PDA

View Full Version : Your Opinions Please



Everose
11-01-2004, 01:21 PM
Tolerance is a virtue of a man without convictions.




Do you believe what this statment is telling you? I would like your input on this statement, all kinds, all views on the statement, etc. :)

clocker
11-01-2004, 01:26 PM
To be fair Everose, what are your views about this statement?

vidcc
11-01-2004, 02:18 PM
untrue...i have a great amount of strong convictions but i don't disallow others convictions that dissagree with mine.

i am not gay, i find the idea repugnant, do i lack conviction because i want them to have the same rights as hetrosexual couples?

Everose
11-01-2004, 03:02 PM
To be fair Everose, what are your views about this statement?


You are right, Clocker.

I received in my email this morning a group of 'bumper' sticker statements....all against Kerry.

I think the person who sent it to me believes that if you don't act, react with conviction, you are way too tolerant. Although that is just my best guess, based on having heard some of this person's views.

It struck me, I guess, because I believe you can have strong convictions and be tolerant of other's views, also.

Time restrains me from writing more on this at this time...

Busyman
11-01-2004, 03:17 PM
Having conviction means nothing if it is conviction to stupidity.

Having those same convictions in light of truth to the contrary gives pause for others to follow any further into fire.

Taking unwarranted action is great if it is an action movie.
They have stunt doubles and blanks.

vidcc
11-01-2004, 04:33 PM
well i'm guessing these bumper stickers are just accusing Kerry of having different convictions to those that wrote them.basically they have convictions of intollerance.

they probably think because kerry is catholic but pro choice he lacks conviction in his religious beliefs. I feel that this is not the case..he has convictions in his beliefs but also convictions for freedom of speech and choice.

I don't believe in God but i would fight for your right to worship because i believe in freedom.....this doesn't mean that i am having second thoughts about my non belief.


convictions that carry intollerance are fine as long as it's not intollerance to "me"

Busyman
11-01-2004, 05:17 PM
well i'm guessing these bumper stickers are just accusing Kerry of having different convictions to those that wrote them.basically they have convictions of intollerance.

they probably think because kerry is catholic but pro choice he lacks conviction in his religious beliefs. I feel that this is not the case..he has convictions in his beliefs but also convictions for freedom of speech and choice.

I don't believe in God but i would fight for your right to worship because i believe in freedom.....this doesn't mean that i am having second thoughts about my non belief.


convictions that carry intollerance are fine as long as it's not intollerance to "me"
You are an atheist? :blink:

SirFrench
11-01-2004, 05:19 PM
I don't believe in God but i would fight for your right to worship because i believe in freedom.....this doesn't mean that i am having second thoughts about my non belief.
Damn good point there Vidcc. I don't believe that having tolerance can be against your convictions in any way. What, for instance, if your conviction is having tolerance?

vidcc
11-01-2004, 05:31 PM
You are an atheist? :blink:If one must use labels :lol: ....

I don't believe in God but i would never tell someone that does believe that they are wrong..... one of us has to be wrong and i am not so arrogant as to think it's not me.....Although i doubt it :lol:

Rat Faced
11-01-2004, 05:42 PM
I have my beliefs, you have your beliefs.

If my belief isnt cast iron to me, then you may change my mind. If it is, then you wont.

However, I would hope i would not force my beliefs on anyone else, just like i would never accept someone elses forced on myself..

I believe in your right to express your beliefs, and my right to express mine... just like its within all our rights not to listen.

I suppose that means the statement is nul and void, imho... :blink:

Busyman
11-01-2004, 05:50 PM
If one must use labels :lol: ....

I don't believe in God but i would never tell someone that does believe that they are wrong..... one of us has to be wrong and i am not so arrogant as to think it's not me.....Although i doubt it :lol:
Curious...who or what do you think made you?

Why do plants breath in CO2 and out oxygen?

Why do we do the converse?

Hmm I would have either figured you as an agnostic or simply not professing a particular religion. Very interesting albeit illogical.

