Reason
There are three generally accepted positions towards the metaphysical – believer [calm and rabid], non-believer [calm and rabid] and agnostic:
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena
There is a fourth position, I’d suggest, which is:
a person who basically believes, for now, where there is weight of evidence to support belief, a person whose first reaction is to accept phenomena, rather than to play the three wise monkeys or the ostrich, a person who then explores the veracity or not of the new ideas, in an analytical manner, if possible, to see if they can be incorporated in the Whole
This person does not try to twist the facts to suit the belief but alters his/her position to account for the Whole. To ignore any factors, through one’s own psychological prejudice against their being incorporated, is to be a Sergeant Holcombe.
I’d suggest that the fourth position [more properly the second of four] is the most rational position, the least closed-minded, the most “scientific” of approaches and there is no reason why religious positions can’t be held as a result, partly through this method, partly through other-worldly confirmation. It in no way negates “the narrowly physical” field, which is but one subset of the Whole.
Evil
One phenomenon which creates two camps is that of evil. Few doubt the existence of a negative and destructive force[s] – it can be seen from the wanton destruction of war through to the inability to hold back from base instincts such as anger and revenge [Anakin Skywalker was an example].
Whether this is the result of an external, evil force or entity or whether it is inside all of us is, IMHO, an irrelevant dispute. The long and short of it is that it exists in one form or another. Where it becomes contentious is if I were to suggest that there are efficacious ways to resist it.
Coincidences?
Cherie commented on a post of mine about a string of phenomena:
Some of those are co-incidences and some are not. Your challenge is to work out which are which (and why)…
To which I reply:
Have you irrefutable proof that they were coincidences, Cherie or does that just accord with what you’d like to believe, based on what you think is most likely, given your experiences in life?
Education
Cherie touched on some fundamental questions on another post as well:
Cherie: In my opinion, brutal truth rarely brings improvement; it brings resistance and denial. Only education and open honest discussion brings improvement.
jameshigham: Cherie – great ideal, a bit too broad in practice.
Cherie: It wasn’t meant as an ideal, it is what I have observed.
I would add that what she posited as a model to follow reflects the reason for Jesus of Nazareth. The heavy-handed solution had been tried – the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah et al and He Above just said, “Sod it, let ‘em take what’s coming if they want but here’s a get-out clause for those wise enough to want something better.”
So along comes this Teacher and it all makes sense but unfortunately, it’s a bit too high-minded for anyone to be able to achieve. Still, we can try, eh? One thing it did offer was an end to blood sacrifices and the need to wipe out the earth again.
Discussion
Only education and open honest discussion brings improvement.
That may well be true and it’s how I attempted to run my lessons when I taught. It’s standard methodology but how does one guard against one’s own prejudices creeping in? Then it becomes “leading the discussion”, a different other animal.
“Discussion” is a most abused term because it is rarely that – it’s more likely to be one person thinking he’s open and fair-minded and allowing people to participate but in reality, it’s manipulating the debate to achieve an outcome the teacher wants – happens all the time.
Common Purpose have this down to a nicety and it’s called “groupthink” and “well-formed outcomes”.
In terms of educating people into better ways, Cherie’s comment holds water but sometimes, when an organization is dedicated to covering up wrongdoing, then it needs to be blasted open to enable this discussion to even take place.
We have a bunch of politicians up there who have got there through a flawed and corrupt system which plays a Big Two or Big Three game in order to corner power for itself. Many of us do not like this and thus some form of “blasting” is going to be necessary.
There are many blogs about which attempt “education and open honest discussion” but there are just as many people out there in the community dedicated to preventing this getting to the public.
In the end, the matter resolves itself – an example being 2010. As bad things are coming up soon, the danger is that people are in place to hijack the public mood, as it goes through change, to divert it to their own ends, just as Lenin and Hitler did.
