Seeing Things Differently -DanP the apologist excuse.

[Gadianton]

Gadianton marks me as as being solipsistic.

No, I marked you as a 6-day creation fundamentalist who operates in a black and white world, believing that you have the absolute 100% truth, playing the solipsism card only when specific topics come up that you don't have good answers for. You are not a solipsist, you are a literalist if there ever was one. You only play the solipsist on the DM discussion board.

If you believe that everyone lives their own independent reality and can't get past their on minds, do you agree that people who you see as men, but who consider themselves to be women, have every bit as much reason to believe they are women as you believe they are men? And you agree that it's impossible to say one way or another whether they are a man or a women?

[MG 2.0]

Gadianton marks me as as being solipsistic.

No, I marked you as a 6-day creation fundamentalist who operates in a black and white world, believing that you have the absolute 100% truth, playing the solipsism card only when specific topics come up that you don't have good answers for. You are not a solipsist, you are a literalist if there ever was one. You only play the solipsist on the DM discussion board.

If you believe that everyone lives their own independent reality and can't get past their on minds, do you agree that people who you see as men, but who consider themselves to be women, have every bit as much reason to believe they are women as you believe they are men? And you agree that it's impossible to say one way or another whether they are a man or a women?

Caricature building is not character building on your part Gadianton.

I am not a six day creationist.
I do not believe that I operate in a black and white world.
I do not believe that the LDS Church has a corner on the market when it comes to truth. That is, as you say, in an absolutist sense. I do think it has its mission to perform, yes.
Admittedly, I do not have all the answers. No one does inside this closed system I referred to earlier.
I stand by what I said in regards to solipsism and the fact that what lies beyond our minds is always open to question.

I cannot get inside the minds of those that have a worldview that may not completely dovetail with mine. I do believe that the safety, mutual understanding and well being of all individuals is paramount in any situation where there is a conflict in standards or beliefs.

Gadianton, I accept the fact that you are not able…apparently…to clearly see me for who I am and that on a discussion board such as this that you believe that you have a certain role to play. I can live with that.

Not sure if you’re actually reading my posts. You come up with some pretty off the wall stuff.

No offense intended or desire to make you feel uncomfortable with that last comment. Just to hopefully spur you to a bit of genuflection as you make comments that aren’t based wholly in truth.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Gadianton, I don’t find this conversation interesting. I only referenced what you said to make a point on another thread.

It might be well to go ahead and carry on this thread’s conversation and topic so as not to derail.

Thanks.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

I cannot get inside the minds of those that have a worldview that may not completely dovetail with mine.

You've already established that, the point is, just like per you, as critics, we can't get into the minds of believers therefore we must acknowledge their equally valid worldview, are you willing to acknowledge the equally valid worldview of someone who believes they are a woman, given you think they are a man?

Of course you don't feel comfortable with consistency.

[MG 2.0]

I cannot get inside the minds of those that have a worldview that may not completely dovetail with mine.

You've already established that, the point is, just like per you, as critics, we can't get into the minds of believers therefore we must acknowledge their equally valid worldview, are you willing to acknowledge the equally valid worldview of someone who believes they are a woman, given you think they are a man?

Of course you don't feel comfortable with consistency.

I’m not supportive of the thread split the moderators performed on the other thread and bringing what was a cohesive train of thought and bringing it here. To me it’s a derail. I have no interest in going down this track with you.

Nothing against you personally.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

Perfect, moderators. I wish I would have thought of it. Every time MG steps into a conversation where people are arguing facts, and turns into phil 101 questioning if we can know anything at all, you should totally split that post and all responses off and put it here. It's the ultimate derail.

That will keep MG from derailing perfectly good topics. This is great not just for the board, but for MG also. He might learn to enjoy discussing the topic of the various posts around here rather than his singular tangent.

[Dr Exiled]

I agree that individuals and groups see things differently. It's obvious. I also believe there is an objective reality and that we all need to give up certain subjective beliefs in order to conform to the objective reality we learn as time goes on. It's part of the repentance process, to put it into religious terms. Facts are obtainable and humility may be needed to discover them and courage to follow the new reality. Also, as you said, people make stuff up all the time and religion seems to be a fruitful area for the imagination of some.

