was spot on when he said (paraphrased) 'a person is either ready for an idea, or not.' If someone is ready for our ideas, they will soak it up like a sponge. If not, then no amount of logic, reasoning or impassioned plea will make the slightest difference (except, perhaps, to engage their resistance) Exactly! This is why Killer eventually realized the futility in going on faithforum and trying to convince christians that religion is bullshit. The last part of your post Janene is also what prompted me to start this thread. Because by providing more facts and evidentiary support, you only increase people's resolve to not believe you and to resist accepting what you say. This is the counter-intuitive mindset I'm trying to explore. Thanks for your comments everyone. :) |
| raku Mon May 9th, 2005 at 01:24 PM |
Science can be just as dangerous as religion. Look at animal testing. I don't think that religion is bullshit at all. There was recently a very good "Is religion good/bad" thread at Anthropik, which quickly degenerated into a "does God exist/not exist" thread (yours truly as guilty as the rest of 'em for that! :D ) But this seems like another case of the "all or nothin'" mentality rearing its head. http://anthropik.com/2005/04/how-to-save-the-church-an-open-letter-to-his-holiness-pope-benedict-xvi/ (the debate starts from comment 11) I'm working on articulating my personal feelings about science vs religion, but I'm not quite there yet. I'll post it when I am, though. Raku |
| mindtear Mon May 9th, 2005 at 01:50 PM |
"maha" wrote: But my standpoint is this: It is error alone that needs belief and opinion to support it; the truth can stand for itself. This "objective" "absolute truth" argument is very reminiscent of evangelical Christianity. Would you like it if someone tried to impose their Absolute Truth on you? Hey, it's FACT. To them. Just as your fact is fact to you. You preach your Absolute Truth to others, just as other people preach their Absolute Truths (with equally dismal results). This is why people are resistant. They believe in something else than you do, and since you both believe in absolutes, you're at an impasse, and arguing with them is only going to divide the camps even further. This is why believing in absolutes is foolish. There is no empirical Truth - that is based wholly on the assumption that humans have the capacity to understand the universe... and with our limited brains and our five measly senses, I find this belief to be completely laughable. You may use the 2+2 = 4 argument all you want, maha, but numbers and math remains a concept that humans have created in our mind. The world as you understand it is based on your own limited perception. Thinking otherwise is rather ironic - you're using your own limited perception to think that you have an objective perception. Claiming objectivity makes you impossibly arrogant, and was one of the main reasons other people were so repulsed by me. When you claim objective truth you can be none other than a hypocrite, and most everyone can see straight through hypocrisy. Peace, Devin |
| maha Mon May 9th, 2005 at 02:31 PM |
Raku wrote: Quote: I don't think that religion is bullshit at all. Again, what you think about religion, doesn't change what religion actually is--which is bullshit (no offense). BTW, the discussion about religion on that Anthropik link you gave is way too esoteric for my blood. I tried to skim through it, but I just couldn't swallow it. mindtear wrote: Quote: Would you like it if someone tried to impose their Absolute Truth on you? This is reminiscent of political banter. Because you are making it seem like being told a fact is some sort of terrible imposition, when in reality, I am just sharing a fact with you. 2+2=4 Devin--See, I am not imposing the laws of mathematics on you by saying that. I am just saying "Hey, there is this scientifically proven thing called math, and here is what it states." (Then tonyz will interject and say something to the effect of science being the simulacrum, and irrationality is the only objective truth--heard it all before dude, and still don't buy it...but I still love you big T. :) ) And this is exactly why humanity is so divided. Even like-minded people can't even agree that facts are facts. It's a flaw alright, but I question whether it is a flaw on my part, or yours. And Devin, just because (relating back to my original example) I have a six pack, doesn't make me arrogant. And just because I believe that science is absolute, doesn't make me arrogant. Interestingly enough, I think you have unwittingly proven my point. Because you've taken something positive that I am doing (whether it be working out or sharing universal truths) and twisted it into an argument of hypocrisy and arrogance--of which I am entirely not trying to convey. Hmm...It seems we are getting deeper and deeper into this rabbit hole of "refusing change." I wonder what lay at the very bottom--perhaps it is indeed an absolute truth--about what, that I don't quite know yet. Keep digging guys. :idea: |
| raku Mon May 9th, 2005 at 02:48 PM |
Okay... I asked Killer previously, and I'll ask you: Why do you feel so compelled to convince people of the bogusness of religion? In addition, does your confidence in science make you feel superior to more religiously-minded people? Because I think that's what people are reacting too, that condescension. Do you care what or how other people think? Are you just interested in proving a point, or proving that you are right? I guess I'm not understanding your motive in trying to change minds. Raku |
| Bongcart Mon May 9th, 2005 at 02:51 PM |
maha Thats too bad because "wrong" is a very functional and justified word... the relativistic thing will go away eventually. I suppose maybe it is the social organisms way of breaking free from old habits. Eventually it will get sober again and hopefully open to some new ideas. |
| Hypnopompia Mon May 9th, 2005 at 03:18 PM |
Maha: "maha" wrote: Raku wrote: Quote: I don't think that religion is bullshit at all. Again, what you think about religion, doesn't change what religion actually is--which is bullshit (no offense). BTW, the discussion about religion on that Anthropik link you gave is way too esoteric for my blood. I tried to skim through it, but I just couldn't swallow it. Maha, this is opinion, not fact. "Religion is bullshit" refers to your view of religion, which is far from universal. Yes, I realize that universalaity of belief is not required for factual status, but some form of data and accepted defintion is. What consititues bullshit? How and in what ways does religion fall into the category refered to as "bullshit?" If you cannot answer these questions in a logical fashion leading to the sensible, and inescable, conclusion that religion is in fact bullshit, then you are expressing your personal opinion. If this is case it can go as stated and nothing more need be said on this thread. Quote: 2+2=4 Devin--See, I am not imposing the laws of mathematics on you by saying that. I am just saying "Hey, there is this scientifically proven thing called math, and here is what it states." Math exists only in the mind. It is a language, and like all other langauges is useful as a convention as long as everyone agrees to its rules. 2+2=4 is not scientfically proven fact, it's sematics. Before you jump on the point, allow me to point out that all languages accurately refer to real world phenomona, otherwise they would be completely useless. The fact that 2+2=4 and, low and behold, when we count 2 sheep and 2 sheep we end up with 4 sheep is no more proof that math the basis of reality than the fact that we refer to the sky as being blue and, low and behold, when we look at the sky, it is blue. Quote: And this is exactly why humanity is so divided. Even like-minded people can't even agree that facts are facts. It's a flaw alright, but I question whether it is a flaw on my part, or yours. And to futher the point I disagree that the disagreement is a flaw. ;) Oh, also, humanity could easily be divided for many reasons having nothing to do with "facts." Buddhists do not agree to many facts with their neighbors, but they have had disproprtionately few religious wars. Quote: And Devin, just because (relating back to my original example) I have a six pack, doesn't make me arrogant. And just because I believe that science is absolute, doesn't make me arrogant. No maha, so many people think you are arragant because what comes across in your writing is that everyone who doesn't have a six pack and believe that science is absolute is "flawed" (your own word I believe). Perhaps you can see this perspective? And with such a perspective help to further our communicative goals? Question: If a fundamentalist christian told you that God created the Universe and that all answers to everything could be found in the Bible, assuming you could read it properly. Would you consider him/her arragant? To beat a dead horse: If a scientist told you that the Universe was created in the big bang and that all answers to everything could be found by careful scientific investigation, assuming you had the proper equipment and time. Would you consider him/her arragant? Who decides? Tony: Quote: However in your arguement, it doesn't deal with the root of the suffering of civilization, patriarchy. This is the trick. You may be able to sneak in feminism, enviromentalism, peace, and allthese other programs, but then why do we still ahve just as much suffering now as ever? It's the patriarchy. It's the heirarchy that patriarchy creates. People are verycomfortable in their patriarchy, that even for those in the throes of it's oppression, anything other than it is too unfamiliar, to uncomfortable to deal with... I thought of that, but there have been so many threads proving this I thought hijacking another might be redundant. Perhaps I'll start a thread in which all of the things everyone here already accepts (no arguements about the conclusion) can be beat down into the base coherent arguement. Jason will have wet dreams about this one. But, one problem I do have with this. Although I would postulate that patriarchy is a direct result of the subjegation of women as a "breeding class," which would be required by civilization due to a combination of agriculture, the related economics, and the substantially lower health related to the first two, especially after three or more kids, hierarchy does not equal patriarchy. Some tribes did have a matriarchy, even some civilizations did, although it would appear that such systems were less stable or otherwise were not selected for because the few examples that due exist, I could count them on one hand, did not survive even as long as most civilizations. Women might be free of most of the blame, depending on your perspective, of course, but only by dint of their unique and welcome role as procreaters. |