Clegg/Cameron are doing just that with the cosmetic referendum next year, obfuscating on the genuine, fundamental change needed [change such as disintegrating the EU Superstate or at least withdrawing from it], in favour of a solution the average sheep can grasp.
Filed under: Politics & economics, Society & human issues
Just for the record you have turned my first question quoted in this post on it’s head and you haven’t actually answered the question…
I’m commenting on this. You can put it through if you choose to, or don’t. I do not care because I know what the truth is, and in some ways so do you.
1) There are no such things as coincidences- only people who do not have eyes pure enough to see how one coincidence links to the other. The amount of information the eyes take in per second definitely has to do with intelligence too. However, not all of it.
2) An education brings about a better world to live in only if that education isn’t used in a deceptive way.
3) vibrational energy is one factor which causes the coincidences.
4) The free love theory, and people who believe in sleeping with anything and everything, fails in the end. It isn’t because people are gay or commit adultry either. Furthermore, this by no means means I would take any words from the bible and try to change them into words they are not. However, there is a great deal of the bible which is beyond what a person reads on a page.
5) Idol worship is not the path of God, nor is synchronizing world events to make a profit off of people.
That is all. Have a nice day.
They were statements, Cherie – what was the question? You wrote:
Some of those are co-incidences and some are not.
If I were to say none of them were coincidences, what would you say?
Thanks too, Shelly.
One of the brightest pieces of wisdom that I’ve come across recently (on the Famous for 15 megapixels blog) refers to the orgin of evil. It went along the lines of evil people having something missing, rather than something extra. Which does imply that we are all capable of evil when that something extra gets subsumed.
The point I was trying to make is that you have misrepresented my comment.
I gave you something to think about, if you hadn’t already (I don’t recall saying everything was a co-incidence).
You haven’t said what your thoughts are but rather turned it all around and asked me another question.
We could then move on to you initial statement (the first three lines) which I think is over simplistic and not quite accurate.
This of course connects to the other comments of mine that you quoted. You misunderstand my comments again… I didn’t posit the initial comment as a role model to follow. It was a mere observation on how people behave and I when I say education I didn’t mean formal education.
Right … and of course, Cherie, you’ve not answered my questions.
Well of course not because I gave you a question first which still remains unanswered by you
When you have given me your thoughts on that question rather than lots of quotes and references I will give you my answer/s and probably lots of further thoughts too…
OK, had to go away for some minutes. Now, to address this. As far as I can make out, you took exception, Cherie, to my response to:
So what is assumed here is that there are coincidences in those events in the first place. I don’t think they were coincidences so I then asked you whether you had proof that they were coincidences or was that just an opinion, based on your experiences?
Perhaps I am out of order so please explain how that is turning it on its head thus far. Was it that the tone of the reply was out of order? If so – sorry.
Cherie – you never asked a question in the first place. I can only see statements there from you. I asked a question though in response to your statement and reiterated it later – i.e. to ask your response to me believing that they are not coincidences.
Let me just quote that again:
Fine – what do you think the positions are?
As I accept in the third line of the second quote of yours in the post above. That third line is clear and you reiterate that in “I didn’t posit the initial comment as a role model to follow.”
Not a problem. So where is the misunderstanding?
Perhaps you didn’t understand me when all was said and done. I didn’t state that you were promoting or supporting Jesus of Nazareth, just that his presence here reflects what you wrote about.
Again, I fail to see where the problem is – perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying.
What question, Cherie? Where? Can you remember the question and if so, will you kindly write it down here so that I can answer it?
OK… There was question in there which I thought you had an understanding of, I made a mistake.
Putting the question back one level and more simply is why are those incidents connected and what is causing them? It is quite a fundamental issue.
I am only asking for a quick response without quotes and references, we can go into those later if you like.
From your initial statement you have taken the position from one extreme – I believe there is; believer (calm and rabid), believer (calm and calm), non believer (calm and rabid), non believer (calm and calm) and agnostic (the one who sits on the fence).
