Forums > Social Discussion > Spirituality, sceptiscism and imposing your world on others

Login/Join to Participate
Page:
Mascotenthusiast
301 posts

Posted:
I've been following the Who believes in Aura's thread quite keenly.

To summarise that thread briefly a lot of people believe in auras. A lot of other people think they're deluded and/or insane. The sceptics (myself included) redface managed to roundly insult the believers and scare them off for the most part.

I don't want a repeat of that here so here there will be NO ARGUING ABOUT WHO IS RIGHT.

if people want to argue they can start another thread.

All i want to know is who here believes in what, and to what extent is it justifiable to push your world view?
Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes

jo_rhymesSILVER Member
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom


Posted:
Good idea biggrin

I wasn't "scared off", but it's a subjective belief. It's not objective, which is what science HAS TO BE. I cannot prove why I believe what I do to others, it's just personal experience.
I don't think I am right and others are wrong. It's just that's what I believe hug Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.

DrudwynForget puppy power, Scrappy's just gay
632 posts
Location: Southampton Uni


Posted:
i'm a firm believer in souls, but that's untestable, and I know it's just a belief, and although I' try not to put others off their beliefs, but I dislike having other's beliefs thrust upon me as the truth and wil respond with (as in the aura thread) "yeah? Prove it." Spin, bounce, be one with the world, because it is yours to enjoy...

jo_rhymesSILVER Member
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom


Posted:
I have no real need to prove my beliefs. I don't see why it matters to anyone else what I believe. I believe in nothing that will harm anyone. smile Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.

Mascotenthusiast
301 posts

Posted:
I hate evangelism. There are people who hold a world view that commands them to spread the word and convince others that their beliefs are correct and that only by following their beliefs will you get into heaven. It's bullying, arrogant and invasive.

Essentially they're saying my views are correct and yours are wrong now listen up or else.

At the same time I appreciate that they believe they are commanded to do this by God and furthermore that they are trying to help me, trying to save me from eternal damnation no less. Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes

jo_rhymesSILVER Member
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom


Posted:
yeah I agree boy g. Evengelism is hideous.
I just can't get my head around organised religion. I don't think it allows any questioning, you are just told what to believe. You can't find your own path. I really dislike it.

On the other hand, I feel it gives people alot of security and comfort. Why can't people learn that there are many paths up the same mountain? hug Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.

jeff(fake)Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh


Posted:
 Written by: the boy g


The sceptics (myself included) redface managed to roundly insult the believers and scare them off for the most part.



I think you do yourself a disservice. You haven't made any "offensive" posts, just a few flippant ones.

 Written by: the boy g


All i want to know is who here believes in what, and to what extent is it justifiable to push your world view?


People can believe whatever they want. If they want to talk about them, then it's also anyone's right to disagree. No-one coming to their home to forcibly convert anyone, so I really don't see the logic behind the taboo on disagreeing with peoples beliefs. According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

alien_oddityCarpal \'Tunnel
7,193 posts
Location: in the trees


Posted:
ibelieve in ley lines, i was working at a festival that hat 3 ley lines converge in one spot at the site we where on and basicly i was woking from 9am till 10pm then would chill out and have a smoke and a few beers by such time it was 12am or 1 am and for 14 das i kept this routine but i constantly feltfull of energy and fully refreshed biggrin


i'll tell you how i get on next year as it's in the same place wink

87wt2gxq7veteran
1,502 posts
Location: Birmingham


Posted:
I voted for "Nothing that can't be demonstrated in a repeatable experiment" but I'd just like to split hairs here and say that I believe in a helluvalot more than this because there are whole fields of scientific knowledge and study which aren't accessable by experiment.



Astrophysics, for one. Field geology, for two. Earth observation science, for three. And for four, my idea of zoology, which consists of dudes and dudettes in khakis camping out in the savannah watching prides of lions doing their thang.



Long time since I did any philosophy of science, but I think the key to defining science is not "must be able to be demonstrated in an experiment" but "must be able to be disproven by observation".



Just my two cents...

jo_rhymesSILVER Member
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom


Posted:
Jon, you smart arse tongue Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.

87wt2gxq7veteran
1,502 posts
Location: Birmingham


Posted:
zee fair point, she is well made!



(just wanted to stick up for my former subject (astrophysics) really. And, y'know, help everyone else to think about these issues more carefully, spread the informations for all to enjoy and slay the demons of ignorance. An ting).

BirgitBRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)


Posted:
I'm just about to look up "ley line" on wiki or something. Might be good if someone could come up with a concise definition for us non-native speakers though smile (just in case there are any but me. I'll look it up anyway. Just fell asleep on the plane though, so I'm in no state to define anything tonight!) "vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half

DominoSILVER Member
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
757 posts
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK


Posted:
(If you can) You may wish to add "Some of or all or the above" into the poll somewhere.

To reiterate my position stared in the aruas thread: I don't.

(Potentially, there's a fairly long post about peer-review coming from me, only I'll have to sober up first)

D out. Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.

Rouge DragonBRONZE Member
Insert Champagne Here
13,215 posts
Location: without class distinction, Australia


Posted:
Yeah, I don't understand that a ley line is, even after looking it up in Wikipedia.

I voted for "there must be more to life than what meets the eye" because while I am a sceptic I have had what I suppose I could call "spiritual experiences" (the main one being standing at the top of a mountain it had taken me 6 hours to climb through snow) and I don't like to rule out things just because science hasn't proven then to date. Especially taking into account many scientific theories that are controversial yet are legitimate scientific theories.

I supported the believers in the Auras thread because, yes, I felt like they were being insulted and having their intelligence questioned. But as I said there, for the most part I am a fence sitter in many cases because from the fence I get a lovely view of both sides...which is itself if a problem because I get angry at the people who see the fence as something like the Berlin Wall; 6ft high concrete and barbed wire. i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey

Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...

jeff(fake)Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh


Posted:
I found a nice little short story about the topic. Condemned to repeat it. According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

SpannerBRONZE Member
remembers when it was all fields round here
2,790 posts
Location: in the works... somewhere..., United Kingdom


Posted:
 Written by: Rouge Dragon


Yeah, I don't understand that a ley line is, even after looking it up in Wikipedia.




If you draw a straight line between 2 places on a map, you may find that other places of similar significance may be on that line as well. They may be features or places where certain events have happened.

Example here

I may believe in some things, like ley lines and UFOs, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I think that there's more to them than meets the eye smile "I thought you are man, but
you are nice woman.

yay,

:R"

SymBRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom


Posted:
I can't vote for some reason.



I think that every person who thinks atoms exist should click on "That there must be more to life than meets the eye". We know very well that there are things we can't see, but that doesn't stop us exploring them. Like Jon said, there are areas of science that we cannot see, but we still have a very good idea of what goes on by other means.



That, however, does not imply that anything beyond what science knows doesn't comply to the well known laws we have found.



There is a very high chance that, on a general scale, the rest of our existence will follow what we know and not dismiss it. I would expect theories to be refined somewhat, but not changed fundamentally (I'm talking about the big stuff here, gravity, entropy etc).



When someone comes along with an idea that there is something (a creator, healing energy etc) there is often an argument about science not knowing everything and therefore it could be possible. This is true, but the chance of this magical thing being true when it goes against well known laws of science is so high that is can be safely ignored.



That is not to say that we shouldn't be open to ideas and test them, but we are limited by the amount of tests we can do, so those taking priority should be the ones that have some backing in truth and reason rather than unfounded ideas.





Birgit: a ley line is the line that joins up old or 'magical' places on a map. The more things that are on that line, the more 'value' it has. Obviously there is a line between any 2 objects, but there are some lines in England that have 5 or 6 of these objects going though them. I think the biggest one in England joins Glastonbury with the most east and west edges of England, whilst going though loads of small churches where some magical thing happened back when magical things happened.



I read a book by the person who effectively made them up (he redefined them to make them more of a 'science'). It was quite interesting to read about the coincidences. There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

SymBRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom


Posted:
Spanner: thanks for the image. I know this isn't a thread about them, but wouldn't the line change on a different map projection? I thought that mapping a straight line on to a curve was tricky. Do all ley lines follow the same map or projection, or are different ones used to meet different ends? There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

ickleMattenthusiast
242 posts
Location: L.O.N.D.O.N.


Posted:
hey Rouge can I join you on that fence? mmmm it is comfortable up here

I think there is nice view from up here, and I listen to all the arguments coming from both sides. Some are ugly but some are beautiful and i would like to hear all the beautiful ones biggrin but all they are just subjective arguments, nothing definitive.

I hate imposing my own particular views on others. but sometimes I have felt the need to say to very good friends 'Your belief is wrong and you are harming yourself'.

For example I had a friend who believed in conscience contraception - if you believe enough you won't get pregnant during sex. I never said it was impossible (maybe to some yogis it is) but my friend is no yogi and I think they believed it because they want to (it is a beautiful story) and to avoid some of the responsibilities of their actions.