| Hypnopompia Mon May 9th, 2005 at 03:22 PM |
"Bongcart" wrote: maha Thats too bad because "wrong" is a very functional and justified word... the relativistic thing will go away eventually. I suppose maybe it is the social organisms way of breaking free from old habits. Eventually it will get sober again and hopefully open to some new ideas. Sorry about the double post...well, not that sorry, if I was would have waited or edited. I have no problem with the word "wrong," as long as it is used in a clerical sense. 2+2=17 is wrong. I have a problem with "wrong" when it is used in association with duality. As a part of my paradigm change duality is fractured in my mind, I can't accept it anymore. Yes, some things are incorrect, and some things are correct, but some things are both, some are neither, some it's relative (sorry, but it is legitamate word), for some the measurement doesn't even apply. I don't have a problem with "wrong," only dualism. |
| Vampire_IQ Mon May 9th, 2005 at 03:50 PM |
"maha" wrote: Again, what you think about religion, doesn't change what religion actually is--which is bullshit (no offense). Rather than debate this, since I didn't see the thread or know you or anything, how did you come to the conclusion(be it right or wrong) that religion is bullshit? |
| tonyz Mon May 9th, 2005 at 03:59 PM |
The "I am right, You are right" strategy is an important tribal survival strategy, and at it's core, relatvistic. Let's look at this deeply. In order for tribe to have peaceful internal existance, they must be based on absolute truths that are agreed upon by every member of the tribe. Otherwise, the tribe will be broken down into individuals, and lose it's identity as a tribe. A truth that is held self-evident, is only exactly that, evident to the self who has discovered. Even if it can be tested by anyone and the same result obtained, the truth remains "self-evident" and never "apparent." THis is because the human experience is subjective. For instance, someone I dated once thought green peppers were "hot" someone I dated once got pissed at me for cleaning her kitchen. Both, I thought, were self-evident truths: Green Peppers are innoculous, and every woman loves a man who can and will clean. What turned out, in these consecutive examples, was that what was truth to me, tried and proven, found their way into subjectivity. The human animal is based on subjecting itself to it's environment and reporting what is experienced, what it was subject two. Because two plus two isn't always four, sometimes it's quatro. Catch my drift? People born within a tribe, through their culture, food supply, land base, and other more minor factors, will have similiar experiences. This is why Kim Chee smells horrible to you, but your Korean neighbor can't get enough of it. But when you are dealing with more than one tribe, you instanly have to think objectively, otherwise, you have the One Right Way point of view. In fact, allowing for people to create their own creative truths is the halmark of tribal life and success. Mathmatics is the only science that is always correct, but that is because it is abstract. In real life, there is no one, everything is always made of up of something else, there is no two because there is no separation in the universe. Everything is made of up of infinite possibilites, everything is conencted. So you can measure a board of wood to be 16" inches, and it'll fit between any two wall studs in any McMansion in the world. But that's relative, because what's 16 inches one place is 35 centimeters somewhere else. So that's relative. You've got to realize that there is comfort in know that nothing is absolute. It's not a dark nothingness, it's a bright bewilderment. Be we are some firmly attached to being attched that the fear of being unattached, unfortunately, keeps many of us from ever really breaking free. Which gets us back to the original intent of the thread. It's hard to get people's minds because they are attached and it is natural for humans to be attached to a way of belief. It gives us stability, and keeps us from questioning ourselves so much, keeps us from wasting our time, and gives us time in our lives to question things greater than ourselves. unfortunately, this strength we have all been given through evolution is a weakness, and an achilles heel, in the process of changing minds... TonyZ |
| Killer Mon May 9th, 2005 at 04:20 PM |
"raku" wrote: Hey Killer, nice to meetcha. Just out of curiosity... why do you feel the compulsion to convince people that gods don't exist? Raku Hi Raku, nice to meet you too. I wouldn't say I felt a "compulsion" to debate people, I just enjoy it for its entertainment value. I go to a forum for people of all beliefs and share mine with them. And I'm never disappointed by the wacky things that the fundamentalists say. It's always a riot. But there are also a couple christians who know how to use logic and make coherent arguments. I get the most out of debating these people. But anyway, just to let you know about me...I'm an atheist and moral relativist. What are your theistic beliefs, or lack thereof? Thanks for the post. -Killer |
| Killer Mon May 9th, 2005 at 04:36 PM |
Quote: Exactly! This is why Killer eventually realized the futility in going on faithforum and trying to convince christians that religion is bullshit. I still go there though. I do actually learn stuff and it is a fun pasttime for me. -Killer |
| maha Mon May 9th, 2005 at 09:51 PM |
Hypnopompia wrote: Quote: The fact that 2+2=4 and, low and behold, when we count 2 sheep and 2 sheep we end up with 4 sheep is no more proof that math the basis of reality than the fact that we refer to the sky as being blue and, low and behold, when we look at the sky, it is blue. PHWEEEUUUU...(The sound that is made of whatever you are talking about here going right over my head.) :) Raku wrote: Quote: Okay... I asked Killer previously, and I'll ask you: Why do you feel so compelled to convince people of the bogusness of religion? The only problem I ever had with religion is that they expect humans to believe it. I am truly alarmed that people actually put credence into it. I feel obligated to "show them the light" so to speak. Frankly, it pisses me off that people here would even argue this point, but I know it's just that you guys like to play devil's advocate, even with the issues that are the most unquestionable. Quote: In addition, does your confidence in science make you feel superior to more religiously-minded people? Abso-fucking-lutely. Quote: Do you care what or how other people think? Are you just interested in proving a point, or proving that you are right? I value opinions, but I don't care what people think about me. I'm only interested in changing minds. And like killer said, there is some entertainment value in arguing with christians, not to mention you all, I suppose. |
| tonyz Mon May 9th, 2005 at 10:50 PM |
what's funny about the four sheep is that one might die, so there is no permanence in time of anything numerical considering the never ending entropy of the universe. TonyZ |
| JCamasto Mon May 9th, 2005 at 11:09 PM |
The autobiographical nature of this thread's title and its author - and of course, the unintended irony - is just jumping off the screen to me. Again. -Jim |
| mindtear Tue May 10th, 2005 at 02:44 AM |
"maha" wrote: The only problem I ever had with religion is that they expect humans to believe it. I am truly alarmed that people actually put credence into it. I feel obligated to "show them the light" so to speak. Frankly, it pisses me off that people here would even argue this point, but I know it's just that you guys like to play devil's advocate, even with the issues that are the most unquestionable. Quote: In addition, does your confidence in science make you feel superior to more religiously-minded people? Abso-fucking-lutely. "evangelical christian" wrote: The only problem I ever had with science is that they expect humans to believe it. I am truly alarmed that people actually put credence into it. I feel obligated to "show them the light" so to speak. Frankly, it pisses me off that people here would even argue this point, but I know it's just that you guys like to play scientist's advocate, even with the issues that are the most unquestionable. Quote: In addition, does your confidence in religion make you feel superior to more scientifically-minded people? Abso-fucking-lutely. ](*,) Sigh. Maha, we're not "playing devil's advocate". Your posts are so completely ironic it's almost appalling. The issues are not unquestionable. That is your arrogance speaking. It is so self-evident and factual that I'm ironically "surprised" you can't see it. #-o Peace, I hope... Devin |
| maha Tue May 10th, 2005 at 08:37 AM |
I don't want this to turn into a flame war, so bear with me here. JCamasto wrote: Quote: The autobiographical nature of this thread's title and its author - and of course, the unintended irony - is just jumping off the screen to me. If I interpret what you wrote Jim without the "and of course, the unintended irony" part, then it reads "The autobiographical nature of this thread's title and its author is jumping off the screen to me." This of course makes no sense to me at all. I can tell that it was supposed to be a jab of some sort because you are mentioning the autobiography part, which is directed at me, but how is revealing personal information about my life bad or so obvious that it "jumps out" at you? The "unintended irony" is blatantly a dis because it's saying that I'm contradicting myself. I don't agree with that, and I'll explain why in a second. But without the "unintended irony" part, the rest of that sentence has no context, so I don't know what you're getting at really. :?: mindtear wrote: Quote: Sigh. Maha, we're not "playing devil's advocate". Your posts are so completely ironic it's almost appalling. The issues are not unquestionable. That is your arrogance speaking. It is so self-evident and factual that I'm ironically "surprised" you can't see it. The irony issue: Well, I sensed that what I was talking about might be construed as ironic. So it's no surprise that it was thrown back in my face. This thread is about refusing change. You guys seem to think that I am refusing change because I won't accept what you guys are saying. However, to expect me to change in order to conform to your viewpoints is even more ironic than the ironic/contradictory perception you have of me and my opinions. So it's like double ironic that you accuse me of hypocrisy andl irony (which is in fact not there) all the while you all refuse not to see where I'm coming from. Talk about irony alright! But here is the difference between you and I. I don't expect you all to change by accepting my opinions. Apparently, you guys do expect me to change...because by not changing, you are saying that I am being hypocritical and ironic. This, in and of itself is not ironic because it doesn't really pertain to the original point of this thread, however, I do find it odd that you would choose this angle of approach to make me look bad and discredit me, considering it is contradictory to what you are implying. :cry: And the fact that I am confident that science has proven religion and "God" as unfactual, does not make me arrogant. This actually does pertain to the original topic. It's ironic that you, in fact, do not see that Devin. :wink: Again, no flames necessary, but I feel that was an important issue to address. What can I say, when you're good, you're good. (Wait, that was arrogance. Damn it! Ah... the bitter irony of it all. Okay, now I'm done. :D ) |
| tonyz Tue May 10th, 2005 at 09:04 AM |
I think it's sad you're an atheist. Very sad. I'm okay with agnostics, because at least they're still looking. But is it just plain stupidity that 96 percent of all humans believe in God? I think most Atheists are just pissed at God because God, or whatever, hasn't revealed themselves to the Atheist. Or rather, they are straining their eye so hard that they miss the proof that has been there all along. Well, I suppose you'll never "see" something if you are trying your damnedest not to. TonyZ |
| Bongcart Tue May 10th, 2005 at 09:10 AM |
I think that its when religion makes people think that they are flawless and free from responsibility that it becomes dangerous. I have had to end debates with people who has this belief because they always end up pointing their fingers, and accuses everyone else, and never admits any error of their own. Sometimes I get the feeling that they arent even interested in reasoning, they just want to feel the triumph when they have managed to outwit or drained someone elses energy to reason. So they are best left alone. There was a guy who believed in UFOs that I read about, and he came to stop believing it once he started to be self critical and truly reflect on what he was believing. He could then see that he had just a complex that made him, forced him emotionally, to believe in UFOs. My own wisdom tells me that polarization of everything is what invites the devil. Like if you would believe that you have no responsibility, or that you believe that you have all responsibility. Or you believe that others are evil in nature that you invite the devil to your life. The devil is about taking away hope, self reliance, confidence and so on. Most of the modern religions seem to begin with having to do all those things before they can justify their function to salvate and stuff. |
| maha Tue May 10th, 2005 at 09:21 AM |
Tonyz wrote: Quote: I think it's sad you're an atheist. Very sad. Christians think it's sad that people are agnostic. I think it's sad that people are Christian. You think it's sad that I'm atheist. It's all relative Tony. Why is it that all of a sudden you don't see the relativism in this? Quote: But is it just plain stupidity that 96 percent of all humans believe in God? But is it just plain stupidity that 96 percent of all humans are Takers? No, it's just ignorance. Quote: Well, I suppose you'll never "see" something if you are trying your damnedest not to. I suppose you'll never "see" things that don't exist. :wink: |
| tonyz Tue May 10th, 2005 at 09:32 AM |
Well I know what I've seen. Since you believe in absolute truth, you think that what i have seen is what I think everyone else should/has seen. But I don't Different strokes for different folks, or in this case, different gods for different bods. No, it really makes me sad that there is a big hole in your mind where god(s) belong. They are undoubtedly, tied to your spirit. Perhaps it is your Karma to suffer in this manner. But I'm not you. There are many ways to get connected with this spirit, many ways provided by nature herself. I really think God gives us a choice. It's a serious logic problem, actually. Because once you believe god doesn't exist, to believe in god would be a fallacy, because you are looking for proof. But once you believe in god, the belief itself is the proof. But you can't find the proof if you don't believe, and many agnostics won't believe without the proof. Catch 22. You just have to have faith, and a helping hand, to make the leap. I think most agnostics are scared to make the leap because they don't want to hit a bottomless pit on the other side. They also don't want to create a construct of God in their mind, because they know that will only be a fascimile of the real thing. This is why I think former agnostics have greater, deeper faith in god. Zen saying: Great Doubt, Great Awakening Little Doubt, Little Awakening No Doubt, No Awakening This saying, of course, recognizes the desire to make the leap... TonyZ |
| maha Tue May 10th, 2005 at 09:55 AM |
Tonyz wrote: Quote: Well I know what I've seen. I'm sure you do. But if that's your way of saying that you have seen "God," then why don't you expand on it and enlighten all of us karmically condemned folk? You know what Tonyz, why is it that I have a feeling there is an empty seat on some pew in some church somewhere with your name written all over it? |
| tonyz Tue May 10th, 2005 at 10:05 AM |
Because you automatically associate anything with god or spirituality with Christianity. I find this very peculiar, since Christianity is actually a religion of Atheism. Your scope of the possibilties of spirituality is limited to the days when you were a kid at sunday school being bored out of your mind and a Nine Inch Nails video. Since you seem to think Karma is associated with damnation, it must have been Catholic Sunday school... Which is to say, you seem to think there is either this really, really, fake idea of a guy in a chair checking of names like Santa Claus, or there is nothing, and that nothing sucks like the vacuum it is...Sigh... It's dichromatic thinking at it's worst. TonyZ |
| maha Tue May 10th, 2005 at 10:16 AM |
tonyz wrote: Quote: I find this very peculiar, since Christianity is actually a religion of Atheism. That's peculiar to me, because I thought Christianity was a religion--the exact opposite of atheism. Quote: It's dichromatic thinking at it's worst. Yes, but it's completely rational and sound thinking at it's best. |
| tonyz Tue May 10th, 2005 at 11:02 AM |
Considering Christianity is the official religion of Takers, how could you possibly associate this with anything that has to do with God? Well, I do want to debate this, but I have to work... l8r t8r TonyZ |
| maha Tue May 10th, 2005 at 11:07 AM |
Long ago, when I was much younger, more naive and immature, I used to spout off about this and that, by all acounts making a total ass of myself. My family suggested that "if only I could hear myself..." Quote: Considering Christianity is the official religion of Takers, how could you possibly associate this with anything that has to do with God? How could you associate Christianity with God?!?!?! Tonyz, if only you could hear what you were saying. Although I am intrigued that you actually have the motivation to debate such a contention. |
| Hypnopompia Tue May 10th, 2005 at 01:29 PM |
