We all have our ideals.

Some of us think the world would be better off if everyone thought "this" was The Truth. Some among us think "that" would be a better The Truth.

Whatever we think, the ideal world usually involves not being told our conception of The Truth is wrong all the time. Most people enjoy believing that their own beliefs are The Truth on some sort of objectivity scale, and get annoyed when someone from the outside suggests otherwise. Assuming most people are like that, its not hard to understand why people are the way they are, shouting The Truth at each other with a megaphone in one hand and a gun in the other.

We are focusing way to much on our differences and not on our similarities:

Person A might believe God will reward them if they live a certain way, Person B might believe in a non-anthropomorphic conception of God, Person C might believe in twenty Gods and Person D might think all of the above are silly twits.

However, they all don't know the same things. While they might have thought up some pretty good answers, and might think their answers are the ones which create the ideal world, they just don't know. In this way they are similar.

And it is because of that very reason that they should put down the gun, stop shouting, and just listen to what everyone else is saying for a couple minutes. Consider it. And then get on with life and trying to achieve that ideal world in a way that doesn't make it a hell first.

We would be much better off without the walls to be able to share ourselves with each other out in the real world, then to be walled up and concerned with only our own thoughts in our own artificial little worlds.

Some of us think the world would be better off if everyone thought "this" was The Truth...

We would be much better off without the walls to be able to share ourselves with each other out in the real world,

So the only difference between you and "people" in this regard, is that you've concluded they speak with a gun and you don't?

We would be much better off without the walls to be able to share ourselves with each other out in the real world, then to be walled up and concerned with only our own thoughts in our own artificial little worlds.


So the only difference between you and "people" in this regard, is that you've concluded they speak with a gun and you don't?

Which is a pretty huge difference when the guy with the megaphone forces them to walk up the trail with a gun at their back, in contrast to considering the ideas of others, respecting their decisions, and everyone involved growing a wider foundation because of it.

So the only difference between you and "people" in this regard, is that you've concluded they speak with a gun and you don't?

I'm not forcing this opinion on anyone. I don't have a gun to anyones head.

I put it out there to be considered. If you disagree with me, feel free to voice that opinion rust. I didn't mention anything about being different from "people".

Why build a wall between myself and "people"? I am not perfect, and I'm not claiming to have "seen the light" where others have not.

It is my opinion that we should stop the propagation of subjective beliefs as objective truths. If you have an opposing opinion on the matter rust, voice it, and I will consider it.

I'm not forcing this opinion on anyone. I don't have a gun to anyones head.

I didn't say you were. I asked what was the difference between you an these other people. You concluded that you don't have a gun to other people's head... But who does then? These mysterious, unnamed, "other people"?

I didn't mention anything about being different from "people".

Yes you did:

"I'm not forcing this opinion on anyone. I don't have a gun to anyones head."

"why people are the way they are, shouting The Truth at each other with a megaphone in one hand and a gun in the other."

The necessary conclusion of those statements, although not explicit, is that you are claiming to be different from at least 2 people.

It is my opinion that we should stop the propagation of subjective beliefs as objective truths. If you have an opposing opinion on the matter rust, voice it, and I will consider it.

Great! You should start here:

why people are the way they are, shouting The Truth at each other with a megaphone in one hand and a gun in the other.

You want my opinion? Anyone can invent a problem out of thin air and position themselves as not part of it, as you've done here, when they don't identify who those "other people" are.

Wall isn't an appropriate metaphor, I don't think. With a wall, only one side that's being blocked by it needs to participate in destroying it. If it were a wall between the various faiths (including the lack of) then either side putting in the effort to tear it down would succeed.

Two islands separated by a river running from one sea to another...that's fitting: One side can be trying to build a bridge with all their heart and might and the other party sets it on fire anytime it nears their bank...there is no effective communication or understanding spread in that circumstance: One side attempts to teach for a personal agenda, and one side refuses to listen for fear of being used as a pawn due to humanity's inherit malevolence in any role of power. It's impossible to teach someone that doesn't trust you. And it's impossible to trust someone as needed when they have such blatant ulterior motives.

We'll save your soul, but we sure would like a tithe offering...God loves you, but you can't make mistakes or you might burn...God will forgive you, but you have to say these vain repetitions that our holy book specifically tells us not to pray in order for it to work...oh, and don't forget that tithe so we can keep wearing our funny hats.

Really though, Obbe, much respect for even acknowledging the problem, but you'll come to find out that it's too big for any human to handle or manage. We can't create humility in another heart; it has to come from one slowly finding that their success is empty and their failures are crushing before they begin to listen attentively to solutions long thought absurd or impossible. The rebel won't find God until his only other choice is suicide.