Everose
11-01-2004, 06:09 PM
Only those with convictions can be tolerant.

I liked that. Thanks, JP. Those are the exact words I was searching for. :D

Busyman
11-01-2004, 06:13 PM
Only those with convictions can be tolerant.
It sounds good.

What does it mean though? :huh:

manker
11-01-2004, 06:17 PM
I thought I'd heard that quote before, it must have been on a film or something but it appears that it is also used as a mantra for extreme right wing groups to justify their beliefs and to belittle more liberal folk.

I believe it is likening tolerance to apathy. As already posted this is clearly not the case, I too believe that to be tolerant often requires a great deal of conviction. Particularly if what you are tolerant of goes against the grain.

@ Busyman - plants produce oxygen when they photosynthesize, when it is dark they respire just as we do. There are other, natural, chemical reactions that also contribute to the CO2/oxygen equilibrium. I think science can provide logical answers to the questions you pose.

vidcc
11-01-2004, 06:26 PM
@busy

I believe in the big bang theory as a possibility and evolution...nature finds a way. Just as insects build immunity to pesticides so did life find a way to exist with what was available.
As to the plant/animal gas question, that's the way with nature...it evolves into balance. This is easy to observe with the effects of mans exploitation
There are animals at the bottom of the ocean that don't breathe oxygen.

If you are asking what came "before" i don't have the answer, but by the arguement that a "creator" made it.....i have to ask what made the "creator"?

I'm not looking for explainations or debate. There are reasons why i came to my conclusion that are personal to me.

Everose
11-01-2004, 06:54 PM
It sounds good.

What does it mean though? :huh:




What it means to me is that the test of 'true' tolerance is having strong convictions, but being tolerant of others.........even though you feel strongly about an issue yourself.

I think it is going to be important in uniting the citizens of the United States after the election that the new President have this 'true' tolerance.

Biggles
11-01-2004, 07:55 PM
The strong can afford to be kind. It is the weak that fear others. Fear leads to irrational and cruel behaviour. imho :blushing:



On a slightly more complex level, this is a classic example of a meaningless soundbite. On face value it appears to make sense, but in truth it bears no scrutiny. It confuses tolerance with both weakness and doubt. It is perfectly possible to believe one is correct without compromise of that belief and yet still be prepared to tolerate others. Inability to tolerate others is in fact a weakness not a strength. It says more about that individual's lack of confidence to put his views to the touch than it does about the wrongness of other viewpoints.


Again, imho :lol:

Biggles
11-01-2004, 09:18 PM
:lol:

Do you think so? I fancied it was rather trite. :blink:

Busyman
11-01-2004, 10:05 PM
@ Busyman - plants produce oxygen when they photosynthesize, when it is dark they respire just as we do. There are other, natural, chemical reactions that also contribute to the CO2/oxygen equilibrium. I think science can provide logical answers to the questions you pose.
No shit. :lol: :lol:

It's mighty convenient though, ain't it. :lol: :lol:

Busyman
11-01-2004, 10:10 PM
@busy

I believe in the big bang theory as a possibility and evolution...nature finds a way. Just as insects build immunity to pesticides so did life find a way to exist with what was available.
As to the plant/animal gas question, that's the way with nature...it evolves into balance. This is easy to observe with the effects of mans exploitation
There are animals at the bottom of the ocean that don't breathe oxygen.

If you are asking what came "before" i don't have the answer, but by the arguement that a "creator" made it.....i have to ask what made the "creator"?

I'm not looking for explainations or debate. There are reasons why i came to my conclusion that are personal to me.
It's cool.

Something set it all in motion....the bang and all.

Rat Faced
11-01-2004, 10:12 PM
No shit. :lol: :lol:

It's mighty convenient though, ain't it. :lol: :lol:

As convenient as all the Contradictions in Religious Text maybe? ;)


Remember, anyone can say that God told 'em to write something...

Busyman
11-01-2004, 10:25 PM
What it means to me is that the test of 'true' tolerance is having strong convictions, but being tolerant of others.........even though you feel strongly about an issue yourself.

