alexr_rwx | *back!*

Current Music: The Mighty Mighty Bosstones - Where You Come From

back!

So I'm back in Atlanta, and I think these next few days are going to be busy indeed... compilers is due on *shudder* Thursday, and I need to get stuff done for research Really Soon, and I need to get going on that dad-blammed NLU project (but that's going to be really cool, actually -- we're totally going to do machine learning techniques and train our agent on Atlanta Latino so's it can do automated translation...)... and ...

"It's not where you come from -- it's go and go get it."
-- The Mighty Mighty Bosstones, "Where You Come From"

I feel good. I'm ready to get down to business.

And I think it turns out that my mother

dramamamalama is more tolerant than I am -- particularly when it comes to people whom I view as having destructively smallminded and Patently Wrong viewpoints -- but that might just mean that I'm 22 and more than a bit paranoid. This came up when we were discussing her new job, which is helping out with the music department at the local Baptist church...

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

cool

but wait... i thought _i_ was the paranoid one... i just don't see it in you... i'm confused

Food for thought: Is it a bit hypocritical to be intolerant of people who have no tolerance?
Could those "other people" KNOW that they are right and YOU are wrong?
Oh beloved, there is room in the world for all kinds of view points, you don't have to try to save every one from them selves, they don't think there is any thing wrong with them. Of course, you can try to save them if you want to- see how tolerant I can be? You are practically perfect as a 22 year old. I love your zeal. Carry on.

In tolerance,
dramamamalama

I sometimes wonder if you're a bit hypocritical in your "smallminded"ness viewpoints. Take, for instance, your seeming adversion to predestination (particularly "double").

Having an aversion to a doctrine -- particularly, one that I view as unsupported by experience and one that has logical quandries that I've never heard worked out -- is not hypocritical. If I asked people to accept a doctrine that they didn't want to accept, and I couldn't support, and then complained that other people did the same thing, that would be hypocritical.

... so why do you refuse to accept, for example, that there is no God but Allah, and that the last and most authoritative prophet is Mohammed? And why don't you bow towards Mecca and pray five times a day?

I don't believe the Moslem doctrine, but that doesn't mean that I don't respect it and those that believe in it. I'm not going to scoff at a Hindu for believing in reincarnation, just as I don't scoff at Jeremy's belief in God but not Jesus, which is essentially Jewish. Just because I believe in double predestination doesn't mean I expect anyone else to, as well.

"one that has logical quandries that I've never heard worked out"
Does this mean you don't believe in things like love? *gryn*

If we were having this discussion in realspace, I might start singing. Or perhaps quoting from The Princess Bride.

"wuv... twue wuv..."

"What is love? Baby, don't hurt me, don't hurt me... no more."

... yes, Amber, I don't believe in love? You got me backed into a philosophical corner? ... What're you getting at?

Alls I'm saying is that there are certain ideas that are inconsistent, and I think that people who endorse them haven't thought about them hard enough. There is probably some Actual State Of Affairs, and logically inconsistent belief systems (Amber is tall. Also, Amber is not tall.) are probably not representative of reality. And you started off this thread, in effect, by insulting me.

If you want, we can discuss your personal beliefs...

My grandmother has been quoting those Princess Bride words since the movie came out, and she swears she's going to say them at my wedding reception.

My point is that, sometimes, you have to believe in illogical things that you can't see. You don't have a choice. Obviously, you can see what happens as a result of the things you can't see. You can't see the wind, but you can see tree branches swaying. You can't see love, but you can see people forgiving each other.

To me, what you're saying is that, because you view predestination as "inconsistent," then I obviously haven't thought about it hard enough because I do believe in it. What about reincarnation? What about only 144,000 getting into Heaven? What about nirvana? Would you say to a Buddhist that s/he hadn't thought enough about a belief simply because it may not make sense to you?

If you thought I was insulting you, I apologize. As many times as we've had this discussion and as many times as you've heard me outright insult someone, I I would have thought otherwise. *gryn*

If you want to discuss my beliefs, I'm game. Predestination? Easy for me to explain. The foundation is that I believe in creation. I don't pretend to think I know how long that creation took, but I believe "God created the heavens and the earth" and everything else. If God created me, how could He not know everything about me, even before I was made? I like the idea of God knowing what I'm going to do before I do it, but still giving me the ability to make my own choices.

My point is that, sometimes, you have to believe in illogical things that you can't see. You don't have a choice. Obviously, you can see what happens as a result of the things you can't see. You can't see the wind, but you can see tree branches swaying. You can't see love, but you can see people forgiving each other.

I'm going to just pretend this is an extension to my other reponse because i was looking at an hours-old version of the page when I finally got around to cliking 'Post Comment'...

why? [the examples you give don't hold -- you can see wind and A forgiving B does not necessitate love]

also, using things from the scientific world to prop up an argument about illogical things doesn't work well

I can't see wind. But I can feel it, and smell it, and hear it, and I can see its effects. And it fits with my general worldview, my (cursory) understanding of air pressure...

And love? Okay, love, sure. Same thing. How about gravity?

Would you say to a Buddhist that s/he hadn't thought enough about a belief simply because it may not make sense to you?
Part of Buddhist doctrine that you may not be familiar with, interestingly... is that you're not supposed to accept Buddhist doctrine without very thorough examination. Also: generally speaking (like according to the Dalai Lama), where something in scripture is contradicted by experience or current scientific thought regarding the matter, it's A-OK to take the earlier teaching as metaphor, or just "eh, that was the best we knew at the time". Which is a pretty reasonable standpoint, if you ask me.