People just take most things far too seriously. Especially when it comes to religion/spirituality. As long as you keep it out the laws of my land, I'll take all this debating with a grain of salt.

We all have our ideals.

Some are superior to others.

Take for example a question that nobody knows the answer to...

The correct (thus superior) answer is "I don't know".

So person A,B,C, and D can search for the truth, but person E really has the truth, and that is....................I don't know.

Submitting answers, to questions you do not know the answer to, is dangerious business.

Some are superior to others.

Take for example a question that nobody knows the answer to...

The correct (thus superior) answer is "I don't know".

So person A,B,C, and D can search for the truth, but person E really has the truth, and that is....................I don't know.

Submitting answers, to questions you do not know the answer to, is dangerious business.

I'm gonna have to argue with what you call superior here.

You use the example of a question that noone knows the answer to, and then state that the correct answer to a question that we can't currently answer is ' I don't know.' Now I'm sure that you probaly didn't mean it in quite this way, but if we answered every question with 'I don't know' then we wouldn't get anywhere. I don't know is inferior because it leads no-where, and sereves no purpose.

Now the point that I think that Obbe is making is more along the lines of Recognising that 'I don't know', while realising that that is not the answer.

If Advances are made not by ignoring question we can't answer, but by exploring the possible answers to find the correct one; then speculation is highly neccesary. I don't know is an answer that prevents speculation, if speculation is neccesary to progress, and progress is seen as good, then I don't know is inferior by nature of preventing speculation .But until we recieve confirmation it must remain a speculation, or at most a personal truth.

Also, another point is the utility of having a belief about something that we can't (currently, maybe permanently) know. Having such a belief may have consequences that far outweigh the negatives, of course, the ngatives that mostly com to mind wouldn't be here if the point pointed at in Obbes post were a universally recognised one.

And finally, there are some questions, such as moral questions etc, that have no definite answer (if like me you avoid absolutes) and so the answer 'I don't know' is utterly inferior, to the 'I know' of ethics. Even if we apply only the golden rule, or made everyone's self sacrosanct, in that instance we have answered an unanswerable question.

And it ruins philosophy...

Etc.

These mysterious, unnamed, "other people"?

Mysterious?

The people I am talking about are those who propagate their subjective beliefs as objective truths. I do not mean only people who are literally holding guns, although I am sure there are lots.

The necessary conclusion of those statements, although not explicit, is that you are claiming to be different from at least 2 people.

You came to that conclusion before both statements were posted.

Whatever. I'm not denying that I believe I am different: I am not propagating this opinion of mine to be the truth. It is here for others to consider, as I consider their own.

Great! You should start here:

why people are the way they are, shouting The Truth at each other with a megaphone in one hand and a gun in the other.

I am not insisting that is the objective truth. It is my subjective opinion, there for you to consider.

You want my opinion? Anyone can invent a problem out of thin air and position themselves as not part of it, as you've done here, when they don't identify who those "other people" are.

By other people I mean those who propagate their subjective beliefs as objective truth.

I really do not see myself as a contribution to this problem. Do you?

Wall isn't an appropriate metaphor, I don't think. With a wall, only one side that's being blocked by it needs to participate in destroying it. If it were a wall between the various faiths (including the lack of) then either side putting in the effort to tear it down would succeed.

Thats a good point.

Two islands separated by a river running from one sea to another...that's fitting: One side can be trying to build a bridge with all their heart and might and the other party sets it on fire anytime it nears their bank....

That is a better metaphor.

However, I think a lot of this has to do with the individual. That is what it all comes down to, I think. People tend to think of Christians or Hindus, and often even Atheists, as one big thing, one big organism. But these things are made up of individuals who make their own decisions and follow their own beliefs.

Thats where the barriers between these groups exist, not somewhere out here in the physical world but in the individuals. In everyones head.

To tear down the wall is not to attempt to change an entire group of people, or multiple groups of people, but for the individuals themselves to realize that is what they are doing: walling themselves off from the outside of their comfort zones, keeping out reality. And for them to realize that it only does harm.

Really though, Obbe, much respect for even acknowledging the problem, but you'll come to find out that it's too big for any human to handle or manage.

My goal is not to change the world, that I have no hope for at all. Just to present an opinion which I think is pretty good, and should be considered by others.

People just take most things far too seriously. Especially when it comes to religion/spirituality. As long as you keep it out the laws of my land, I'll take all this debating with a grain of salt.