I think it is going to be important in uniting the citizens of the United States after the election that the new President have this 'true' tolerance.
That makes no sense to me.

It sounds good if one of your convictions to be tolerant.

Otherwise having strong convictions is analogous to unwavering devotion to a fixed belief.

One does not have to be tolerant in order to have strong convictions but must be tolerant enough to not waver in those convictions.

Translation:
I do not have tolerate you to have strong beliefs but I tolerate you enough to not influence me to change my beliefs.

Busyman
11-01-2004, 10:28 PM
As convenient as all the Contradictions in Religious Text maybe? ;)


Remember, anyone can say that God told 'em to write something...
Agreed.... ;)


...but believing in organized religion is not logical in comparison to simply believing in a "creator".

Rat Faced
11-01-2004, 10:46 PM
Creator?

Some think that Nature IS the Creator, and no one can dispute or disprove that belief, any more than they can disprove any other belief.

As only females (and hermaphrodites etc.) can create life... why is "God" most often portrayed as Male?

Always wondered that...

Busyman
11-01-2004, 10:57 PM
Creator?

Some think that Nature IS the Creator, and no one can dispute or disprove that belief, any more than they can disprove any other belief.

As only females (and hermaphrodites etc.) can create life... why is "God" most often portrayed as Male?

Always wondered that...
What created nature?

It does work out that the spinning of the planet helps us not to float out in space.

I'm well versed in the science of things.

I know many folks explanation of things is, "well it just is".

I just believe something intelligent set it in motion.

God is "portrayed' male because we live in a male dominated world. God is perceived as the biggest dominator.

Females need a male to create life. Hermaphrodites don't.

Rat Faced
11-01-2004, 11:02 PM
See?

This is why we need tolerance...

If we could break down what we are all trying to say into symbols, rather than what we have grown up with in far from perfect languages and cultures...

I wonder how far apart we'd all actually be?

I cant believe any "Creator" would have the sin of "Pride" to such an extent that he'd wish to be worshiped in a certain way, or at all...

hobbes
11-01-2004, 11:15 PM
What created nature?

It does work out that the spinning of the planet helps us not to float out in space.

I'm well versed in the science of things.

I know many folks explanation of things is, "well it just is".

I just believe something intelligent set it in motion.

God is "portrayed' male because we live in a male dominated world. God is perceived as the biggest dominator.

Females need a male to create life. Hermaphrodites don't.

Why create something more complex than our universe (a creator) to explain how our universe came to be? That simply defers the question to "who created the creator?"

People tend to say that God has always been, so he has no beginning and no end, he is "outside" of time. That is about as meaningful as saying that there is no God and the Universe has always existed. Mere speculation.

Creating a God is mans' attempt to make sense of that which he cannot comprehend. A coping mechanism to negate the thought that our lives are as evanescent and pointless as a puff of smoke.

As for oxygen and carbon dioxide, that system works because that is what is available. If plants gave off hyrogren sulfide, whatever animals alive would "use" that. The ambient conditions of our planet dictate what works and what doesn't. There is nothing magical about oxygen and carbon dioxide.

sArA
11-01-2004, 11:24 PM
That makes no sense to me.

It sounds good if one of your convictions to be tolerant.

Otherwise having strong convictions is analogous to unwavering devotion to a fixed belief.

One does not have to be tolerant in order to have strong convictions but must be tolerant enough to not waver in those convictions.

Translation:
I do not have tolerate you to have strong beliefs but I tolerate you enough to not influence me to change my beliefs.


I am sorry, I disagree here.

Tolerance does not require that I have sufficient conviction to enable me to resist influence to change.

Tolerance is the strength to accept another's conviction.

My personal conviction to any belief is irrelevant in this case, as tolerance does not imply that I might be tempted take on those views, merely that I accept other's rights to have them.

Just another imho...type thing :)

Busyman
11-01-2004, 11:38 PM
See?

This is why we need tolerance...

