I wonder why people can't take this attitude when it comes to beliefs. Ok you believe in God and God exists for you, just like that Ghost. But God doesn't exist for me. I don't believe.

On the other hand the atheists and Deists and Agnostics will try to disprove the God that people believe in. Why is that? Why does it bother you that people believe what they believe?

isn't this your original question asking why the NB has the perspective they do and how that has came to be... i am contributing saying IMO POV we do not even need the systems we have created, they are tools really bringing in a n element a layer one may not of considered........ it was going with the flow IMO.... just to clarify..

the answer - for some, sometimes feeling they are right is not enough for them (thinking showing you wrong strengthens that they are right). Some also feel the need to show you are wrong - see ego - its not about what is right, it is about being right. [bold](based on the premise that there is only one correct answer, of course)[/bold].

Oh, it seemed like you were dragging your construct theories over here since the Shame thread petered out....not sure what you mean exactly in how it relates to the idea of this thread. But then that's just my perspective LOL!

the answer - for some, sometimes feeling they are right is not enough for them (thinking showing you wrong strengthens that they are right). Some also feel the need to show you are wrong - see ego - its not about what is right, it is about being right. [bold](based on the premise that there is only one correct answer, of course)[/bold].

The answer could also be that for some, knowing you're right also places on you the responsibility to insure that others are aware of the truth... notice, not the responsibility to insure they accept it, just that they are aware.

It's a fundamental part of my own belief system that knowledge (although I'm not sure that's even the right word) I have concerning the Creator is of absolutely no use to anyone else. When you believe that only personal experience is valid you actually want people to not take your word for it. If I said "the Creator spoke to me today" (which doesn't happen by the way), I would hope that it would not impact on the person I'm telling. I wouldn't want them to be influenced or believe me. So, I actually take the stance opposite to Son's. My way is not the only way, please don't think it is, and please don't listen to a word I say about the Creator... figure it out for yourself.

The answer could also be that for some, knowing you're right also places on you the responsibility to insure that others are aware of the truth... notice, not the responsibility to insure they accept it, just that they are aware.

I think you are quite correct in that regard. Not just with things of religion but in all walks of life. For instance: knowing what is happening on the Global World Stage with respect to the Islamic Fundamentalists. If one 'knows' what is happening in the world in that area then one feels almost 'obligated' to share and inform.

So, then...you make others aware of what you know. The problem seems though that as soon as you make others aware, there are always those who are going to immediately debate what it is that you say you know. The question is why?
And I think the answers have been stated very well by all. Just to add one more reason...I think some people just like to argue.

I'm glad you are seeing that this is not just spiritual truth, but any and all truth.

I'm glad that we are just seeing something the same way!

We are all just muddling along...I think that's a great way to put it SH! One can look at a tree and say..There is a tree. Some will still disagree with you but you can actually Prove that the tree is there. In matters of Religion which are unprovable...we seek to understand what we can...everyone seeking there own way...everyone 'muddling' along. Why mess with someone else's muddling?

I think you are quite correct in that regard. Not just with things of religion but in all walks of life. For instance: knowing what is happening on the Global World Stage with respect to the Islamic Fundamentalists. If one 'knows' what is happening in the world in that area then one feels almost 'obligated' to share and inform.

So, then...you make others aware of what you know. The problem seems though that as soon as you make others aware, there are always those who are going to immediately debate what it is that you say you know. The question is why?
And I think the answers have been stated very well by all. Just to add one more reason...I think some people just like to argue.

The answer could also be that for some, knowing you're right also places on you the responsibility to insure that others are aware of the truth... notice, not the responsibility to insure they accept it, just that they are aware.

and to this, quite a bit comes down to interpretation of expression. Are "you" in the way you present your "knowledge" appearing open and factual; overbearing and arrogant; etc. This has to do as much with what the presenter actually "is" as it does with how the receiver interprets. It is especially tricky in medium such as this board as typed messages can not convey the complete message of the presenter.

Also don't forget that "knowing your right" doesn't mean your audience will agree. This is an example of how truth is relative (not to get into that again )

As joc raises the topic of fundamentalist islam, for example - there is the westernized propaganda on what it is, and then there is what is really happening in the middle east. Remember the old saying "there are three sides to every story/ yours, mine, and the truth"? (ahhh... there is that word "truth" again - who's truth anyway? truth as in what those involved agree to be the truth, of couse. I am in the mood to discuss this in more detail, perhaps later this week, if you are interested - "truth", "rationality", and "what can we really know", that is - let me know if you are interested)

joc, forgive me for not being able to follow your beliefs, but you say you are a Christian who accepted Jesus and believes the Bible, yes? One is not muddling along when they have accepted Jesus, nor does the Christian faith see witnessing as "messing with someone else's muddling." I apologize but would you mind helping me understand how a Christian can believe that there is no proof of God? That would lead to the thought that you don't know Him, in which case I am unclear on the point of calling oneself a Christian? I don't mean to be rude but I can't think of a "prettier" way to say it, you of course don't have to answer me but it is confusing. Thanks.