People do take things far too seriously.

And thats a good point you bring up, the separation of state from church. But then you still have questions like, should there be a death penalty? Should we continue the War on Drugs? Should I trust the government?

Some are superior to others.

Take for example a question that nobody knows the answer to...

The correct (thus superior) answer is "I don't know".

So person A,B,C, and D can search for the truth, but person E really has the truth, and that is....................I don't know.

Submitting answers, to questions you do not know the answer to, is dangerious business.

Can one know that they do not know?

Mysterious?

Yes, mysterious.

You've yet to give an example or show who these people are. You just described them into existence...


You came to that conclusion before both statements were posted.


Because you made statements that implied the same, those just confirmed my assumption.


Whatever. I'm not denying that I believe I am different: I am not propagating this opinion of mine to be the truth. It is here for others to consider, as I consider their own.


So then you said

"I didn't mention anything about being different from "people". "

Why exactly? You claim not to deny it, and in the very post you said that you also confirmed that you had in fact said/implied just that...

I am not insisting that is the objective truth. It is my subjective opinion, there for you to consider.


At no point in time did you mention it was your opinion only after it was shown to contradict your own point do you specify. Fine. I believe you. But why not give the same courtesy to everyone else (i.e. these mysterious people you accuse of passing of their subjective opinion as "fact")?


I really do not see myself as a contribution to this problem. Do you?

What problem? That's the point: you just said it's a problem, claimed it's your opinion - so we can't even know for use if it's a problem or not - and mentioned nobody except for some people you described into existence.

If that's what you wanted to achieve, or if that's what people here appreciate then fine. I personally see no use in it.

You use the example of a question that noone knows the answer to, and then state that the correct answer to a question that we can't currently answer is ' I don't know.'.

Yes, go on...

Now I'm sure that you probaly didn't mean it in quite this way.,

No I meant it in exactly the way I said it, and exactly the way you haves restated it....

but if we answered every question with 'I don't know' then we wouldn't get anywhere. .

So close, nice build up to a strawman. I never said answer EVERY question that way.

Until you have an answer to a question you HAVE to answer I don't know, b/c it is the correct answer. This does not suggest that saying "I don't know" means you will not search for an answer.

I don't know is inferior because it leads no-where, and sereves no purpose..

You have presented nothing to back this assertion up, so far. Let's continue.

Now the point that I think that Obbe is making is more along the lines of Recognising that 'I don't know', while realising that that is not the answer..

If you do not have an answer, it is the answer. You can continue to search for a BETTER answer, but it is the answer.

If Advances are made not by ignoring question we can't answer, but by exploring the possible answers to find the correct one; then speculation is highly neccesary. .

Nothing I said suggest we should ignore a question we cannot answer right now. Speculation is highly neccessary, but if we do not have rules for this speculation, such as empirical data, ability for falsification etc. then the speculation ceases to be productive, and results in each asshole having their own opinion on a question that cannot as of yet be answered with anything other than I don't know.

I don't know is an answer that prevents speculation.

How?

And finally, there are some questions, such as moral questions etc, that have no definite answer (if like me you avoid absolutes) and so the answer 'I don't know' is utterly inferior, to the 'I know' of ethics..

The 'I know' of ethics invovles many different aspects that are not pure suppostition, so yes, a superior answer to 'i don't know', can be found.

Yes, mysterious.

You've yet to give an example or show who these people are. You just described them into existence...

I don't see any reason why I have to. If you're not experiencing the type of people I have described, you can go ahead and disregard this thread rust.

Why exactly? You claim not to deny it, and in the very post you said that you also confirmed that you had in fact said/implied just that...

Why? Because I do not want to give the impression that I am "better" for being different. I don't want to focus on the differences. I said in my OP thats we focus too much on difference and not enough on the similarities.

You're a good example of the type of person I'm trying to describe: all of your posts in this thread have been concerned with differences and dividing, not similarities and sharing.

At no point in time did you mention it was your opinion only after it was shown to contradict your own point do you specify.

What, do I have to state "this is only my opinion" every time I state my opinion?

Did I state it in a way that says "I am right, this is the truth, and if you disagree you're just wrong"?

Fine. I believe you. But why not give the same courtesy to everyone else (i.e. these mysterious people you accuse of passing of their subjective opinion as "fact")?

Thats an important part of this too. Thats why I personally try not to be bothered by people who insist that they are correct and I am wrong.

Why not voice my opinion that people shouldn't insist their opinions are objective facts?

