Lee Corbin wrote:
> Samantha writes
> > Lee Corbin wrote:
> > > Why not? Yes, if people are going to entertain false beliefs,
> > > I'd of course prefer that they do it in solitude. But it still
> > > has to be stated that not only is what they believe false, but
> > > that there is something very wrong with how they think.
> [For the record, I do wish to amend my first sentence. I don't
> wish people with false beliefs to be any quieter than anyone
> else, because how else can their bad beliefs be criticized?]
> > I can't believe what I am reading. You have enough knowledge
> > and information to form an opinion. You do not have enough
> > knowledge and information to be dead certain that all those who
> > have religious/spiritual beliefs are believing falsehoods and
> > "there is something wrong with how they think". I hope I
> > misunderstand you here. This looks like one of the most
> > dogmatic and intolerant opinions I have ever seen anywhere, even
> > from among fundies.
> "Dead certain"? Obviously, I have to be much less certain
> that there is something wrong with how they think, than I
> am that what they think is wrong. Suppose that someone
> adamantly believes that NASA's people walking on the moon
> was a hoax. I'm 99.9% convinced that they're wrong. I'm
> only about 80% convinced that there is something wrong with
> *how* they think. But what else am I supposed to think?
Giving no brain examples that have nothing at all to do with the
complexity of the topic at hand and with the richness of
spiritual believes strikes me as a dishonest (intentionally or
not) tactic. It belittles by the implication that spirituality
is equally as odious through and through as morons who think
walking on the moon was faked.
> Suppose that I have a computer program that gives what I
> think is a 99.9% chance of being a wrong answer. I simply
> MUST entertain the hypothesis that there is something wrong
> with the program.
Another poor and off-topic analogy that obscures far more than
it clarifies. Why not just say you don't want to engage this
question further? Because you sure aren't really engaging it
with this type of response.
> There comes a point in disagreeing with people who seem
> reality challenged that one cannot be blamed for inquiring
> as to why they are so bad at understanding the world.
It is precisely because I am not reality challenged that I must
consider spirituality and in some ways embrace it. Reality,
including those aspects most consider spiritual, has butted
heads with me a few times to many to do otherwise. Do you take
into account that I just might be just as deeply honest and have
every bit as much integrity as you do despite the fact I see
some things differently than you?
> "Most dogmatic and intolerant opinions" you've ever seen?
> I think that you are exaggerating.
If I am mistaken you have given me no grounds for seeing that I
am here. If anything you seem to be clinging harder to the
position that those who affirm some parts of religion or
spirituality are damaged in their thinking processes. You also
seem to have some difficulty seeing (or admitting anyway) that
this position is a tad extreme.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:44 MDT