In Essence:

I don't take marching orders from 'Christian Faith Police'. I don't follow closely the teachings of the church. I have wholly and totally rejected the teachings of the church as a matter of fact. That means I have also deleted church catch phrases from my vocabulary such as: 'accepted Jesus', saved, born again. The point of calling myself a Christian is that I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ....not the 'church' of Jesus Christ. I don't follow the teachings of Paul. I follow the teachings of Jesus. I am muddling through because one cannot 'prove' God or Christ. One can only acknowledge them through faith...and faith is just that...faith. I don't have all the answers...I don't really have any answers. I just do my best to live each moment as though it were my last...because it is. I'm glad you have all the answers....I simply and truly do not.

I'm sorry you are muddling through, that is not what Jesus gives to His followers.

Nor am I trying to pick a fight...but this is exactly what I was referring to as: MY Light is better than your Light syndrome. You believe you are right and everyone who doesn't believe the way you do is wrong. Which does imply that you have all the answers. I will now ask you the original question in a personal context: Why are you debating my beliefs?

That's an interesting perspective. Because if people had the idea that Shadow spoke of and just left it up to people to find out what they want, then would we know what we know? Isn't part of the responsibility of being "open minded" being willing to hear what others experience.

Shadow I don't think you mean it that way but it does come across a little like you have your fingers in your ear and are humming because you've figured out what you want to believe and don't want to hear anything different.

That's funny you say that Shadow, cause one of the things that drive me batty is when I make a good find and no one trusts my judgement.

Like how I'm always trying to get people to try Dead Sea Salt, peeling cream. LOL

I like listening to others talk about their spiritual experiences, but that's as far as it goes. No event experienced by another living soul can be transfered to me, and I can't transfer my experiences to another person. Let me put it this way... you can't say you've been in love just because your best friend told you how good it felt for him... you have to experience it yourself.

It's not whether or not the message I'm receiving from another person is new or old, or interesting, or believable... it's hearsay. If I tell another person about my experiences, for them it is hearsay. Hearsay is of no use to me.

The whole point, when it comes to being a Deist, is that personal experience is the only experience which can alter your belief system. Everything else is interesting, thought provoking, confusing, etc., but that's all it is.

It's kind of like choosing frozen yoghurt. I had to try Cherry Garcia myself before I discovered that it's my favourite flavour... the guy in Tescos telling me it was excellent wasn't enough for me to proclaim my love for it before that first spoon full.

Great example, you're right if you had never tasted Cherry Garcia you would not know it as your favorite flavor. But even if you had never tasted Cherry Garcia it would have been an actual flavor, right? The truth of it being your favorite flavor is subjective, because before you tasted it you probably had another flavor as your favorite and you may still taste another flavor which will then become your favorite. But the truth of the ingredients of Cherry Garcia are not impacted by how you feel about them. How we feel about something, whether we agree with it, like it, hate it, wish it wasn't so, refuse to acknowledge it or choose to ignore it, does not change the truth of it.

I am skeptical of what you say because it doesn't fit with Jesus' teachings. Since this is the skeptics forum, it is allowed and encouraged to debate.

But there are lots of lovely frozen yoghurts in the world Son... and all of us like a different flavour... and nobody knows which flavour is the best one, we only know which one is best for us. I don't believe there is only one real frozen yoghurt in the world.

^But the fact remains, there are many flavors of God/Religion. Everybody has their favorite (and some don't even like the "food", much less a particular flavor of it.) Everybody's personal taste has equal worth.

Really? Why does everyone's taste have equal worth? How can you be certain of that?

In fact if you want to make that argument you'd have to say that all these people with their own 'version' of the truth are the ones operating out of ego.

If I tell you 2+2=4 and you decide you don't want to accept that, it still does not keep it from being true.
It seems you keep wanting to say perception is reality, and we all know that is not true, despite the fact that many people may "think" it's the truth.

Yes but some people might be respectful of others beliefs while still thinking that there is a RIGHT answer.

So why does this bother people? Why do people say "you have to accept" their theory when to do so in is direct contradiction to the other person's own theory that they have accepted?

Yes, there lots of yogurts, but that doesn't apply to everything. There is only one Earth, not your Earth and my Earth, just Earth. Just because there are a lot of yogurts and we can all pick out our particular favorite flavor doesn't mean we can actually do that with everything, as much as we may think or wish to do so.

There's a difference between behaving in a respectful manner and having respect for a person. You can think someone's a complete nana and behave respectfully towards them - we have to do that at work when the boss is a jerk. But do we respect that boss? I don't think so. And if the boss knew you thought he was a jerk, would the fact that you thought it but were respectful really make much of a difference to him? I think you'd be out on your a***.
You're sitting in your living room listening to Chopin on a low volume... you're happy. The man next door cranks up the volume on his CD player and blasts Dion Warwick into your living room. Why do you object to his behaviour? Doesn't he have the right to listen to his music in the way which suits him? Well, yes... but only until you have to listen to his music too.

i take that as a no then?

you keep making the mistake of thinking that because we can create a system (in this case number system), and thus set the axioms for it (making it clear what is true and what is not, relative to those axioms), that we can achieve the same level of certianty with things outside of our control.

You often misunderstand me. It is not "peception is reality", it is that we can not trust our senses/perceptions as they deceive us. Because of this deception, of which we can not determine which are deceptions and which are accurate (within the limits of our perceptions), we are uncertian as to what is true. We never fully experience reality, because we are of limited interaction with the universe!

You like to state how we are limited in our abilities in understanding your god. Why is it you can not see how those same limitations apply to our very interaction with the universe?

Did you look at bounded rationality?

You're right, there's only one earth. But there are numerous cultures around this little globe of ours. Which culture is the right one?

Yes, I looked at bounded reality. It seems to say that man can't trust his ability to reason because he is not necessarily evolved to be optimal at perceiving his environment, or really anything, he's just evolved to manage not to get killed off.

I completely agree that man can't trust his ability to reason, which is why it is important that man develop tools and systems to insure his thoughts are reasonable. Logic was developed basically to address this reality and has so far proven to be as effective in insuring rational thinking as the simple machines have been at helping man advance technologically. Logic is the tool that can help us determine the optimal reasoning. Obviously, since man is not optimal at reasoning, if he fails to use tools to insure rationality he will likely end up accepting irrational thoughts and acting on them.
What if none of the current cultures are the right one? What if, at best, some are better than others? We are then left with the task of deciding which are best and why, and the best way to do that would be to use logic to determine what does and doesn't make a good culture, wouldn't you think?

I don't see what the boss thing has to do with it. That's going back to tolerance again and that's not repsect.

Second the Chopin thing is a little off as well. Maybe he's blasting the Dion Warwick because your Chopin is too loud.

You seem to operate from the assumption that your views are personal and private and only the other side imposes their beliefs on others? Can you pause a sec and think of maybe a few ways it might come across differently to the other side?

What if none of the current cultures are the right one? What if, at best, some are better than others? We are then left with the task of deciding which are best and why, and the best way to do that would be to use logic to determine what does and doesn't make a good culture, wouldn't you think?

See, we have an agreement on the limitations on man. (I knew we did.) That is why I proposed we discuss those limitations. (and look at that, we can agree and the sky did not fall )

This is an area of interest to me, especially when we get to the limits of our own frameworks, such as the point where mathematics breaks down.

I'm sure we disagree on why man is limited though.

We can discuss the limitations and their effects without discussing the why, which is why I suggested an open discussion just on the limitations and not the origins. (put the contentious issues aside and explore the common ground)

Yes, we do agree on man's limitations (you're right that is not surprising), I'm sure we disagree on why man is limited though (which is probably why the sky didn't fall ).
Yes, the uncertainty of math is an interesting topic (I was reading a book about it at one point and stopped, I need to pick it back up), the interesting thing about that (from the point of this discussion) is that we know there is uncertainty in math because there are points at which math is not logical, and it is that irrationality which has led to the uncertainty in math.

mathematics is as anything else its a belief system made up

Yeah, the square root of 64 is 8 because I believe so.

Yeah, the square root of 64 is 8 because I believe so.

Chapter 1 Complex Numbers

Overview

Get ready for a treat. You're about to begin studying some of the most beautiful ideas in mathematics. They are ideas with surprises. They evolved over several centuries, yet they greatly simplify extremely difficult computations, making some as easy as sliding a hot knife through butter. They also have applications in a variety of areas, ranging from fluid flow, to electric circuits, to the mysterious quantum world. Generally, they are described as belonging to the area of mathematics known as complex analysis.



Section 1.1 The Origin of Complex Numbers

Complex analysis can roughly be thought of as the subject that applies the theory of calculus to imaginary numbers. But what exactly are imaginary numbers? Usually, students learn about them in high school with introductory remarks from their teachers along the following lines: "We can't take the square root of a negative number. But let's pretend we can and begin by using the symbol ." Rules are then learned for doing arithmetic with these numbers. At some level the rules make sense. If , it stands to reason that . However, it is not uncommon for students to wonder whether they are really doing magic rather than mathematics.

If you ever felt that way, congratulate yourself! You're in the company of some of the great mathematicians from the sixteenth through the nineteenth centuries. They, too, were perplexed by the notion of roots of negative numbers. Our purpose in this section is to highlight some of the episodes in the very colorful history of how thinking about imaginary numbers developed. We intend to show you that, contrary to popular belief, there is really nothing imaginary about "imaginary numbers." They are just as real as "real numbers."

son you do know that mathematics is a beleif system correct????

son you do know that mathematics is a beleif system correct????

*concentrates hard on believing... 2+2=5, 2x2=6, 2+2=5, 2x2=6,... hours later, still concentrating... "I believe, I believe, I believe"... hours later firmly believes 2+2=5, 2x2=6, takes out 2 pencils from drawer, grabs two pencils from pencil holder, puts all pencils together and counts them: 1,2,3,4.*