What problem? That's the point: you just said it's a problem, claimed it's your opinion - so we can't even know for use if it's a problem or not - and mentioned nobody except for some people you described into existence.

If you see no problem, this thread is of no use to you rust.

If that's what you wanted to achieve, or if that's what people here appreciate then fine. I personally see no use in it.

All I wanted to do was voice my opinion. If you don't experience people who propagate their subjective beliefs as objective truths, then this opinion is of no use to you rust.

For anyone else, they might want to consider what I have said.

I don't see any reason why I have to.

You don't see a reason to substantiate what you accuse people of?

You're a good example of the type of person I'm trying to describe: all of your posts in this thread have been concerned with differences and dividing, not similarities and sharing.

Thanks for focusing on that difference while at the same time making an objective claim, thus contradicting your whole point.

Tip: "You have done X" is not a matter of opinion. It's a claim that can be verified as fact of fiction.

Which is precisely why stating "This is only my opinion" would be a great option since you apparently don't know the difference between the two.


Thats an important part of this too. Thats why I personally try not to be bothered by people who insist that they are correct and I am wrong.

Great, so for all you know they don't even exist?

Why not voice my opinion that people shouldn't insist their opinions are objective facts?


Why not voice my opinion that evil aliens form the planet Glugortak-5 (aliens which I don't even know exist) shouldn't kill people?

If you see no problem, this thread is of no use to you rust.


That's the thing: you haven't established a problem so why should anyone see one?

Can one know that they do not know?

Tricky wording.

You can know that you don't know something else.
Ie I know that I don't know how photons work.

I don't know x
I know p1



You can't know that you don't know the statement itself.
Ie I can't know that I don't know that I know.

I don't know x
I know x



So...you can know THAT you don't know.
But...you can't know WHAT you don't know.

I seem to have took your post, and the meaning in it, a little too strongly. Apologies.

Reading through your reply I think we may more or less be thinking that same thing; I don't know is a position held until one has the answer to the question, to claim the truth of an answer that you can't demonstrate is wrong or at the most an opinion.

Interestingly this seems to me to be the exact same thing as the OP says.

I don't see anything wrong with opinion though, makes things interesting, just a personal preference of mine.


Seeing as people don't seem to like it when a person doesn't reply point by point, if you think I'm ignoring anything I'll try and adress as well as I can.

The 'I know' of ethics invovles many different aspects that are not pure suppostition, so yes, a superior answer to 'i don't know', can be found.

Could you expand on this?

I Could you expand on this?

Sure...if you take a simple question is ethics such as:

Is rape wrong?

The answer to this is yes and no. It is such b/c it fails to be more specific. I will illustrate.

Is rape wrong for the rapist? Obviously not.

Is rape wrong for the victim? Obviously so.

Let us try to get a more definitive answer.

Is rape wrong for humans in general?

Now, I am pretty sure there are far fewer rapists in the world than potential victims, so by using that premise we can say yes it is wrong, based on our earlier answer that rape is wrong for the victim.

You can continue doing this, (and what I am doing, pales to what someone with even a bachelor's in ethics would do) asking more questions and finding some answers that do posses substance rather than pure supposition.

I hope that clarifies, and agian, this is a hastily prepared example of how ethics can answer things with something better than I don't know, and do it without resorting to pure suppostition.

Sure...if you take a simple question is ethics such as:

Is rape wrong?

The answer to this is yes and no. It is such b/c it fails to be more specific. I will illustrate.

Is rape wrong for the rapist? Obviously not.

Is rape wrong for the victim? Obviously so.

Let us try to get a more definitive answer.

Is rape wrong for humans in general?

Now, I am pretty sure there are far fewer rapists in the world than potential victims, so by using that premise we can say yes it is wrong, based on our earlier answer that rape is wrong for the victim.

You can continue doing this, (and what I am doing, pales to what someone with even a bachelor's in ethics would do) asking more questions and finding some answers that do posses substance rather than pure supposition.

I hope that clarifies, and agian, this is a hastily prepared example of how ethics can answer things with something better than I don't know, and do it without resorting to pure suppostition.

Ah, I see, that's cool. I thought that that was what you meant.

Interestingly, I'll hopefully have a batchelors in ethics in three years time...

... Albeit a very small batchelors :D

You don't see a reason to substantiate what you accuse people of?

Its not people thats the problem. It is how they are choosing to act.

No, I don't see a reason. If someone reads this and they do not see it relating to anything in their life, its not going to ruin my day if they decide to ignore it. It would serve them no purpose.