I suppose that mentioning that science neither has nor is able to prove the existance or non-existance of God would be too little, too late at this point. As for math as a language, I was merely pointing out that the fact that mathematics describes the universe is not proof that it is inherent to the universe, after all we designed it to describe the universe. By the same token, we designed all languages to describe our universe, that's the point. If they did not accurately describe our universe, they'd be useless. The sky is a color that we refer to as being blue. The fact that the lanauge can describe this only means that the lanauge can describe this. Reading any more into it would be folly. We use the lanauge we call math to describe the universe, the universe itself does not use math anymore than the sky uses english. |
| raku Tue May 10th, 2005 at 02:05 PM |
That's an interesting point, Hypno. I guess you could say that it's like an English speaker and a Russian speaker both arguing that their word for the color of the sky is "better". If the Russian word for the color of the sky is literally "sky-color", while the English speaker just uses the generic "blue", then technically the Russian word is more accurate and descriptive. Does that make the Russian word more "correct"? Is the English word wrong? But the color of the sky changes, doesn't it. Does that make the Russian word less useful, or more confusing to use? Would a Russian have any trouble understanding it? Does the word serve a purpose? I feel like this debate on religion/existence of gods/scientific proof is circling around in this direction. Now, if the Russian suddenly decided that "sky-color" WAS the better definition, and started forcing everyone else to refer to the sky using that word, forbade the use of the English word, and imprisoned or killed anyone who tried to speak otherwise, then we'd have a situation. Does this difference make sense? I feel like this latter is the behavior we need to be taking issue with, but that a lot of us keep getting sidetracked with the blue-is-better-no-sky-color-is-better-type arguments. Raku |
| mindtear Tue May 10th, 2005 at 04:06 PM |
"Maha" wrote: The irony issue: Well, I sensed that what I was talking about might be construed as ironic. So it's no surprise that it was thrown back in my face. This thread is about refusing change. You guys seem to think that I am refusing change because I won't accept what you guys are saying. However, to expect me to change in order to conform to your viewpoints is even more ironic than the ironic/contradictory perception you have of me and my opinions. So it's like double ironic that you accuse me of hypocrisy andl irony (which is in fact not there) all the while you all refuse not to see where I'm coming from. Talk about irony alright! I expect nothing from you. I do not expect you to change, I do not want you to change, I am not trying to change you. I want you to understand how you are perceived. I perceive you as being completely similar to a fundamentalist christian. I only have to change one word in order to transform your statement to that of a statement I have heard many times by fundamentalist christians, those who you have so much contempt for. "maha" wrote: But here is the difference between you and I. I don't expect you all to change by accepting my opinions. Apparently, you guys do expect me to change...because by not changing, you are saying that I am being hypocritical and ironic. This, in and of itself is not ironic because it doesn't really pertain to the original point of this thread, however, I do find it odd that you would choose this angle of approach to make me look bad and discredit me, considering it is contradictory to what you are implying. Again, I expect nothing of you. I do not believe in shoulds, or expectations, or believe that there is a Right Way, or Absolute Truth. However, that does appear to be where you are coming from with your dogmatic beliefs and strong FAITH in science. "maha" wrote: And the fact that I am confident that science has proven religion and "God" as unfactual, does not make me arrogant. This actually does pertain to the original topic. It's ironic that you, in fact, do not see that Devin. I do not see that science has proven the nonexistence of God? Of course not. Science has PROVEN nothing. Science has proven NOTHING. Science is predicated on the faith that humans have the ability to understand the universe. What an arrogant faith... especially when there is no chance or possibility that you are wrong. Empiricism requires just as much faith as Christianity (if not more). As for the irony... you are so pure/fundamentalist in your dogmatic faith in science that you do not even see your faith as faith. Your myths are not myths to you. Your arrogance is just Truth. See yourself at will. Peace, Devin |
| Vampire_IQ Tue May 10th, 2005 at 04:12 PM |
Maha, I'll ask again, where does your hatred of religion come from? More so, why do you CONTINUE hating religion? |
| Bongcart Tue May 10th, 2005 at 06:05 PM |
I dont know Mahas reasons for disliking religion, but I dont think he is very strange in that case, or that his feelings would be without cause! I dont think I have many friends in the religious corner of this site, I have also disliked religion a lot, because I think it dulls peoples heads, hands out easy answers, creates dependancy on someones word or text or preacher or guru, and doesnt promote critical thought or sceptical thought and last but not least self reliance. But I have come to slightly change my opinion on religion and religious thought. Now I think that maybe it is not religion I dislike, it is just certain kinds of people with certain kinds of problems that I dont like. And in my case these people are often quite religious. It is the narcissistic ones who cant admit their own mistakes, their own errors or see anything beyond their own "reflection" wich in their eyes is flawless. They seek up religion because here they can flaunt their vision of themselfes as divine and perfect beings. And how they childishly hold on to their bibles as if they were the direct and perfect word of god. And then to see how they sit and dump their poison on eachother and others. It is sickening. They should point that finger of theirs back at themselfes. However, religion as a metaphorical system of expressing mans tales, as Tonyz wrote about in another forum is very interesting. And I have had that idea myself for some time now. I can see Jesus, the devil, the suffering or struggle, death and rebirth in a different light. As a metaphore for personal transformation - for example. Like a tale from people who had a less technological way of expressing psychology but on the other hand had a much more rich and telling way of expressing psychology and the experiences of men. |
| raku Tue May 10th, 2005 at 06:14 PM |
Are you talking about all religion, or just organized religion? I think there's a big difference. Raku |
| tonyz Tue May 10th, 2005 at 07:24 PM |
re-ligare is the root of religion, mean to bind together again; this has an underlying context of organization, but it also refers to bringing man back to god, perhaps, in a methodical way. Perhaps you mean hiearchal religion? Why (Protestant)Christianity has nothing to do with God. It's the first religion in the world that doesn't believe in Magic. It's the first religioni in the world that doesn't have saints, prophets, stories of their own. It's the first religion that denies the possibility of man having direct contact with God(minus the snake people) Sorry, should have said protestantism. There are great, aware and magical christians, like Daniels church he described in another thread, and a handful of Catholics. Protestants are more likely to be conservatives. That means they don't give a fuck about their relation with the earth, they just want to know what god has for them, how much they are going to get, and could care less.(what an awful generalization, I know) Protestant church services suck. At least the white ones do. They are like corporate board meetings, the the CEO is always "out" (Jesus). At least there is "magic" in the music of a black protestant church...mostly a white protestant church is listening to the leader for two ours about how bad we are as people and need to change. At least the Catholic priest feed you the body and blood of christ!!! So anyway, Protestant christianity is the biggest joke of a religion. all you have to do is say, god please forgive me, and he does, but then wthere is nothing else, nothing. It's empty. Dark. Insidiously hollow. God is pushed out to make time for preacherman, for their silly interpretations on the bible. No croutons 'o Christ, no meditation, no (decent)music, just listening, obeying, falling into line, being a part of the fashion show. How have humans become such despicable creatures? I'm not sure, but it has culminated into protestant christianity. Of course, I have many, many many other complaints, arguements, beliefs, and irrationalities, but why blow my whole creative load one post??? TonyZ |
| MidnightBoos Tue May 10th, 2005 at 07:46 PM |
yeeaahh. i'll be over there rocking in the corner, if anyone needs me. :) MB |
| WackyMorningDJ Tue May 10th, 2005 at 08:40 PM |