If we could break down what we are all trying to say into symbols, rather than what we have grown up with in far from perfect languages and cultures...

I wonder how far apart we'd all actually be?

I cant believe any "Creator" would have the sin of "Pride" to such an extent that he'd wish to be worshiped in a certain way, or at all...
Well that's going into organized religion.

Busyman
11-01-2004, 11:41 PM
Why create something more complex than our universe (a creator) to explain how our universe came to be? That simply defers the question to "who created the creator?"

People tend to say that God has always been, so he has no beginning and no end, he is "outside" of time. That is about as meaningful as saying that there is no God and the Universe has always existed. Mere speculation.

Creating a God is mans' attempt to make sense of that which he cannot comprehend. A coping mechanism to negate the thought that our lives are as evanescent and pointless as a puff of smoke.

As for oxygen and carbon dioxide, that system works because that is what is available. If plants gave off hyrogren sulfide, whatever animals alive would "use" that. The ambient conditions of our planet dictate what works and what doesn't. There is nothing magical about oxygen and carbon dioxide.
Never said it was hobbes, never said it was. :huh:

hobbes
11-02-2004, 12:40 AM
That would suggest that life is possible in any environment.

Yes, it does. But I think it is the probability that is different from environment to environment.

There are organisms on Earth which live in zero light, under the crushing conditions of the ocean floor, in an ambient temperature of 400F next to plumes of lava.

We humans tend to think of conditions being "livable" based on our distorted and very narrow frame of reference. Just like we think that someone who is 100 years of age is old, or that boobies are pretty.

I would be shocked to think that there is the entire rest of the Universe out there and there is nothing else comparable our world.

hobbes
11-02-2004, 12:48 AM
Never said it was hobbes, never said it was. :huh:


The point is that for any system to work long term, nutrients and energy must be recycled. Thus the debris of one organism is the delight of another.

In a previous post you called this relationship "convenient". In the context you were implying that it demonstrated a master planner.

I just think that carbon and oxygen are what worked in our environment. No need to speculate a devine planner.

Question was: Why create something more complex than our Universe to explain our Universe? You just raise the ante, and defer the question. The question goes from "Where did we come from?" to, "Who created God?"

Busyman
11-02-2004, 02:31 AM
I am sorry, I disagree here.

Tolerance does not require that I have sufficient conviction to enable me to resist influence to change.

Tolerance is the strength to accept another's conviction.

My personal conviction to any belief is irrelevant in this case, as tolerance does not imply that I might be tempted take on those views, merely that I accept other's rights to have them.

Just another imho...type thing :)
I can agree there but tolerance also breeds acceptance which leads to influence.

Busyman
11-02-2004, 02:39 AM
The point is that for any system to work long term, nutrients and energy must be recycled. Thus the debris of one organism is the delight of another.

In a previous post you called this relationship "convenient". In the context you were implying that it demonstrated a master planner.

I just think that carbon and oxygen are what worked in our environment. No need to speculate a devine planner.

Question was: Why create something more complex than our Universe to explain our Universe? You just raise the ante, and defer the question. The question goes from "Where did we come from?" to, "Who created God?"
I didn't "create" anything. It's a logical belief.

I don't believe everything just is.

I don't believe The Big Bang was set forth by itself.

I understand how atheists think though.

They can't prove there is a creator so why go any further into it. I get it.

I think atheism will rise in number as the years go forward.

hobbes
11-02-2004, 03:01 AM
I didn't "create" anything. It's a logical belief.

I don't believe everything just is.

I don't believe The Big Bang was set forth by itself.

I understand how atheists think though.

They can't prove there is a creator so why go any further into it. I get it.

I think atheism will rise in number as the years go forward.


Making a baffling scenario (how we came to be) more complex by creating some invisible force, who must be far more complicated than what he has designed, is in no way logical.

It is like intellectually jumping ship and not asking the question that needs to be answered. Where did the Creator come from?

So on one hand you say that the "big bang" didn't just happen, but on the other, you seem to think that this mysterious creator did? Not logical.

