It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A simple idea that could reconcile us all

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 08:33 PM
link   
How often have you read something that someone has written, and come away thinking, "They're completely missing the point." ?

A lot of disagreement stems from the inability of people to see things from one another's perspective. Frequently, it's not that somebody is "wrong" so much as that they're seeing things without the benefit of your perspective.

For example...

Let's say there is a wall. One side painted blue, and the other side is painted orange. You and I are each standing on opposite sides, trying to come to an agreement about what color the wall is. I look, see that my side is blue, so I say that it's blue. You look, see that your side is orange, so you say it's orange. We both shake our heads and repeat what we've seen. This repeats until eventually we both conclude that the other one is an idiot.

Doesn't that seem like a lot of religious discussions you've had with people?

People who seem to mindlessly repeat the same things over and over when clearly those things make absolutely no sense at all? Is it possible that maybe what they're saying does make sense, and in fact, might even be true...provided you're looking at the wall from their side?

From a position of absolute knowledge, which is more correct? "The wall is blue" or "The wall is orange." ? Well...they're both true, but...they're both incomplete truths.

Just because we know some piece of truth, does not mean that we know ALL the truth.

Science knows this. We realize that we don't know everything, and seek to build and grow upon our knowledge to gain an ever clearer world view. Were the Greeks wrong about the atom? Well, not exactly, but in time Rutherford, Bohr and others built upon and refined that knowledge. But, were these great men also wrong? Well, not exactly, but in time, the works of Shroedinger, Pauli, Heisenburg and others once again supplanted the old knowledge.

We know that we don't know everything. Past experience and common sense both tell us this.

The Bible tells us exactly the same thing: Only God knows what is in the hearts of men.

Maybe...just maybe...if past experience, common sense, and God can all agree on this one point...that we don't know everything....just maybe we can give the idea a try?

Athiests: When thousands of years of science have shown us that new knowledge grows and replaces the old, we would be fools to discount the religious simply based on the knowledge we have now.

Christians: When Jesus comes right out and commands us to not judge others (Matthew 7:1) and warns us of the dangers us attempting to remove the blindness from the eyes of our brethren (Luke 6:41-42)...would it not be foolish to disobey?

Let's accept that we don't know everything. And let's stop trying to convert one another to own own incomplete truths.


[edit on 13-8-2007 by LordBucket]




posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 10:14 PM
link   
It's a very nice thought, and a nicely written piece.

If I were looking at the blue wall, and you were looking at the orange wall, i would pretty quickly figure out that we're probably looking at two different colored walls. But i'm open-minded like that.

Idealism is a very sweet thing, but realism is crass and rude. Idealism begs that we just stop for a moment and understand that we're all people with worth simply BECAUSE we have that in common. That we can exist in a world where everyone can see every problem from every angle. This would literally put an end to every problem we face today, tomorrw, and until humanity dies out.

You and I know that's at least three pipe dreams. The human element, in this case, is emotion, not logic. Logic gives us the ability to see it from another angle. Some of us have it. Emotion gives us the ability to feel love, anger, sadness, jealousy, envy, etc. These are the things that fuel our contempt for one another, for no real reason at all. Sadly, this is the reason humanity will always be at odds with itself.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 10:22 PM
link   
this is a book i believe everyone should read. Ive avoided it for a long time due to my ignorance of elitist types and all they stand for, but now that i started reading it, it has put a smile on my face a few times know that at least im on the right track.

"how to win friends and influence people" - Dale Carnegie


en.wikipedia.org...


the title always turned me off, i always looked at it as a book of manipulation, but it is an excellent insight into what drives human emotion.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 01:48 AM
link   


Idealism is a very sweet thing, but realism is crass and rude.


I think a big part of the problem here is that people enjoy the debate. The fact of arguing over this is more important to them than any kind of resolution or increased understanding. Am I being foolishly idealistic in thinking that people might understand this? Are people really so caught up in the thrill of the debate that they can never pause for long enough to gain any understanding from it?

I hope not.

Ask yourself, when you engage in this "science" vs. "religion" debate...what is your motive for participating? Do you really believe that you're likely to convince the other side? No? Ok...then maybe you're trying to understand the other position, so you can review your own and possibly change your own mind? No? Not doing that either? Umm, ok...then are you engaging in the debate out of habit, or because you enjoy having it? Something like that? Well, what if the other people on the other side of the discussion are also engaging in the debate for exactly that same reason, also have no interest in updating their own personal beliefs based on what they hear, and also have no real expectation of convincing anyone else to change their mind?

Then...we're all just arguing for the sake or arguing, right?

Is that really what we want to be doing?



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by LordBucket
 



Wow, yes, That is what I have told people here at this site, and outside of this site, repeatedly. We don't see whole portions of the truth. We only see bits and pieces of it. You actually put it into words quite nicely and accurately.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 03:02 AM
link   
just like the three blind men who bought an elephant...

debate is good, when done in the traditional manner for the purpose of LEARNING and WIDENING one's horizons.

unfortunately, currently society has regressed ever so slightly due to FEAR and so insecurities have turned debate into a means for strife and division.

but thank GOD for change being the only constant; this, too, shall pass!