Back to the begining here... "maha" wrote: When we talk about "being the change" and leading by example, this means that we are trying to influence others by showing them how to live in accordance with certain principles. However, I've noticed that this is often counterproductive when it comes to changing minds. I think when people talk about "being the change" it's not about leading by example. It's about "shut the hell up and walk the walk". If you're actually being the change, you're not trying to make other people be it with you. "Leading" pretty much implies a hierarchy, which people will be dissatisfied with because they want to be an equal part of the change. If you are led, whatever it is isn't part of you, it's you working to facilitate someone else's goal. An example from psychology: Two groups of children are given a room full of toys to play with. One group of children is given rewards for playing with a particular toy. The results almost invariably show that the kids who are NOT rewarded will play with the toy more. It's called overjustification. If you are rewarded to do something you would already do, your motivation decreases. Suddenly, the thought occurs, "if I need extrinsic motivation to accomplish this, surely it isn't worth being intrinsically motivated." Now, if it so happens that someone wanders along and sees you enjoying a particular lifestlye while not flaunting it, they might want to come along for the ride. However, they wouldn't be trying to emulate you, they would be forming their own lifestlye. Not copying. THAT is more closely related to social/observational learning, which produces much longer lasting results. As for religion... "Douglas Adams" wrote: Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The arguement goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic. Anyways, I prefer not to look at "SCIENCE" or "RELIGION" by themselves, but rather, by their impact. I don't care if science is the absolute truth, or if it proves the nonexistance of god. I don't care if religion is absolutly foolish, or for that matter, if it is the absolute truth. Whatever. What matters is the effect. Religion in and of itself isn't "bad," but certain religions, for example salvationist religions, are generally harmful to their adherents. If people are running around the end of the world, starving to death because a savior WILL come, dammit, and save them all, that's a pretty bad religion for these people. Likewise, if science tells us about subatomic particles and the endless expanses of the universe... so what? I want food, I don't care how big the universe is, or where any of my electrons are. I don't really care that plants create energy by means of photosynthesis, but I sure as hell want to eat that plant, because I know that it gives me energy. I don't need to know that 2,000 calories is exactly the amount of food I should eat every day, my body tells me how much food it needs. Science is just as bad as religion when it dictates to people how they should live, ya know? If I think that rain gods and sun gods make things work for me, that's acceptable, because knowing about the water cycle and fusion doesn't really impact how I'm going to choose to live my life. Ya know... go with what works, not what's true. Love, Mike |
| Killer Tue May 10th, 2005 at 08:57 PM |
"tonyz" wrote: I think it's sad you're an atheist. Very sad. I'm okay with agnostics, because at least they're still looking. But is it just plain stupidity that 96 percent of all humans believe in God? I think most Atheists are just pissed at God because God, or whatever, hasn't revealed themselves to the Atheist. Or rather, they are straining their eye so hard that they miss the proof that has been there all along. Well, I suppose you'll never "see" something if you are trying your damnedest not to. TonyZ Hi Tonyz, I just wondered why you subscribe to the misconception that an atheist cannot "keep looking" so-to-speak? I've run across this before. It's as if being without theistic beliefs means that you are closed-minded and not willing to review alternate possibilites. Why is that? Killer |
| maha Tue May 10th, 2005 at 09:45 PM |
Vampire_IQ wrote: Quote: Maha, I'll ask again, where does your hatred of religion come from? More so, why do you CONTINUE hating religion? Where does my hatred of religion come from? 1. From the hundreds of millions of people who have been murdered in the name of "God." 2. From the pervasive and isidious nature of religion's widespread and sprawling stranglehold on the impressionable minds of the world. 3. From the perpetuation of ingnorance and utter stupidity that religion brings. 4. From the billions of people that are currently living on this planet that will never see another way, because they are so blinded by thier "faith." I could go on, but why? Quote: More so, why do you CONTINUE hating religion? See items 1-4. Again, I'm encountering the same ideologies that I've seen displayed here before. It's that same backwards talk that questions everything (even the unquestionable) and makes it seem like nothing can ever be proven (even the proven), especially by us lowly humans. I for one, will never believe this, and I know that most of you don't -deep down inside- believe it either. You guys found your way to Ishcon and can operate computers, so obviously you possess a certain level of intelligence that prohibits you from thinking so absurdly. I don't know if you are trying get me to see an alternative point of view because you don't like my matter-of-factedness or if you just think I'm arrogant or what? But your fancy words and detailed knowledge of philosophy will not change my perception of the world--It could hypothetically, but you would have to present to me stuff that I've have not yet considered and accounted for. Thus far, no one here has done that. |
| mindtear Tue May 10th, 2005 at 10:30 PM |
... Maha, I'm sorry. You seem to have a completely different understanding of who I am, what I think, and what my intent is in this conversation. My thoughts are not some dogmatic ideology that I am holding up as absolute. Nothing "is" unquestionable - I really do question everything. I find that questions are often more truthful than answers. I am not trying to change your perception. I am merely expressing my own. Intelligence has nothing to do with owning a computer, I don't know where you get that idea. :?: I agree that dogmatic closed-mindedness has caused a lot of harm to the world. But religion is not a subset of dogmatic closed-mindedness. Not all Christians are evil, and in fact many have done the world immense good. The majority of religions are actually just fine, minus the dogmatic tendencies of a fervent minority. However, it would appear that you have willingly chosen to become dogmatically closed-minded. The first mindfulness training of Buddhism speaks of the freedom from views... "[url=http://www.plumvillage.org/MindfulnessTrainings/14MT.htm wrote: Thich Nhat Hanh's website [/url] "]The First Mindfulness Training: Openness Aware of the suffering created by fanaticism and intolerance, I am determined not to be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist teachings are guiding means to help me learn to look deeply and to develop my understanding and compassion. They are not doctrines to fight, kill or die for. As Eric always says, All models are wrong. But some are useful. Peace, Devin |
| mindtear Tue May 10th, 2005 at 10:53 PM |
More mindfulness trainings: "[url=http://www.plumvillage.org/MindfulnessTrainings/14MT.htm wrote: Thich Nhat Hanh's website [/url] "]The Second Mindfulness Training: Non-attachment to Views Aware of suffering created by attachment to views and wrong perceptions, I am determined to avoid being narrow-minded and bound to present views. I will learn and practise non-attachment from views in order to be open to others insights and experiences. I am aware that the knowledge I presently possess is not changeless, absolute truth. Truth is found in life and I will observe life within and around me in every moment, ready to learn throughout my life. The Third Mindfulness Training: Freedom of Thought Aware of the suffering brought about when I impose my views on others, I am committed not to force others, even my children, by any means whatsoever such as authority, threat, money, propaganda or indoctrination to adopt my views. I will respect the right of others to be different and to choose what to believe and how to decide. I will, however, help others renounce fanaticism and narrowness through compassionate dialogue. I love eastern thought. Peace, Devin |
| Hypnopompia Wed May 11th, 2005 at 02:05 AM |
"maha" wrote: Where does my hatred of religion come from? 1. From the hundreds of millions of people who have been murdered in the name of "God." 2. From the pervasive and isidious nature of religion's widespread and sprawling stranglehold on the impressionable minds of the world. 3. From the perpetuation of ingnorance and utter stupidity that religion brings. 4. From the billions of people that are currently living on this planet that will never see another way, because they are so blinded by thier "faith." 1) Not Buddhists. 2) Not Shamanism. 3) Not Jews. 4) Not Wiccans. Sounds like you hate organized christianity more than religion. |
| Killer Wed May 11th, 2005 at 03:14 AM |
I'm not an atheist that hates religion or its subscribers. I've found that any type of hatred is really just a pointless waste of energy and time. But I do agree with Maha that religion has done more harm than good in the world. There's really no need to invent supernatural creatures to watch over you, in my opinion. I know it provides a mental crutch for people to lean on, but personally I'm not someone who needs such a crutch. I think most people are capable of dealing with reality as it truly is, but simply choose not to and go the theistic route instead. Killer |
| tonyz Wed May 11th, 2005 at 08:45 AM |
Killa thrilla, I was under teh impression was someone who lived without God., but an agnostic is some who doesn't believe in God, but is open to some kind of ontological proof. But that's semantics, right? The thing is most people who develop a "hate" of religion is because they were expsosed to some untolerant christian view. you don't really have such a strong God-hate Atheist population anywhere else but in protestant Europe and America. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I offer my first proof for God: Entheogens. There are chemicals in 1000's of plants (I swear I'm not exaggerating) that have chemicals with no detectable (as of yet) evolutionary advantage, that get many in our Kingdom of life "high." Now I realize that most people come to entheogens in the spirit of getting "fucked up." I HATE the use of this word and it's synonyms, because it's somewhat blasphemous, but consider this: Most entheogens create behavior that is unacceptable to ?!?!?!Civilization!!! So compared to the sit still and shutup version of life Civilization offers us, entheogens DO get us "fucked up" but only in the civilization context. Which is why I choose to only partake of them in nature. Which is also why I have developed a strong sense of what the Universe(God) is. I try not to say God, because as we all know, it's very limited. I defintely don't say higher power because that sounds removed, detached, and, well, liberal ;) I believe it is a permeating, inner force that the whole universe dances in. OUr universe, a pearl in an oyster in the sea of existence... But I digress... I've been through the Nine-Inch nails stage, the search for magic stage, the hating god stage, the finding religion stage, but I asked myself: "What is essential, what is true?" And the only answer was that nature did provide a magical experience for us, in the mushroom, in the colorado river toad, in the rye ergot, in the monring glory, in the ganja, etc, etc, etc, etc.....(and many more etc's after that!!!) So, thanks to nature, and through meditation, I am completely confortable in saying yes, virginia, there is a God (but not what you think it is...) I often use enthoegens a couple of times a month to create a breakthrough in my meditations. I have also discovered that "God" will manifest itself in anyway you choose, even in the form of nothingness, based on what you truly believe in your heart...because all experience is learning, and is that not what we are here to do? TonyZ |
| maha Wed May 11th, 2005 at 08:50 AM |
Hey Devin- When I was 17 I knew everything. When I turned 20 I realized that I didn't know everything, but was still confident that I knew more than most. When I turned 25 I realized how little I actually knew... You may be following in my footsteps bud. Although I'll admit, you are (excruciatingly) more open-minded than I was at your age. Hypno- There are exceptions to everything. And I don't have a problem with those obscure religions as much as I do with Christianity...and probably Catholicism...okay, definitely Catholicism too. Judaism...mmmm...it did get a few million people killed in WWII so I guess you can add that to the list as well. Killer- We've been throwing the word "hate" around a lot. But I don't really hate Christians in the sense that I want to corral them into mobile death units and incinerate their corpses. It's all about how you define hate, and my definition is probably different than most. To me, hate is just a special kind of love that we give to people who suck. :wink: |
| maha Wed May 11th, 2005 at 09:09 AM |
Okay, I'd like to put to rest the religion tangent and get back to the original topic. If you'd like to still discuss it, feel free to start a new thread about it. :D Recently I've been interacting with some very miserable and downtrodden people--the homeless, drug addicts, hookers, theives, the dredges of society, you name it. Instead of letting these people drag me down to their level, which they seem to do to each other, it has actually increased my resolve to better myself. For instance, going back to my example of physical fitness and refusing change...I dealt with a man whose pot belly was so big that he looked like he was not nine, but ten months pregnant! It baffled me how someone could not only let themselves go that far, but how they could be so different from myself. Later that day, I did a couple extra sets of side bends when I got off work. And the more people I see like that, the more I focus on getting my life back in order and doing positive things. And that is logical: I see people doing wrong, so I decide to do right and not make their same mistakes. It makes sense right? But remember my original post? It was about the exact opposite thing happening: People see me doing right, and they decide to continue to do wrong by making obvious mistakes. So... Why is it that I can see a bad example being set and avoid it, but people can't see a good example being set...and follow it? This should get the discussion back on course. Any answers? |
| tonyz Wed May 11th, 2005 at 09:54 AM |
Because when I'm talking about explimfying the life I want to lead, and what I'd like people to follow, I'm tlaking about love, community, food production... Not stomach crunches. Besides. When you seen a "fat" person, you don't just break out and start doing crunches, trying to encourage them to do it with them, do you> you jsut tell them they are fat, as exemplified in another thread... YOu go home, by yourself, and just work on looking good by yourself. You want to get people into exercise? Take up something that can be done anytime, anywhere. I bring a foot bag with me anywhere and start hacking. Usually, people who have never played before see it's something anyone can do, and want to play. I've turned on so many people PERMAnently to excercise and health with foot bag. I just pop up, in public places, and am always making friends. What I like about foot bag is that you share, in a circle,with your friends, each working together to make the bag stay in the air, you aren't competing, it's against the rulses to self-serve. Plus, you can talk to people while getting good exercise. In my opinion, its one of the "perfect" sports... That's how leadby example, by coming to anything you do with love, not contempt, but for you, I suspect, may prove to be difficult, at first. But I think, if you practised love, everyonce in a while, you'll see how easy it comes to you. It may even become contagious!!! TonyZ |
| Hypnopompia Wed May 11th, 2005 at 11:29 AM |
"maha" wrote: Hypno- There are exceptions to everything. And I don't have a problem with those obscure religions as much as I do with Christianity...and probably Catholicism...okay, definitely Catholicism too. Judaism...mmmm...it did get a few million people killed in WWII so I guess you can add that to the list as well. Careful, your ignorance is showing. Christians don't even make up a majority of the human population, let alone casting all other religions into back-water obscuraty only studied by the most esoteric of philosophy professors. Hell, the numbers say that only 11% of the world's population are evangelical christians. Yes, other religions aren't as populace, because other religions aren't quite so arragant in their need to make everyone into them. In fact, only Muslims and Christians have a repeated history of making conversion their ultimate goal. As for the holocaust, I thought you said you studied this? Jews were a convient scape goat for christians. The Jews weren't killed because of their religion, but because the christian religion combined with german politics. Homosexuals, gypsies, and the crippled were also killed, none of those are religions. |
| maha Wed May 11th, 2005 at 12:11 PM |
Hypnopompia wrote: Quote: Careful, your ignorance is showing. Christians don't even make up a majority of the human population I didn't know I was ignorant, let alone letting it show. And if so, then how? All I said was that I had a problem with certain religions. It wasn't a statement about historical accounts or anything factual that could be refuted, it was just my opinion. So how is that ignorant? I never said that Christians constitute a majority of anything. Quote: As for the holocaust, I thought you said you studied this? I have. I'm by no means an expert, but I do know a thing or two about it. Jews are a very unique group in that they are an ethnicity and a religion. Their religious beliefs are what helped to unify them, along with certain bloodlines. This made them much easier targets for the Nazi's because they could say that anyone of that religion and race was to be exterminated. If Jews had adopted different religions, they may have been more prone to interbreeding with other races and other religions. This would've made it much harder for the Nazi's to target them, especially if they expanded into other cultures, religions, and races. Bottom line, if someone says they are "x" religion, then others can say "Kill everyone who is "x" religion." If someone is "x" or "y" or "z" religion, it makes it much harder for people to target them specifically. Your right about one thing, though. The Nazi's did target people who were x,y, or z--aka, hebrew, crippled, gypsy, etc. But I never said that the Nazi's targeted only Jews because they practiced Judaism. However, practicing Judaism certainly didn't help the Jews when all was said and done. As long as you say I am "this" then someone else can hate you for being that. If you are multiple things, or better yet, nothing at all, then no one can hate you for it. See what I'm getting at? I can't really articulate this fully in a short passage but I hope this helps Ben. |
| MidnightBoos Wed May 11th, 2005 at 12:25 PM |
i'm not going to touch the contradictions in these posts with a ten foot pole. in fact, i wouldn't touch em with someone elses ten foot pole. MB ](*,) |
| maha Wed May 11th, 2005 at 12:45 PM |
Midnightboos wrote: Quote: i'm not going to touch the contradictions in these posts with a ten foot pole. in fact, i wouldn't touch em with someone elses ten foot pole. Then what's the point of even volunteering that information. It helps none of us when you write shit like that because we don't know who or what you're talking about. So it's just an ambiguous negative statement that calls into question the positive things we are trying to accomplish with our dialog--the end result being: makes you look bad, makes us feel bad, makes Ishcon less purposeful. Try to conger up something a little more useful in the future please...if you have it in you, which based off of the preponderance of your posts I've read...you do not. :? |