As to Athiesm, anyone who avers that a God cannot exist is using a much faith as one who can tell you exactly what God wants from us.

I simply don't know, I'm Agnostic. This allows me to adapt my views to new insights and evidence. I just don't "make-up" my own fantasy version and expect people to believe it because I or some book said so.

Busyman
11-02-2004, 03:16 AM
Making a baffling scenario (how we came to be) more complex by creating some invisible force, who must be far more complicated than what he has designed, is in no way logical.

It is like intellectually jumping ship and not asking the question that needs to be answered. Where did the Creator come from?

So on one hand you say that the "big bang" didn't just happen, but on the other, you seem to think that this mysterious creator did? Not logical.

As to Athiesm, anyone who avers that a God cannot exist is using a much faith as one who can tell you exactly what God wants from us.

I simply don't know, I'm Agnostic. This allows me to adapt my views to new insights and evidence. I just don't "make-up" my own fantasy version and expect people to believe it because I or some book said so.
blahblahblah.

I simply say that I believe some intelligent force set it all in motion.

Who said shit about books? Oh that's right...you did. :dry:

Organized religion tries to explain what God wants from us with varying stories but again I wasn't bringing organized religion into the convo. ;)

hobbes
11-02-2004, 02:29 PM
See you absolutely refuse to take your statement to the next logical level.

What intelligent force, where did it come from?

Quick story from A Brief History of Time

An astronomer, I believe, is explaining at a townhall meeting that the Earth is round and not flat.

After politely listening to his speech, a little old lady in the back stands up and says. "Well young man, you are wrong, we all know that the Earth is flat and is standing on the back of a large tortoise".

"Well Ma'am", he replies, "what is the Tortoise standing on?"

"Clever, very clever, but we all know it's tortoises all the way down!"


The lady fails to see her logical breakdown. She is willing to go as far as a giant tortoise to explain what supports the Earth (akin to BM's intelligent force) and stops right there. She doesn't bother to consider what supports the tortoise, which is obligately the next logical question. All the way down to where, BM?

I think this is the great precipice I cannot leap. To invent an external intelligent force to explain our situation is very convenient and soothing. Particularly if we create a personality for it and promise ourselves eternal happiness. As much as I would love to believe what is being peddled (whether it is an intelligent force- otherwise undefined (as per BM) or the God of an organized religion), I honestly cannot take that jump.

Why?

Because I have created a more complex situation to explain a more simple one. Something like Ockham's razor.

Rat Faced
11-02-2004, 02:46 PM
Nooo...

The world is on the back of 4 elephants... Its the elephants that are on the turtle...

:rolleyes:

Busyman
11-02-2004, 02:52 PM
See you absolutely refuse to take your statement to the next logical level.

What intelligent force, where did it come from?

Quick story from A Brief History of Time

An astronomer, I believe, is explaining at a townhall meeting that the Earth is round and not flat.

After politely listening to his speech, a little old lady in the back stands up and says. "Well young man, you are wrong, we all know that the Earth is flat and is standing on the back of a large tortoise".

"Well Ma'am", he replies, "what is the Tortoise standing on?"

"Clever, very clever, but we all know it's tortoises all the way down!"


The lady fails to see her logical breakdown. She is willing to go as far as a giant tortoise to explain what supports the Earth (akin to BM's intelligent force) and stops right there. She doesn't bother to consider what supports the tortoise, which is obligately the next logical question. All the way down to where, BM?

I think this is the great precipice I cannot leap. To invent an external intelligent force to explain our situation is very convenient and soothing. Particularly if we create a personality for it and promise ourselves eternal happiness. As much as I would love to believe what is being peddled (whether it is an intelligent force- otherwise undefined (as per BM) or the God of an organized religion), I honestly cannot take that jump.

Why?

Because I have created a more complex situation to explain a more simple one. Something like Ockham's razor.
Well bud you seem to have your panties in a bunch about it in comparison to what I feel about it.