I don't feel like rewording my opinion on the matter, at least at this time. If what is written doesn't apply to their perception of reality, that does not bother me.

Thanks for focusing on that difference while at the same time making an objective claim, thus contradicting your whole point.

Thanks for trying to get under my skin and trying to change the topic of the thread from "Lets stop fighting" to "You're inventing problems where there are none". It demonstrates the behavior I am trying to describe.

Tip: "You have done X" is not a matter of opinion. It's a claim that can be verified as fact of fiction.

Which is precisely why stating "This is only my opinion" would be a great option since you apparently don't know the difference between the two.

I disagree. I see no way I am able to verify your intentions behind posting in this thread. To say "You wanted to shit all over my thread" would be entirely my subjective opinion.

Anything someone says should be assumed to be their opinion based on their subjective experience. Hearing them say it is entirely part of your own subjective perception, and that perception may not be able to verify any objective truth at all; even the speakers apparent existence.

Great, so for all you know they don't even exist?

For all I know they might not. But if they do, I would like them to consider not telling me that they know more about my own existence then I do.

Why not voice my opinion that evil aliens form the planet Glugortak-5 (aliens which I don't even know exist) shouldn't kill people?

If you have experienced death at the hands of evil Glurortak-5ions, then I see no reason why you shouldn't. Doing so wouldn't harm anybody, as far as I can see. You would just be voicing an opinion. You're not forcing that opinion on the aliens. And if the aliens do indeed exist, maybe they would consider not killing people.

If you have not experienced it then you're just making stuff up. Which I think is still fine. According to me, people should assume your words are just your subjective opinion anyways.

That's the thing: you haven't established a problem so why should anyone see one?

They would read what I have written (that some people propagate their subjective beliefs as objective truths) and see if it applies to anything in their own life. I think religion would apply to most people.

Apparently posters besides you have seen a problem. But thats just their opinion too.

Tricky wording.

You can know that you don't know something else.
Ie I know that I don't know how photons work ....

So...you can know THAT you don't know.
But...you can't know WHAT you don't know.

I don't know dude.

Do you really know that you don't know how photons work? Perhaps if you were to allow the "creative thought process" to flow, you would come up with a theory that describes exactly how photons work in a way which cannot be described any better. You wouldn't know that the theory you just "made up" is some crap you just made up or if its the actual, objective, true answer to how photons work.

You don't know if "imagination" is just "making stuff up" or if it is accessing the infinite. Many creative people (musicians, artists) speculate that they are not 'creating' so much as they are plucking the idea like a feather out of a chicken.

So maybe I do know somethings. Maybe I don't know anything. Maybe I actually know everything.

I really dunno. Or maybe that would be better as a question:

I dunno?

I
No, I don't see a reason. If someone reads this and they do not see it relating to anything in their life, its not going to ruin my day if they decide to ignore it. It would serve them no purpose.

You didn't really answer a question; I'm not asking you for the reason you made the thread. I'm essentially asking you if you do not have a problem with accusing other people of acting in a wrong way without backing up. Do you or do you not?


Thanks for trying to get under my skin and trying to change the topic of the thread from "Lets stop fighting" to "You're inventing problems where there are none". It demonstrates the behavior I am trying to describe.


I'm not trying to get under your skin, nor am I trying to change the topic. I'm completely within the topic at hand: You suggest we should "Stop fighting" and I'm asking: Have you established anyone is fighting in the first place?


Also, your opinion of what I'm supposedly doing wouldn't demonstrate anything. You are passing off opinion as fact again...


I disagree. I see no way I am able to verify your intentions behind posting in this thread. To say "You wanted to shit all over my thread" would be entirely my subjective opinion.

Of course you can't verify anything... that's precisely why you should keep your mouth shut. Don't you think? I know why I posted, and I have just verified the issue: I was not posting for the reasons you claimed.


For all I know they might not. But if they do, I would like them to consider not telling me that they know more about my own existence then I do.


Great! Take your own advice:'

"all of your posts in this thread have been concerned with differences and dividing"



If you have experienced death at the hands of evil Glurortak-5ions, then I see no reason why you shouldn't. Doing so wouldn't harm anybody, as far as I can see. You would just be voicing an opinion. You're not forcing that opinion on the aliens. And if the aliens do indeed exist, maybe they would consider not killing people.


Great! Then you would not have a single problem with someone "shitting all over your thread"?


They would read what I have written (that some people propagate their subjective beliefs as objective truths) and see if it applies to anything in their own life. I think religion would apply to most people.

So they should take potentially incorrect information an apply it to their life?