| mindtear Wed May 11th, 2005 at 02:02 PM |
"Maha" wrote: Hey Devin- When I was 17 I knew everything. When I turned 20 I realized that I didn't know everything, but was still confident that I knew more than most. When I turned 25 I realized how little I actually knew... You may be following in my footsteps bud. Although I'll admit, you are (excruciatingly) more open-minded than I was at your age. Okay, dude, what the fuck. YOU are the one saying you know everything, presenting yourself as the one with the absolute truth of science, etc. etc. I see absolutely NO evidence that you feel like you do not know everything: "Maha" wrote: But your fancy words and detailed knowledge of philosophy will not change my perception of the world--It could hypothetically, but you would have to present to me stuff that I've have not yet considered and accounted for. Thus far, no one here has done that. Do you ever read what anyone writes on here? Least of all, yourself? If there has been ONE thing I have emphasized above all, it has been how little I know and how much I have to learn. I spend hours upon hours reading and learning, simply because I want to have some small FRACTION of understanding. Your patronizing tone is completely unappreciated. As if you're somehow superior to me. You do NOT address what I said... about how you are taking a dogmatic approach to your understanding of the world. Least of all, you do not appear to be aware of what you've said this entire thread. Ironically, it is RELIGION that had something to teach me about my arrogance and my understanding of the world. Those mindfulness trainings, talking about not being dogmatic, are BUDDHIST - a 8O religion. As I've said before, see yourself at will. After this conversation, you have no right to complain about not understanding why ("people perceive that") you are arrogant. Peace, Devin |
| MidnightBoos Wed May 11th, 2005 at 02:06 PM |
PWNED. mb (you can hear a lot from the corner) |
| mindtear Wed May 11th, 2005 at 02:12 PM |
I'm not sure that was a helpful contribution to what I said, MB. Not that I am trying to put you down, far from it. But I do not want to set up a debate or war, here, with both sides digging in. Openness, eh? 8) Peace, Devin |
| maha Wed May 11th, 2005 at 02:22 PM |
Devin wrote: Quote: I see absolutely NO evidence that you feel like you do not know everything: If you take out the double negative from that sentence it translates: "I see that you know everything." Which is obviously not the case, but if it were, wouldn't that be just cause to adopt my viewpoint, or at least something close to it? I'm sorry Devin, I shouldn't do that to you. I've done it to others here too. I frame statements and questions so that your only response is to either contradict yourself or to agree with me. But there is some usefulness in this technique, however. Quote: I'm not sure that was a helpful contribution to what I said, MB. She can't help it Devin, useless contributions are her forte. (Saying this as I unfold my portable shovel and unearth a hole to bed down in. :) ) |
| mindtear Wed May 11th, 2005 at 02:32 PM |
No, you take out the double negative, it reads like this: I see evidence that you feel you know everything. I still see this evidence. Everything I said above still stands. Do I need to copy and paste it here, so you will actually read it this time? Now, if you would care to address what I actually said, I would appreciate it. Rather than hiding from my words by trying to find some hidden meaning. Peace, Devin |
| maha Wed May 11th, 2005 at 03:07 PM |
Well Devin, I'm not really trying to patronize you or anything, but I still don't think your seeing what underlies all of this. My example of knowing everything, then knowing less, then knowing nothing...was really just a metaphor. Of course I know more now--a lot more. And this is not boasting or hubris, this is just a function of time and acquired knowledge. But by saying that I know less now, is admitting that I now know what I don't know. When I was a teenager, I had no idea of what I didn't yet know. But now, I know there is a lot of stuff out there that I haven't yet discovered. Hopefully you will understand this and see the connection between that...and yourself. Devin, I acknowledge and admit that you have done everything in your power to come across as humble and non-offensive. That's really good and it is very necessary, especially considering your age. And although you claim to not assert yourself as being "right," you are still making an assertion toward one side of a polarity. For instance, if I am saying people aren't inherently irrational, you are saying they are. You cleverly prevent yourself from saying that you are right about your contention, but that is what you are saying nonetheless (if you read between the lines that is). Even if you are right or wrong, it doesn't have to result in hurt feelings, flame wars, arrogance, or anything negative. Being wrong is a wonderful thing, because it means you have learned something new and corrected your uncorrect ways. I've been wrong a lot. That is why I am good at being right so often. And I have confidence in saying that, but I'm not flaunting it in your face. It's just a fact, proven by my words, and backed by my experiences, science, and my extensive knowledge of Quinn's work. Admitting that you are wrong is incredibly difficult. It takes years to be able to do it. It's akin to saying "You know, I can't believe I have contributed to the evils of civilization for so long. It's time I admitted my wrongdoing, drop the stones, and walk away from the pyramid for good." But rarely can anyone do that--whether it be walk away, or admit ignorance or poor judgement. It's a matter of abandoning pride and accepting humility. And humility is such a hard virtue to come by. To even say "maha, you're right" would be a step in the right direction. And it has nothing to do with whether I am right or not, or whether you genuinely believe I am right. It would show that you have learned humility and that you don't have a stubborn sense of pride that prevents you from conceding a point. To not be hypocritical, I would say that you are right. But I have already learned this lesson, and needn't repeat it here. However, I suspect that you have not...yet. |
| mindtear Wed May 11th, 2005 at 03:19 PM |
](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) "Maha" wrote: To even say "maha, you're right" would be a step in the right direction. And it has nothing to do with whether I am right or not, or whether you genuinely believe I am right. It would show that you have learned humility and that you don't have a stubborn sense of pride that prevents you from conceding a point. To not be hypocritical, I would say that you are right. But I have already learned this lesson, and needn't repeat it here. However, I suspect that you have not...yet. READ WHAT YOU ARE SAYING!!! Look, guy, I don't even BELIEVE in right or wrong. I don't believe in a duality of correct and uncorrect. "Maha" wrote: Admitting that you are wrong is incredibly difficult. It takes years to be able to do it. It's akin to saying "You know, I can't believe I have contributed to the evils of civilization for so long. It's time I admitted my wrongdoing, drop the stones, and walk away from the pyramid for good." But rarely can anyone do that--whether it be walk away, or admit ignorance or poor judgement. It's a matter of abandoning pride and accepting humility. And humility is such a hard virtue to come by. *Incredulous look* I don't get it. How could you possibly think that you are humble? You have been so decidedly inconsistent here, it's preposterous, especially with your emphasis on consistency. 8O "It's a fact that I am right." Next paragraph. "But I am humble. " And you're still patronizing me. Seriously. I don't understand. Where does this come from? Peace, Devin |
| Bongcart Wed May 11th, 2005 at 03:50 PM |
Incommensurability. That happends when two different paradigms meet and try to talk to eachother. |
| maha Wed May 11th, 2005 at 04:36 PM |
Devin wrote: [/quote]Seriously. I don't understand. Where does this come from? [quote] For a moment, I thought you might actually do it (say that I'm right). Even just to placate me, or hell, even just to mock me. But you still couldn't. It's like the pharoah standing over his last remaining worker as he futily presses against a twenty-ton stone--the pharoah yelling "Push! Push! Push!" It's a matter of sheer stubborness. You couldn't just say I was right, even if you said it insincerely, because if nothing else, it means that you would've understood where I was coming from. You can't even concede that much, let alone the fact that I was right (if it was indeed factual, which it may or may not have been). That's where it's coming from. Quote: "It's a fact that I am right." Next paragraph. "But I am humble. " I never said I was humble, I said that you were. I did say I wasn't arrogant, though. Humility and humbleness are separate virtues, albeit interconnected in some way. So the "But I am humble" part is not something you can quote me on, which dispells whatever point you were trying to make about it. Do you realize that it mattered not what I was talking about. So long as I said that "I am right" you would've invariably disagreed. This is the bullshit that I am talking about. If you can't get past accepting things as black or white (when appropriate) the world will remain a vague and ambiguous guessing game. Perhaps Devin, our backgrounds, philosophies, ideologies--what have you--are just so different that we are thinking about things on totally different levels. You think that I am trying to prove myself right, and I am just trying to show you that some things can be right and can be wrong. See the difference? I think Bongcart did. |