I'm taking no jump. :huh:

You are asking me to explain where God came from. I cannot obviously so you want continue bantering about dumb ass questions about it like someone's avoiding it.

"What came first, the chicken or the egg?" Who the fuck knows?

Who knows if we are descendants of aliens from another planet?

Believing an intelligence started it all is not illogical. Neither is choosing not to believe it.

Your arrogance is backing no one into a corner for my answer is simple and your question is actually bleeding to death looking for life that I cannot give it. :dry:

Yogi
11-02-2004, 03:31 PM
Truth is in the mind of the beholder.

God exists. For those who believe so.

Same with allah, muhammed, etc.


Even calling yourself agnostic shows believe.


I think frogs hold more pure truth than most humans.


Yogi

vidcc
11-02-2004, 03:34 PM
"the truth is what you believe"....i like that...we've seen a lot of that here and not just about God

bigboab
11-02-2004, 07:14 PM
Doctors and Nurses have convictions or they would not be doing the job they do. Yet they would be unable to do their jobs without tolerance.


Does that make any sense?:blink:

hobbes
11-02-2004, 07:55 PM
Trying to explain creation and a creator in purely human terms is futile. I am sure we have been over this ground several times. Once we have complete understanding of the universe and how it works, then that feat may be possible. However we don't have the tools yet.

The turtle analogy is specious. A nice story but it proves (or disproves) nothing. It makes no more sense than me comparing our lack of understanding to a frog reading Shakespeare. It can't read so it can't understand. True but so what.

Pehaps one day frogs will be able to read, then they can appreciate the Bard's words. Not today tho'.

It was not meant to prove nor disprove anything.

Just to show how the lady in this instance blindly accepted something, but hadn't really bothered to think it through. She thought the turtle was a done deal and never even considered the implications (what was the turtle supported by).

My posts here are not an attempt to prove nor disprove anything. I was just pointing out that it makes little sense to me to invent something more complex than our Universe to explain it's creation.

As with the Lady, both her premise that the Earth was flat and that a tortoise was required were false. Why change the shape of the Earth and conjure some magnificent animal, when the evidence that the Earth is round was right there, all the time. She made the situation more complex than it needed to be, because she abandoned logic and reason for faith.

Who knows what is right there, if we close our minds and just accept what we are told.

"Trying to explain creation and a creator in purely human terms is futile."- You might let the Religious people know about this, I have been trying to tell them this all along. God is outside of our sphere of knowledge. To assign him powers and opinions is just pointless. What we say about him is solely a reflection of our own desire of what we want him to be, as he is unknowable to us.

Rat Faced
11-02-2004, 08:14 PM
She's not alone though, (http://www.flat-earth.org/society/about.html) in claiming the World is flat... :rolleyes:

Busyman
11-02-2004, 11:56 PM
Someone who does not have strong beliefs does not have to be tolerant. There is no need for them to tolerate anything, as they have no strong beliefs which may be offended. They can accept anything that others choose to say or think, as they don't really care very much. To me tolerance implies the acceptance of the views of others, even when they oppose our own.

I did not say that everyone who has convictions must also be tolerant (as you seem to have read). I said that only people with convictions could be tolerant.
It's cool man.

It was a goof playing on semantics of bullshit.

If I am tolerant then convictions mean nothing in the space of what you are tolerant of. To have convictions is not to tolerate any other views for it dilutes your convictions.

See what I mean. :no:

3RA1N1AC
11-03-2004, 12:22 AM
Females need a male to create life. Hermaphrodites don't.
another line that may soon need to be scratched out of nature's rule-books: "females need a male to create life." current cloning techniques have revealed that the egg need only be injected with DNA in order to be fertilized. human eggs can be fertilized without sperm. one female scientist goes into a lab with one human egg and one human DNA sample, comes out with an embryo.

just thought it was worth a mention. :-P

vidcc
11-03-2004, 01:16 AM
actually if you look at nature there are examples where a female will change sex if no males are present.... this happens with some fish..... nature finds a way