You have refused to answer direct questions about the philosophical basis of your beliefs so my assumption is a reasonable inference. (False: Alleged and responded to numerous times. See previous posts for more info)
----------------------
Now we are starting to get close to some answers. (You read a lot of things between the lines which you’ve super imposed. What ever answers you claim to be deriving do not represent my views on things. They seem to be of your own invention.)
For example: >>The question is whether the type of system you describe is cohesive and consistent.
What ‘type of system’ greg? You have been wrestling with this since this strand of discussion began. To my recollection, I have not described a type of system. I’ve specifically declared, I speak only for myself and am not basing my commentary on a particular ideology or dogma. You’ve been insisting there is a hidden category, system, underlying basis, etc. I understand you aren’t able to get passed that but it is entirely your dilemma.
-----------------------------
>>One thing is clear, you have a view of the world and you think it is true in opposition to other worldviews that you consider to be false.
Where have I said or implied such a thing?
What I said in part was this…"Arguing whether conventional science, mainstream religion, or any mainstay worldview is the exclusive basis for understanding our existence is really being up the creek with out a paddle, as all are belief systems bound to venture into corrupt waters of perverted doctrine, coercive control, and manipulation by self serving elite authorities, infecting devotes with dogmatic attitudes, who then attack and ridicule any who would raise uncomfortable questions."
Nowhere did I claim one of these particular belief systems was false. I simply stated the truth about how things tend to go as a matter of fact.
----------------------
>>First you have not shown that all systems and worldviews necessarily lead to corruption.
I made a declaration. I declared as my evidence the historical record which easily chronicles the claim. I don’t need to show anything beyond that but I explained to you how it is easily and absolutely testable and so obvious in and of itself, anyone would be silly to challenge it. Are you challenging it, if so prove it false.
>>Of course any system can be abused …
In this case, not only can be but have been, without exception.
--------------------------------------------------------
>>How do you know that all distinctions are illusory unless you have the ability to rise above the illusion? This is where you are claiming to see reality and know THE TRUTH.
The truth of my statement does not rely on what I know or you know, it is a statement that is true because it is intrinsically true of this context of human endeavor, it can be observed across culture, time, and circumstance. If you doubt it, you only need study the history of any or all societies on this planet, or study human nature and what happens under the circumstances I described. It might be more productive if you would declare which part of the statement you think is false; or, if you think the entire statement is false, argue the reasons for such a position.
"They are illusory divisions of people into ideological groupings which inevitably betray their own ideological foundations in corruption of core principle to cleanse ‘evil’ from their midst, paradoxically committing the most heinously brutal crimes in recorded history, over and over again. This predictable outcome never fails."
--------------------------
>>The old saw about the five blind men describing an elephant comes to mind. Only one who can see the TRUTH, and KNOWS Reality can inform the blind men of their error.
This is not applicable. I didn’t claim the truth of that statement could not be known by others, quite to the contrary I am suggesting it to be an obvious truth to anyone who would consider it.
---------------------------------------------
>> There is also a difference between crimes that are committed following the consistent implications of a system and those that are directly contradictory to the precepts of any particular system. You indicate no recognition of that.
I don’t understand what your complaint is here. There are all kinds of problems that can be associated with the operation of a system.
------------------------------------
>>>My statement goes beyond the one post and refers to your obsession with refusing to identify your own worldview…
I have responded repeatedly to that comment. You are obviously looking for a categorical label you can place neatly into some ranking system. Your problem greg, not mine. I haven’t hidden anything from you and have answered your questions openly and honestly. If you are as frustrated as you claim, you might want to consider the possibility that your complaint is unfounded.
--------------------------------------
>>I previously acknowledged that refusing to answer questions was not strictly speaking dishonest and I said I would change that to not being forthright about your the philosophical or religious nature of your views. That has not changed, and you continue to obfuscate.
No such refusal exists, in spite of your repeated allegation. No attempt by me has been made to confuse you. You have insisted from the beginning that my way of thinking must be bound in some way to your preconceived distinctly oppositional or hierarchical bundles of perspective. I disagreed but when you couldn’t nail that down you blame me and accuse me of trying to obfuscate. I feel it my obligation to note, any confusion is of your own making.
-------------------------------------
>>>What is this worldview that is exempt from necessarily leading to corruption? Why are you keeping it secret?
At the risk of yelling an answer to a deaf person who didn’t respond to a normal voice level, I have to say even louder, ‘You haven’t listened to a word I’ve said.’
” I have no idea why you won’t answer straight questions I do admit there is a level of frustration when we keep going over the same ground again and again when a simple statement of core beliefs on your part would have immediately advanced the discussion.”
I can’t imagine using a jack hammer to free a peanut from it’s shell; for one thing it would be counter productive if you intended to enjoy the peanut afterwards. Attempting to open your mind to the fact that your fundamental complaint is off track certainly feels as if it would take such a measure. I have no idea how to open your shell.
----------
You’ve thrown some questions into the middle of this that help me to understand your frustrations … You’re a very tightly packed religious guy and your World View issue is woven into that, which has you pretty locked up.
>>> What is you position on abortion? Do you believe that God exists separate from the universe? How do Human beings know right from wrong? I could go on...
I have discussed these issues on this thread and on the Should God be Replaced thread. I’m pretty sure you were participating at the time. I don’t mind discussing them further. However, I don’t see the connection to the current strand of discussion. If I declare my belief in the existence of God to be here, there, everywhere, or no where how would one or the other of those beliefs effect the validity of the original statement (same with abortion, or source of knowledge of right and wrong):
”Arguing whether conventional science, mainstream religion, or any mainstay worldview is the exclusive basis for understanding our existence is really being up the creek with out a paddle, as all are belief systems bound to venture into corrupt waters of perverted doctrine, coercive control, and manipulation by self serving elite authorities, infecting devotes with dogmatic attitudes, who then attack and ridicule any who would raise uncomfortable questions.
They are illusory divisions of people into ideological groupings which inevitably betray their own ideological foundations in corruption of core principle to cleanse ‘evil’ from their midst, paradoxically committing the most heinously brutal crimes in recorded history, over and over again. This predictable outcome never fails.
Continuing the water metaphor; beliefs on there own, are like grasping to a rock in the middle of a wild river, it will sustain you temporarily but no more. Faith should always come ahead of and carry belief. Faith is learning to swim, which enables the belief that the reward for genuine efforts will be achieved. Genuine religion is no different than genuine science; each promises the reward of greater knowledge, is open, alive, and encourages the conduct of a seeker of truth.
It is ironic that the major world views stifle such endeavor for self serving purposes but they do. Further, they insist on the false divisions when studying science, faith based beliefs, philosophy, and mysteries of all sorts which all naturally exist as manifold and unified paths to the same end.
Or are you attempting to change the subject now. |