| mindtear Wed May 11th, 2005 at 04:43 PM |
Author's note: The following comes from maha's own words. Maha vs. Maha A presentation Theme: Long ago, when I was much younger, more naive and immature, I used to spout off about this and that, by all acounts making a total ass of myself. My family suggested that "if only I could hear myself..." When we talk about "being the change" and leading by example, this means that we are trying to influence others by showing them how to live in accordance with certain principles. However, I've noticed that this is often counterproductive when it comes to changing minds. You would think that people would see you behaving in such a way, and that they too would try to emulate that. I mean, if you were doing something positive, the intuitive thing for them to do would be to follow suit. However, I've noticed that people will not only continue in their ways unabated, but that their resolve to "misbehave" is often strengthened when they see someone doing what they themselves should be doing. It's like they realize that you are doing something positive and that they know they are doing something wrong, but yet they don't care. And just to spite you, they continue to remain fixed in their behaviors, and often, will even embelish their negative behavior as a result of your own positive actions. My belief is that they do this because they know they are in the wrong, and they are really mad at themselves. But instead of taking accountability for their actions and changing, they just shift the blame on you, and in some way, try to make themselves feel better by saying "See, I don't care what you do, I'll do what I want, even if it's to my own detriment." Quote: I know what you and Joe are talking about with the whole "coming across as arrogant thing." However, this is all part of this phenomenon that I'm wondering about. Because there may or may not be any intentional arrogance being cast out by the person doing the "positive" things. It's just a matter of people perceiving it as arrogant. However, most Ishies will of course disagree with your statement because you used the word "wrong"--a big taboo no-no here at Ishcon. Plus, they don't like to think of things as having a true answer or an absolute factual foundation. You know, the whole "everything is relative" thing. But my standpoint is this: It is error alone that needs belief and opinion to support it; the truth can stand for itself. And this is exactly why humanity is so divided. Even like-minded people can't even agree that facts are facts. It's a flaw alright, but I question whether it is a flaw on my part, or yours. And Devin, just because (relating back to my original example) I have a six pack, doesn't make me arrogant. And just because I believe that science is absolute, doesn't make me arrogant. Because by providing more facts and evidentiary support, you only increase people's resolve to not believe you and to resist accepting what you say. This is the counter-intuitive mindset I'm trying to explore. Quote: Again, what you think about religion, doesn't change what religion actually is--which is bullshit (no offense). The only problem I ever had with religion is that they expect humans to believe it. I am truly alarmed that people actually put credence into it. I feel obligated to "show them the light" so to speak. Frankly, it pisses me off that people here would even argue this point, but I know it's just that you guys like to play devil's advocate, even with the issues that are the most unquestionable. Interestingly enough, I think you have unwittingly proven my point. Because you've taken something positive that I am doing (whether it be working out or sharing universal truths) and twisted it into an argument of hypocrisy and arrogance--of which I am entirely not trying to convey. Quote: Well, I sensed that what I was talking about might be construed as ironic. So it's no surprise that it was thrown back in my face. This thread is about refusing change. You guys seem to think that I am refusing change because I won't accept what you guys are saying. However, to expect me to change in order to conform to your viewpoints is even more ironic than the ironic/contradictory perception you have of me and my opinions. So it's like double ironic that you accuse me of hypocrisy andl irony (which is in fact not there) [!!!!!!] all the while you all refuse not to see where I'm coming from. Talk about irony alright! Quote: Quote: Do you care what or how other people think? Are you just interested in proving a point, or proving that you are right? I value opinions, but I don't care what people think about me. I'm only interested in changing minds. And like killer said, there is some entertainment value in arguing with christians, not to mention you, I suppose. Quote: In addition, does your confidence in science make you feel superior to more religiously-minded people? Abso-fucking-lutely. But here is the difference between you and I. I don't expect you all to change by accepting my opinions. Apparently, you do expect me to change...because by not changing, you are saying that I am being hypocritical and ironic. This, in and of itself is not ironic because it doesn't really pertain to the original point of this thread, however, I do find it odd that you would choose this angle of approach to make me look bad and discredit me, considering it is contradictory to what you are implying. [quote]You are making it seem like being told a fact is some sort of terrible imposition, when in reality, I am just sharing a fact with you. 2+2=4 Devin--See, I am not imposing the laws of mathematics on you by saying that. I am just saying "Hey, there is this scientifically proven thing called math, and here is what it states." (Then tonyz will interject and say something to the effect of science being the simulacrum, and irrationality is the only objective truth--heard it all before dude, and still don't buy it...) And the fact that I am confident that science has proven religion and "God" as unfactual, does not make me arrogant. This actually does pertain to the original topic.[ [/quote] Christians think it's sad that people are agnostic. I think it's sad that people are Christian. You think it's sad that I'm atheist. It's all relative. Long ago, when I was much younger, more naive and immature, I used to spout off about this and that, by all acounts making a total ass of myself. My family suggested that "if only I could hear myself..." Quote: Again, I'm encountering the same ideologies that I've seen displayed here before. It's that same backwards talk that questions everything (even the unquestionable) and makes it seem like nothing can ever be proven (even the proven), especially by us lowly humans. I for one, will never believe this, and I know that most of you don't -deep down inside- believe it either. You guys found your way to Ishcon and can operate computers, so obviously you possess a certain level of intelligence that prohibits you from thinking so absurdly. I don't know if you are trying get me to see an alternative point of view because you don't like my matter-of-factedness or if you just think I'm arrogant or what? But your fancy words and detailed knowledge of philosophy will not change my perception of the world--It could hypothetically, but you would have to present to me stuff that I've have not yet considered and accounted for. Thus far, no one here has done that. Of course I know more now--a lot more. And this is not boasting or hubris, this is just a function of time and acquired knowledge. But by saying that I know less now, is admitting that I now know what I don't know. When I was a teenager, I had no idea of what I didn't yet know. But now, I know there is a lot of stuff out there that I haven't yet discovered. When I was 17 I knew everything. When I turned 20 I realized that I didn't know everything, but was still confident that I knew more than most. When I turned 25 I realized how little I actually knew... Quote: I didn't know I was ignorant, let alone letting it show. And if so, then how? All I said was that I had a problem with certain religions. It wasn't a statement about historical accounts or anything factual that could be refuted, it was just my opinion. So how is that ignorant? I never said that Christians constitute a majority of anything. It helps none of us when you write shit like that because we don't know who or what you're talking about. So it's just an ambiguous negative statement that calls into question the positive things we are trying to accomplish with our dialog--the end result being: makes you look bad, makes us feel bad, makes Ishcon less purposeful. Even if you are right or wrong, it doesn't have to result in hurt feelings, flame wars, arrogance, or anything negative. Being wrong is a wonderful thing, because it means you have learned something new and corrected your uncorrect ways. I've been wrong a lot. Quote: I frame statements and questions so that your only response is to either [b] contradict yourself [b] or to agree with me. That is why I am good at being right so often. And I have confidence in saying that, but I'm not flaunting it in your face. It's just a fact, proven by my words, and backed by my experiences, science, and my extensive knowledge of Quinn's work. Long ago, when I was much younger, more naive and immature, I used to spout off about this and tha |