Alright. Please handle this:
I like the idea of God knowing what I'm going to do before I do it, but still giving me the ability to make my own choices.
- You're still held accountable, even though you can't surprise God.
- God knows everything you're going to do, because you're totally created by God -- in effect, God chose your actions ahead of time and already knows them (or at least, out of time, in an atemporal fashion)
- Where, then, is your free choice? Nothing's left to be determined. If God chose/chooses all of your actions for you, how do "you" figure into all of this? And if God chose that you aren't one of the elect, then you're Going To Hell. To be punished. For acts that you couldn't avoid and a lack of faith that was denied you from the get-go. And God is totally benevolent -- in the light, there is no darkness.

I think the thing about ... eh, anything ... relating to God as an omnipotent being is that anything goes and is a valid[0] belief because in the base belief in one (das uber being) is almost[1] completely inane and unsupported by any scientific evidence (the _lack_ of evidence or understanding should not be taken as 'proof' of any sort that one exists) [2][3]

[0] to someone

[1] i would strike the almost but maybe somewhere out there there's a shred of scientific proof of God, I make no claim to know

[2] Alex, quit reading live journal... that should be left to those of us that have nothing better to do with our lives than rant on inane things

[3] I'm listening to The Music That Died Alone by The Tangent and it's wonderful, and I want that everyone should know this

Part of Buddhist doctrine that you may not be familiar with, interestingly... is that you're not supposed to accept Buddhist doctrine without very thorough examination.

Taking World Religions in college and having a few Buddhist friends, I'm familiar with it. I also know people of other religions, including me in mine, who didn't accept their beliefs until they thoroughly waded through teachings and decided what they believed and what they didn't. I, for example, have quite a few differing beliefs from what their church mainly teaches.

My idea of free choice is God knowing what I'm going to do, but still giving me the freedom to make that decision. Reply to your question? Not reply to your question? God knew I would, but I didn't feel Him pulling me one way or another.

Does this mean you don't believe in things like love?

Tangentially, I pose the question: Is this a bad thing?

In some cases, it is claimed that God only determines those to be saved; in others, that he determines those to be saved and those to be condemned. The latter teaching is called double predestination.

Is this an accurate description of double predestinations? a simple yes/no will suffice, i don't want to polute he thread with more off-topicness than needed (but since I have no other way to contact you...)

asheldon@erskine.edu

The Glory Girl on AIM

Something that I think a lot of people forget (or just don't realize) is that practicing tolerance doesn't mean acceptance of a viewpoint you don't agree with -- and that gently debating and being a charming and polite devil's advocate isn't hypocritical, when it comes to being tolerant of the intolerant.

*applause* Well said! Such insight and poise!

It should be noted that I also do parties.

I didn't say acceptance of viewpoints was mandatory; I said that declaring people with beliefs you don't share to be "destructively smallminded" is just that: destructively smallminded.

For example: clinging to a literalist interpretation of the Bible when it comes to the creation story, I would say, is destructively smallminded.

The reason for this: it gets in the way of honest scientific inquiry, in that people who believe the myth and think that other people should, too... legislate with their viewpoint in mind.

And that doesn't help bring up more evolutionary biologists, now does it?

Also destructively smallminded -- perhaps more immediately and obviously so -- is the idea that it's okay to kill in a holy-war setting.

I'm not saying I've got the big picture -- I'm saying it's very clear to me that many other people don't either, and the problem there is that they don't realize their own ignorance. It's not about not sharing beliefs; you're still missing my point.

Ah, but I wasn't replying to you. :)

My apologies. ^__^

Of course you don't have to accept another persons views to be tolerant, I think that that is the definition of tolerance, peacefully coexisting or to quote the New World dictionary: Freedom to hold religious views that differ from the established ones. Debating is fabulous, but are we always charming and polite? Is that a requirement? If you throw out charming and polite, are you then intolerant? Hmmm, I wonder...

We're not always charming and polite, no -- but I think we should be. There's a big difference in responding to the opinion (for example) that God is a trinity with "Oh, really? Why do you believe that?" as opposed to "You're wrong, and here's why." One is charming and polite and non-confrontational. The other doesn't allow for polite and friendly debate, which is what is optimal.

My opinions on this are colored by my own religious upbringing, of course. :) Since we don't have anything we're required to have faith in, there are lots of opinions in our congregations regarding the answers to the big questions. Tolerance is covered to a great extent in Sunday School, and both when I was small and now I've found it easier to be tolerant when two people who disagree are polite and respectful of the other's view on things. It's when people issue blanket "You're-wrong-and-I'm-right" statements that problems happen. So in other words, yes, if you're not polite and respectful of other views when you question those views, you're intolerant. :)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

back!

no subject

tolerance

no subject

"You've just got to have <i>faith!</i>"

Re: "You've just got to have <i>faith!</i>"

Re: "You've just got to have <i>faith!</i>"

Re: "You've just got to have <i>faith!</i>"

Re: "You've just got to have <i>faith!</i>"

Re: "You've just got to have <i>faith!</i>"

Re: "You've just got to have <i>faith!</i>"

Re: "You've just got to have <i>faith!</i>"

Re: "You've just got to have <i>faith!</i>"

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject