To whom it may concern (The religious)

If you and I were in a discussion and I were trying to convince you that there are 15 pink elephants living in my backyard worshiping me, you'd think I were frickin insane. It's really no different. Some of these "tall tales" that people honestly believe and push off as some kind of fact... it's hard for some of us to take them seriously.

 

we're all ignorant

 

How do you presume I am separating myself?

Secondly, not everyone subscribes to arbitrary institutions. Yes, we all stand inside a camp, but why would any camp prevent gay marriage or stem cell research?

I don't understand.

Intellect is the capacity for knowledge. I can assure you whatever you read that made you say this wasn't understood. I have no reason to believe people cannot be as knowledgeable as the next human being.

Knowledge on the other hand, is more often than not, denounced with gusto.
Your 'camp' is satisfied with not understanding the universe and those who aren't delusional have to suffer the legislation.

To what?

 

By calling it arbitrary, you are separating yourself from those that believe in 'arbitrary' things.

I have no idea why they would prevent those. Maybe they should seek to understand their own beliefs a lot better than they have.

The knowledge we have now has more to do with practicality than with truth. There is no evidence that empiricism is absolute since we have no proof that performing an experiment the 50 trillionth time won't defy our expectations.

Well, you are saying this:

Are you sure that 'my' camp is like this and not just another 'camp'? Maybe you're linking the two together. You make two assumptions 1 ) We have an understanding of the universe 2 ) That all religious aren't seeking to understanding the universe simply because they tend towards a certain outlook.

You also call them delusional which is another way of separating ourselves.

 

If these 'tale tales' had enough intelligence and work behind them, then I would have to reconsider if they were tale tales or not.


Although, like you, I don't agree that anything should be pushed on anyone or have their lives changed forcibly due to these beliefs.

 

You needn't acquire by force what is free for the having.
Some say if there were no laws, criminality would run rampant. They see themselves figures in a dream, but forget they are the dreamer. Without crime there would be no criminals.

What antagonistic behavior? Predators eat other animals. The predator wants to live. The prey wants to live, it has no malice toward the predator.
Where is the antagonism.

You are not in any way referring to a standard metric. The couching of events, is arbitrary. If you could meaningfully isolate an action from all others, you would still get a thousand different versions depending on the observer.

Therefore it is not a measurement of any fact.

There are no discrete systems.

Storms are caused by uneven heating.

Dissatisfied as in hungry. We have a temperate zone. We are warm blooded.

 

Perception by it's nature is ignorant. Form is defined by negative space. But, perception is not knowledge.
Knowledge is, being shared.

 

False. calling it arbitrary is merely describing an attributes of an already established thing.

I have a very good idea as to why they would prevent those, and (surprise) its not particular to the religious. I agree that they should seek to understand their own beliefs, in fact that is all I am asking.

The problem is that faith demands that there is not understanding. Thats what the word actually means lol.....

What is more relevant than practicality in truth?

I don't know what the future will bring, perhaps the dynamics of electricity will change, but why would you assert that it would without reason?

Why should we think the electricity we have now will change? Why cant the way we observe it now be its true nature?

I think, therefor I am.
Everything that exists anywhere shares the fact that it exists.

Unfortunately i am a victim of circumstances and while i realize you might not understand this, i cant think of any reason why you might not understand it.

more detail means more explanation.

Actually, speculating about god and fanciful afterlives and whatnot is exactly what Not seeking to understand the universe is. We have no reason to assert the universe is that way in the first place. My denial is the opposite to your assertion. We are left with what is.

Delusion: an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary

The contrary would be Atheist. A solution formed through a proven method.

I am not creating separation, I am describing it.

And without reason, you would not know any of that.

I'm curious as to whether you believe killers are born or made.

You said it yourself that the prey wants to live. In order for the predator to survive, the prey must die.

Antagonism is about opposition and resistance. The motivation for feelings toward opposition and resistance come before the antagonism and is irrelevant to what we are talking about.

Its like the order of operations (pemdas). If you change the order of procedures that the equation is solved with, you get the wrong answer.

Life comes before death, and so on.

I guess I could digress into the mathematics of depth perception and neuron efficiency along with how my brain recognizes differences, but i really should be able to just say 'observe', since thats what the word demands.

The word 'action' does not seek to destroy the casual relationship between a thing that "begins here" or "begins there".

I am simply trying to describe to you the state of things at a particular time.

Measurement: the act or process of assigning numbers to phenomena according to a rule.

Phenomena: any state or process known through the senses rather than by intuition or reasoning.

Could you explain this a little more?

Yes, but if we disagreed about what causes storms, either one of us, or both of us would be wrong.

right?

I don't understand.

 

There is another way to regard faith and that is a little willingness to allow, to not exclude possibility.

Sounds reasonable.

I know that we are real. Bodies can destroy other bodies but there are no killers.

Actually the predator must eat to survive and that does not require any particular prey. That an organism is eaten does not alter the progression of that organisms life, everything dies. I do not see that this is antagonistic.

I don't know what you are getting at with this example, an equation is a mathematical statement of equality. All actions in this regard are equal, not antagonistic. The lines of force all go in the same direction, toward life.