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 04:57 AM
link   
LordBucket, we only discount religion because it has absolutely no evidence and it is inherently contradictory to science to accept anything on faith alone.

there can be no reconciliation between faith and reason, for faith is unreasonable.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 06:28 AM
link   
the only thing that is unreasonable is a closed mind



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
the only thing that is unreasonable is a closed mind
And just who would you say has more of a closed mind, non-theists or theists? And how do you justify your answer? Not an easy one!


G



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
the only thing that is unreasonable is a closed mind


my mind is open... just not so open that my brain falls out. i'm open to everything that has evidence to support it.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud
And just who would you say has more of a closed mind, non-theists or theists? And how do you justify your answer? Not an easy one!


Easy, when one is neither.

In general, both about the same.

Justification? The constant contention/debate that both sides engage in and neither one seems wont to try to end.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


NO it's not! You're fooling yourself just like everyone else.

You are just as firmly attached to your own opinions as the next guy.
You just call it by a different name!

Buddhism should at least help you with that.

It is not our opinions which cause us unhappiness but rather our attachment to our opinions.


[edit on 8/22/2007 by queenannie38]



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 07:49 PM
link   


madnessinmysoul:
we only discount religion because it has absolutely no evidence
and it is inherently contradictory to science to accept anything on faith alone.


But is this really true? I would say for the overwhelming majority of people, it is not. Do you believe in quarks? Have you ever seen one? Do you have any personal experience of any kind whatsoever with quarks? I'm guessing probably not, and neither do more than 99% of everyone who believes in them. Why do they believe? Because "a scientist" said that they exist.

That's faith, and what is being done here is exactly the same as when a religion person belives something said by a priest.



there can be no reconciliation between faith and reason, for faith is unreasonable.


Ok.

Do you believe in...

Subatomic particles?
Atoms?
Molecules?
Dinosaurs?

Do you have any personal experience with any of these things? I don't. And I'm guessing that most other people don't either. So why do people believe in these things? Because they have faith in the people who told them about them.



i'm open to everything that has evidence to support it.


Right! Exactly! Yes!

But what, in your mind, qualifies as "evidence?" First hand observation? Ok. But for all of the above examples, aren't you really going purely off of third-party testimony? A physicist says there are subatomic particles, and a paleontologist says there were dinosaurs, so you believe them. Or at least you credit the ideas as being likely. Ok...but what about the person who claims to have personally experienced Jesus Christ, and wants to "bear witness" to that? Why don't you consider his testimony credible?

We can come up with all the excuses we want, and claim ourselves to be exceptions for whatever reason, but the reality for the vast majority of people is that they base their decision of whom to believe based primarily on their past environment. The odds favor that the child of a protestant will become a protestant. The odds favor that the child of an athiest will be an athiest. Yes, of course there are exceptions, and I would suggest that most (not all, but most) of those exceptions are based simply on other environments. For instance, if the son of the athiest grows up miserable and lonely, and one day meets a bunch of friendly Christians and is happy in their social group, very often he'll choose to convert.

It's for these sorts of reasons that most people choose their beliefs. Not because of logic. Not evidence. Not thought...simply past environment and personal comfort.

This is the wall that separates us. This is the paint we're looking at.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by LordBucket



Do you believe in...

Subatomic particles?
Atoms?
Molecules?
Dinosaurs?

Do you have any personal experience with any of these things? I don't. And I'm guessing that most other people don't either. So why do people believe in these things? Because they have faith in the people who told them about them.



There is actual evidence for all the things you list, from hundreds if not thousands of independent researchers all over the world. This evidence all converges on a whole picture of reality.

Religious claims have no evidence at all. Belief is not evidence. The bible is not evidence. All supernatural concepts and ideas are delusions. Until there is actual REAL evidence for a god, then it does not exist. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and someone claiming they were healed at a prayer meeting is not evidence.

And the question remains: which god is the true one? Which of the hundreds of sects of Christianity represent the true religion?

The answer: none. It's all make-believe. It's primitive thinking from a time when we didn't have reason and scientific method to find out how things work. And it's time our species grew up and put away our imaginary friends.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by LordBucket


madnessinmysoul:
we only discount religion because it has absolutely no evidence
and it is inherently contradictory to science to accept anything on faith alone.


But is this really true?


yes.



I would say for the overwhelming majority of people, it is not.


ad populum logical fallacy.



Do you believe in quarks? Have you ever seen one? Do you have any personal experience of any kind whatsoever with quarks? I'm guessing probably not, and neither do more than 99% of everyone who believes in them.


um... that's theoretical physics... it's still the realm of "well, it seems to work, but it's just the best theory we have for now"



Why do they believe? Because "a scientist" said that they exist.


no, because a scientist made a COMPELLING CASE for their existence.



That's faith, and what is being done here is exactly the same as when a religion person belives something said by a priest.


incorrect, i'm only acknowledging that quarks probably exist because of the case made for their existence.






Ok.

Do you believe in...

Subatomic particles?
Atoms?
Molecules?
Dinosaurs?


there is evidence for all of the above.



Do you have any personal experience with any of these things? I don't.


well, subatomic particles i've experienced from the light coming from this screen as photons... the atoms i've seen through images from a scanning tunneling microscope... molecules i've seen in an electron microscope... dinosaurs i've seen fossils from



And I'm guessing that most other people don't either. So why do people believe in these things? Because they have faith in the people who told them about them.


no, because we understand the arguements presented as the case for their existence. it's not just because someone said so....
there




Right! Exactly! Yes!

But what, in your mind, qualifies as "evidence?" First hand observation?


NO. first hand observations don't count at all... i'd say measurements would, but not OBSERVATION. observations can be subjective.



Ok. But for all of the above examples, aren't you really going purely off of third-party testimony? A physicist says there are subatomic particles, and a paleontologist says there were dinosaurs, so you believe them.


no, i look at the evidence for those things (granted, subatomic physics takes a bit long for me to understand) and then i realize that the case is substantial



Or at least you credit the ideas as being likely. Ok...but what about the person who claims to have personally experienced Jesus Christ, and wants to "bear witness" to that? Why don't you consider his testimony credible?


because i don't consider first hand testimony to be very credible
and what's odd is that there are no first hand historical accounts of jesus..........



We can come up with all the excuses we want, and claim ourselves to be exceptions for whatever reason, but the reality for the vast majority of people is that they base their decision of whom to believe based primarily on their past environment.


i'm not an atheist because of my past environment, i'm an atheist in spite of my past environment.



The odds favor that the child of a protestant will become a protestant. The odds favor that the child of an athiest will be an athiest. Yes, of course there are exceptions, and I would suggest that most (not all, but most) of those exceptions are based simply on other environments.


actually... most atheists aren't the children of atheists... but the children of atheists do tend towards atheism.



For instance, if the son of the athiest grows up miserable and lonely, and one day meets a bunch of friendly Christians and is happy in their social group, very often he'll choose to convert.


betraying the opiate nature of religion...........



It's for these sorts of reasons that most people choose their beliefs. Not because of logic. Not evidence. Not thought...simply past environment and personal comfort.


yes, you're right.
that's why i DON'T believe. atheist don't believe in stuff, we don't hold any beliefs in particular.



This is the wall that separates us. This is the paint we're looking at.


and you just don't realize that the answer is atheism. atheists hold no beliefs.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by LordBucket
Let's accept that we don't know everything. And let's stop trying to convert one another to own own incomplete truths.
[edit on 13-8-2007 by LordBucket]


Its easy to think its conversion. I would like to think its conversation.

A farmer does not stop sowing seeds in his field despite knowing that tares will grow amongst the crop

Peace





[edit on 26-8-2007 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 04:11 AM
link   
I think the simple answer to reconcile us all is to stop talking religion in terms of who is right and who is wrong but discuss the conspiracies in religion.

You are right, to some the wall is orange and other blue or red or green etc. The fact of the matter is, there IS a wall. That is the object. Doesn't matter what you call God, there is a God regardless of his name.

Ok let's just say "Higher Power".



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by shearder
Doesn't matter what you call God, there is a God regardless of his name.

Ok let's just say "Higher Power".
Why does there even have to be a higher power??? The wall analogy doesn't work here as you can't see or touch the 'god wall'. You see a blue wall and I see absolutely nothing.



G

[edit on 27-8-2007 by shihulud]



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by shearder
You are right, to some the wall is orange and other blue or red or green etc. The fact of the matter is, there IS a wall. That is the object. Doesn't matter what you call God, there is a God regardless of his name.


NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

there is no god, regardless of said being's name. there is nothing there, we see no evidence to support it.

now you're just saying "let's not acknowledge that a significant portion of the population is atheist or agnostic (agnostic: atheist writ polite)"

the only wall that is there is the one put up by those that have religion in their own heads



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

there is no god, regardless of said being's name. there is nothing there, we see no evidence to support it.

Likewise i see no evidence to support that God does not exist. I have seen evidence that he does exist and that is enough for me. And i believed he existed before i saw evidence - these are my beliefs. The fact that you do not believe a God exists is also cool. Those are your beliefs and i respect that.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
the only wall that is there is the one put up by those that have religion in their own heads


Or visa-versa - putting up walls to block the possibility that there is a God. Each coin has 2 sides. It doesn't bother me what side anyone has chosen to take. We are all allowed to choose our own paths. We have freedom of choice.
I have made mine and you have made yours. That's cool.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join