With reference to the second thread of my quotes:
I would add that what she posited as a model to follow reflects the reason for Jesus of Nazareth.
I didn’t posit a model to follow, I was merely posting a comment on how people react and behave. Which in no way reflects my position on whether that is a good model to follow or not.
As I said above:
So where’s the dispute? I think we’re going round in circles.
There never was a dispute (and still isn’t)…
But in relation to your last comment ‘you did state’ that I posited a model to follow. Whereas I had merely posted an observation on people on how they react and behave.
Over to you now on the other comments I mention in my comment at 23:54
Right, Cherie, went to bed without excusing myself, sorry. Now, this is an artificial debate over small matters when there are more important issues to debate. It’s artificial because:
So I’m going to answer your question. Your question is still not a question and I’m hungrily awaiting that question you spoke of – something with a question mark at the end.
This will have to do in the interim though:
Concerning your response to my opening three lines in the post – fine, that’s another way of looking at it.
Concerning your:
… er, sorry Cherie but you very much were positing a model. That is how any normal interpretation of your initial words would be made. You stated [and let's quote again]:
Your first sentence is an observation. Your second is a model* you are positing, i.e. by stating it, you are positing it. What you are positing is clearly there for our elucidation and to add to the post a further thread for people to think about. “Think about” obviously means “with a view to altering one’s stance and adopting a new behaviour”.
The new behaviour would be to pursue a method of open, honest discussion and a policy of education [which I read in the sense you subsequently stated it].
You say it “in no way reflects my position” and yet you would not have chosen to write that in comments unless you’d believed in it. It was not a negative behaviour you were observing and then commenting on but an efficacious method or model you have developed in your head over the years, based on what you have observed, as to the best way to proceed.
In a debate, you can put forward a statement which modifies [in this case] or negates what the poster wrote but you can’t, at the same time, refuse to engage with your own words, i.e. the reader is entitled to expect that when you say something, you stand behind it, not sit on the fence.
If you are playing devil’s advocate, playing games, in other words, then that is not a good position for a debater to take [cold] because there is then the question of the seriousness of what was said. That person would then need to state, up front, that he/she was only playing devil’s advocate.
With the “open” and “honest” adjectives you used, these are emotive words and ones which a reader of your comment would be entitled, with no added codicils to be found nearby, to believe that you believed in, i.e. they are emotive words.
If you do believe in them, then you are putting them forward as a mechanism, a procedure, an efficacious way to act in general, in future. Therefore, you are positing a model. *Let’s not call it a model, if you don’t like – let’s call it a “way to go”, a “method of behaviour”, a “procedure”.
I await your response with bated breath.
Meanwhile, regarding quotes:
Well no, sorry – with the greatest respect, those quotes are an integral part of the debate because you keep referring back to what was said. What was said needs to be quoted,not paraphrased, otherwise there is the danger of introducing strawmen or worse – misquoting or misinterpreting.
There is also the point that there are readers reading this thread and they are entitled to have the words we are debating brought forward in their entirety, so that they can remember what was said. Naturally, they can go back and double check if they so wish.
My approach to debate is always to take the words people actually spoke or wrote and address those, otherwise they can claim they never meant what I say they mean.
How to quote
For readers who don’t know how to do it, in front of the words you want quoted, put a left arrow, followed by the word “blockquote” [without the speech marks], followed by a closing right arrow. Then, for italic, if you like – opening left arrow, “em” [without the speech marks], followed by a closing right arrow.
At the end of the quoted words, reverse the order of the tags and insert a slash between each opening left arrow and the word.
Bingo. It works on [almost] any comments thread across the sphere.
I wasn’t going to comment again here but your recent post on gifts needs a response…
We were never going to fall out about this issue, I just needed you to tell me what you thought on that question you think I haven’t asked…
That was fundamental to me getting to the issue I was talking about, which is something I thought you understood (from your thoughts on Christianity).
But you seen to have been sidetracked on grammar (mine isn’t perfect I know) rather than what I was trying to say…