What are you observing?

Nor does it establish it. There are no discrete systems.

Standard or daylight time.

What rule in this instance, sensation? Perspective?

An event then is not such a thing as a phenomena. An "event's" parameters are set by description.

All motion is sympathetically emergent. The foot bone is connected to the ankle bone is connected to the leg bone, etc. Cause for everything is the same first cause.

We would have a storm. We may misinterpret a fact but we cannot be wrong, as we are real. This is a subtle but not meaningless distinction. No amount of misinterpreted fact changes reality.

We are in this world seeking.

 

I'm not satisfied with 'a little willingness to allow'.

A football player plays football. Wouldn't someone who kills would be a killer?

The point i am making though, is that of a predator - prey relationship.

Living is more than just waiting to die though. Many animals are chased repeatedly before they are killed. What you see this as is irrelevant.

I did not assert that all actions are antagonistic. I am describing the relationship between a wolf and a rabbit, from the rabbits point of view.

This wasn't even insinuated..

Causality.

There are no events without actions. An action is an occurrence, and an occurrence is phenomena.

We are talking about the same thing in the 'storm' blurb below.

Facts about a storm are gathered by observing actions. why should we treat human interaction differently?

Well i know we cant be wrong, but one or both of us would be incorrect in our assertion.

I've repeated this like 5 times in this thread so far.

This point is so important to me because we have so many denominations of this belief is that belief. I don't understand the point of concentrating on something we cannot hope to agree on, rather than something that demands understanding. Hence the questions in the original post.

I still dont understand this point. lol

 

You are not satisfied with suspending judgment?

You do have a point about nomenclature.

The prey will move out of the way no matter what the threat. I still don't see the antagonism.

I didn't suggest anyone is just waiting to die and many animals are chased without being killed. What I am suggesting is that people don't die of things, people die.

Bugs bunny? Bugs, is that you?

Where does an occurrence begin and where does it end?

We observe current conditions.

Why do we treat humans differently? When people freeze to death we do not indict the cold weather for murder. When a coldness sweeps through the psyche of an individual and some one dies from that cold, why do we seek bloody repayment?

We might comprehend, all actions are equal.

My point is a misunderstanding is not a type of understanding, it is understanding missed. Choose again.

I apologize if I'm spitting your own points back at you, I actually just busted into the middle of the thread.

The reason for the phenomena you speak of is cultural indoctrination and subsequent devotion to tradition. Our natural inclination to curiosity, investigation, and understanding is usurped by the scrutiny toward compliance. The word tradition comes from a root meaning "to betray" or "give away". Tradition seeks to guide through adherence to a rule yet this seriously compromises our situational awareness, the brightness of our mind is met when we seek understanding.

 

No. Not if suspending "judgement" means flying planes into buildings and oppressing gay people.

I can only point you to google.

That is something all humans have in common, but the mass that makes up my body is not subject to the same instances of causality that yours are at the same time.

when we describe people dieing 'of' things to express this difference.

This is like talking to a machine lol.

Aint I a stinker?

Why are we trying to define these perimeters?

The fact that we are all victims of circumstance doesn't mean that we should do one thing or another though. Cold weather cant really have an opinion on this matter.

But misunderstanding means applying the wrong interpretation. Else it would just be called 'not understanding'.

happens all the time..

This is a breathe of fresh air.

 

This too shall pass.

We have all the time there is.

Which is no difference.

I know, the voice you hear is on a computer scream.

Because we attempt to organize our lives according to them. The reason things seem to fall apart on a regular basis is that these parameters are arbitrary and as such reflect a lack of fundamental organization.

And what reasonable opinion can be counted on when someone is overwhelmed with some passion?

Applying the wrong interpretation does not affect fundamental nature other than to obscure the perception of it.

 

on the predator/prey/antagonism subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-DGg5mhj-s"]YouTube- Motherhood - Cheetah with Monkey

skip to 1:40

 

The religious just want to get to know us in the end! They don't want to kill us as a whole! We're the head! (and secret heart! lol)

 

Its been thousands of years...

All instances of mass do not share the same attributes. Some things reflect green light and some molecules are more complex than others. I don't understand how this is 'no difference'. They share some common attributes but the composition of a rock is not conscious in the way the matter that humans consist of is.

But they aren't arbitrary. You and I know what an action is without getting existential about it. We could define the working term within an institution, and we could reduce it to a casual level without talking about causality by starting with something else all humans have in common. The fact that we exist is not arbitrary.

This is exactly my point, though.

Racist bigots would not be angry at blacks Mexicans and Jews if they were properly educated. Just like Irish gangs would not feud if they weren't religious fanatics. They don't understand the reason for their passion.

I'd also like to interject that understanding does not fade the presence of beauty and passion, it just puts it in a different location. The book 'Unweaving the Rainbow' by Richard Dawkins is about this same subject

But perception is very important with regards to a humans relationship with another human.

What isn't in that video is all the animals that did die to keep that leopard alive.

I'm not saying we cant live together peaceful, in fact i'm saying the opposite. We are just going into detail about how that is possible.