16 May 17
Originally posted by apathistIt's a dilemma, which stems from one's perception of evidence of creation, as I stated earlier.
Oh man, that came out wrong. Plus I keep dropping words and having to edit.
Do you ever think people should find middle ground? Or should the factions just wipe the others out.
I compare it to two people in an art museum, viewing an abstract painting. It's likely that both people will 'see' something completely different from the same piece of art.
How can I convince Ghost, for example, that I 'view' human life as proof of creation, when he 'sees' something else? I cannot.
Same evidence, different interpretation.
16 May 17
Originally posted by apathistToo often, "middle ground" just means something that no one really believes in. Either that, or it doesn't satisfy. For example:
Do you ever think people should find middle ground?
Poster 1: I believe X.
Poster 2: Well X is wrong. I believe Y.
Poster 1: Well I understand Y, I acknowledge that you believe Y, I think you have explained your belief in Y very well ~ although I don't share it ~ I am unaffected by Y, I wish you well with believing Y. We can just agree to disagree. [Note: this is a kind of middle ground when it comes to diametrical beliefs, yes?]
Poster 2: I don't accept what you say. You have got to believe Y like me because I don't believe X.. [Note: i.e. the middle ground you propose is not acceptable.]
Originally posted by chaney3He knows you view human life as proof of creation. You have said it umpteen times. Why do you think you have not convinced him that it is your view?
How can I convince Ghost, for example, that I 'view' human life as proof of creation, when he 'sees' something else? I cannot.
16 May 17
Originally posted by FMFYes, Ghost knows my view, that wasn't my point. Maybe I was not clear.
He knows you view human life as proof of creation. You have said it umpteen times. Why do you think you have not convinced him that it is your view?
If I view human life as proof of creation, and Ghost does not, then we must agree to disagree, in the same way as the differing opinion of what we 'see' in the abstract painting.
How can one convince someone else to 'see' something that they just don't see? They probably cannot.
Originally posted by chaney3I don't see anything mean about that, nothing nasty. Some nasty stuff will come if we carefully look. But right now, we are just travelers, looking. There is kinda this prevision that there are sides, and we are supposed to fight. I don't agree.
It's a dilemma, which stems from one's perception of evidence of creation, as I stated earlier.
I compare it to two people in an art museum, viewing an abstract painting. It's likely that both people will 'see' something completely different from the same piece of art.
How can I convince Ghost, for example, that I 'view' human life as proof of creation, when he 'sees' something else? I cannot.
Same evidence, different interpretation.
I love the jihad idiots. They are so strong in feeling. I'd kill them all in a moment if I had the power, but they are saying something important. Why can't we find the middle ground.
I love the jihad idiots. They are so strong in feeling. I'd kill them all in a moment if I had the power, but what they are saying is something important.They say your baby is guilty. Oh wait, was that the controllers opinion? The jihad idiots are being played. It is not the bombers fault, really. There are levels to this battle.
I guess I don't know all of them. The levels I mean. But I see more than you.
16 May 17
Originally posted by chaney3And it's the same with ghost when it comes to his medication gods of psychiatry. He expects others to believe in some super-natural powers without being able to explain what they do scientifically for the person taking them. Don't feel too bad when you deal with hypocrites like ghost they share a very similar psychology to you and the same expectations of others he forces his beliefs on.
Yes, Ghost knows my view, that wasn't my point. Maybe I was not clear.
If I view human life as proof of creation, and Ghost does not, then we must agree to disagree, in the same way as the differing opinion of what we 'see' in the abstract painting.
How can one convince someone else to 'see' something that they just don't see? They probably cannot.
Originally posted by chaney3Let's say two people simultaneously look at the same wooded area. One sees a ghost. The other does not.
It's a dilemma, which stems from one's perception of evidence of creation, as I stated earlier.
I compare it to two people in an art museum, viewing an abstract painting. It's likely that both people will 'see' something completely different from the same piece of art.
How can I convince Ghost, for example, that I 'view' human life as proof of creation, when he 'sees' something else? I cannot.
Same evidence, different interpretation.
Do you similarly believe that the first individual has valid evidence that ghosts actually exist? Leprechauns? Big foot?
Originally posted by Executioner BrandYour claim is false. Ghost of a Duke has not said he expected and has not asked anyone to believe in "some super-natural powers" attached to medicines used in psychiatry. This is something you have projected - unsuccessfully and incoherently - onto him.
Ghost of a Duke expects others to believe in some super-natural powers without being able to explain what they do scientifically for the person taking them.
17 May 17
Originally posted by FMFHe was given an opportunity by me to explain his belief in these "healing" abilities in his medication gods which he declined to do even though it is his profession. His belief in his job is attached to faith not any science.
Your claim is false. Ghost of a Duke has not said he expected and has not asked anyone to believe in "some super-natural powers" attached to medicines used in psychiatry. This is something you have projected - unsuccessfully and incoherently - onto him.
Originally posted by Executioner BrandYou wittering on about some "opportunity" you supposedly gave him doesn't make your false statement true.
He was given an opportunity by me to explain his belief in these "healing" abilities in his medication gods which he declined to do even though it is his profession. His belief in his job is attached to faith not any science.
17 May 17
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneMy example with the abstract painting, and how two people can interpret the image differently, should not be compared with ghosts or bigfoot.
Let's say two people simultaneously look at the same wooded area. One sees a ghost. The other does not.
Do you similarly believe that the first individual has valid evidence that ghosts actually exist? Leprechauns? Big foot?