The problem we have is agreeing on objective reality from one person to another. In the political realm within the United States there are widely different views on what objective reality consists of and looks like as it relates to the southern border. Many other examples could be given. And yet you have people taking sides because they think the other side is objectively obtuse. Subjective feelings are roiling among players on various platforms and news organizations. If you’re going to call someone to repentance who’s it gonna be?

Parallels could be made with religious organizations and belief. Sure, religious folks can make stuff up just as readily as the next guy, including the non religious. They will each lay claim on being objective from their own point of view ‘in the room’ (reference back to my original quote). My point that I’m trying to emphasize is that we may want to consider looking at the ‘other’ as having come from and currently existing in a place where they may consider themselves to be observers of objective reality in the life they have lived and are living.

If I’m not mistaken, objective reality is subject to change even with the scientific realm.

The only objective reality is that which exists outside of our own mind. On another thread Gadianton marks me as as being solipsistic. In a certain respect that is true. Solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure.

I think that is true. And we ALL are in the same boat. Except for the caveat for those that may have and/or continue to have access to absolute objective truth.

So faith based upon what one sees as a reasonable combination of what one determines to be subjective/objective experience and knowledge is just as valid to an individual person as the point of view that another might have on a topic of your choice. Nothing can be known absolutely. But does that make one right and another wrong? Possibly. Both, however, could be partially right and partially wrong.

But knowing that absolute objective truth cannot be known unless revealed or given from outside the closed system (where we find ourselves) we find that we are left in a position to at least acknowledge and respect the beliefs, and yes even tribal behavior, of others.

While at the same time, for some folks, hoping that God might now and then give us some glimpse of what objective reality/purpose is. For others that is not a hope that they have and/or are not looking for. And that’s OK. We’re all in the same boat (planet earth) and one might expect (back to my original quote) that we’re going to see things differently. We’re all solipsistic even if we aren’t aware of it.

So the question might be asked, why is so much time invested by critics of various worldviews in being the critic? Religionists vs. non religionists. Democrats vs. Republicans. Etc., etc.

Honest question.

Are we all so tribal…to the core…(evolutionary speaking), that we epigenetically can’t help ourselves?

One has to wonder.

Regards,
MG

I think people don't like nonsense being pushed on them by missionaries and family. Maybe take your point of equivalency to the logical conclusion and realize that perhaps your views are questionable if not unsupportable. You certainly are entitled to believe whatever, but, when you start evangelizing, claiming authority over others, and pushing donations in order to be right with a god of which you know nothing, that's a different animal requiring something other than post modern equivalency games.

Maybe just declare a tie like you want and move on.

[Marcus]

Perfect, moderators. I wish I would have thought of it. Every time MG steps into a conversation where people are arguing facts, and turns into phil 101 questioning if we can know anything at all, you should totally split that post and all responses off and put it here. It's the ultimate derail.

That will keep MG from derailing perfectly good topics. This is great not just for the board, but for MG also. He might learn to enjoy discussing the topic of the various posts around here rather than his singular tangent.

He might, but I predict we will still get these little nuggets of self-appointed noblesse oblige:

...No offense intended or desire to make you feel uncomfortable with that last comment. Just to hopefully spur you to a bit of genuflection as you make comments that aren’t based wholly in truth...

[Gadianton]

I have no interest in going down this track with you.

I think that's great. Why don't you go back to the original thread and try to get into the conversation's topic, rather than a meta discussion about the conversation -- (can the conversation ultimately tell us anything since everyone is living a different reality)?

I'll tell you what, go back to the other thread and try to have a factual conversation and argue for your viewpoint. I wasn't participating in that thread before you derailed it, and I don't plan on participating. Try your best to come up with an argument that doesn't involve relativism (getting out of the argument) and I'll stay out of your way. In fact, I'll leave you alone completely on every thread you participate on here so long as you're staying on topic and not derailing it with an appeal to relativism?

[yellowstone123]

MG 2.0 wrote:

"I cannot get inside the minds of those that have a worldview that may not completely dovetail with mine."

Yes you can if you understand that we are the product of natural selection with bias and illusions built into our brains over time to promote genetic proliferation. Most suffering is caused by these bias and illusions and meditation and mindfulness can help alleviate it.

For more information read or listen to "Why Buddhism is True" by Robert Wright. Try doing both to understand his very clear and valid points of view. He's an evolutionary psychologist who teaches at Union Theological Seminary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wr ... ournalist)