Although I still love the friend they haven't spoken to me since frown

SpannerBRONZE Member
remembers when it was all fields round here
2,790 posts
Location: in the works... somewhere..., United Kingdom


Posted:
Sym: very good question!
The line would change on another projection so mainly Mercator maps are used for ley line recording.
There may be other techniques for other projections but Mercator projection has been used since the early 1500s and is still standard so that would explain why, if there is any significance in ley lines, that a lot of them would follow those straight lines.
The reason that a lot of previous features are aligned in that projection is probably because, until early A.D., people still thought the world was flat... smile "I thought you are man, but
you are nice woman.

yay,

:R"

jeff(fake)Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh


Posted:
 Written by: the boy g


...and to what extent is it justifiable to push your world view?


To get the contentious ball rolling:

Say you have a mother who for some reason or other doesn't accept germ theory or modern medicine (because she believes in Christian Science, strict homeopathy, etcetera). If her baby gets sick with a serious bacterial infection which could be easily cured with antibiotics, is it right to impose treatment on her child? Is the mother right to impose her beliefs on her child?

I take the view that children are in their parents care, but they are not their property. In this case if we did not impose scientific world view on these people, we would be complicit in manslaughter if the child died, so the moral thing would be to treat the child against the mothers wishes.

Obviously quite a derived scenario, but similar situations have happened. According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

jo_rhymesSILVER Member
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom


Posted:
good point Jeff!
When I was a teenager, my best friend's step mum was a strict vegan. My friend and his twin sister both ate meat, but when she lived there she wouldn't allow any meat in the house.
So they had to take on her diet.

As if that wasn't weird enough, when she had a baby, she didn't give it milk. she gave it fruit juice.

It's perhaps not a spiritual belief she has, but I think that feeding fruit juice to a newborn baby instead of milk is wrong. She didn't breastfeed her daughter either. Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.

jeff(fake)Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh


Posted:
 Written by: jo_rhymes

It's perhaps not a spiritual belief she has, but I think that feeding fruit juice to a newborn baby instead of milk is wrong. She didn't breastfeed her daughter either.


Are you saying she was opposed to feeding her child animal products from herself?

I mean...what?

*head explodes* According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
Well, this would depend on your belief system: IF you say that a child is an individual, with no ties whatsoever to it's parents - you would certainly have to take away the child from it's mother in order to force YOUR SCIENTIFICALLY "PROVEN" belief system on that particular child and "cure" it the way YOU think is the only RIGHT one.

If you tune yourself into the minds of people, who believe that there is more to

- a parent/ child relationship than sperm and egg donation
- "illness"
- or any other occurance in life

then you have no right to interfer.

You head might explode, your heart might cry - but IF you conclude that the universe unfolds exactly the way it is supposed to be, if you observe evidence and experience the peace this way of looking onto the world holds, if you come to the conclusion that ultimalively this life is more about making and taking choices, than telling others what (they have) to believe in and what is "right and wrong"... then you may be at the starting point to render what some call "bliss" in your very individual way.

I observe these days that some people draw as much cork into their rear ends by so called "natural science" than others draw from a preacherman...

I observe that some hold what they dare to call call "infinate wisdom" and actually DO impose their views and belief systems onto others, by slapping it into the faces of their fellow sisters and brothers... I regard this "a questionable practice"... been there, done that - gained the insight that everyone is an individual with own preferences and predispositions.

Even in physical attributes...

[/rant] meditate

Boy G: clap nice thread biggrin off for sunday brunch an friends chatter in a beautiful Goan setting, palmtrees, flowers and maybe 30 degrees (just to make you envious and urging to see the world my way wink tongue) the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
 Written by: jeff(fake)





Say you have a mother who for some reason or other doesn't accept germ theory or modern medicine (because she believes in Christian Science, strict homeopathy, etcetera). If her baby gets sick with a serious bacterial infection which could be easily cured with antibiotics, is it right to impose treatment on her child? Is the mother right to impose her beliefs on her child?



I take the view that children are in their parents care, but they are not their property. In this case if we did not impose scientific world view on these people, we would be complicit in manslaughter if the child died, so the moral thing would be to treat the child against the mothers wishes.



Obviously quite a derived scenario, but similar situations have happened.





 Written by: FireTom



Well, this would depend on your belief system: IF you say that a child is an individual, with no ties whatsoever to it's parents - you would certainly have to take away the child from it's mother in order to force YOUR SCIENTIFICALLY "PROVEN" belief system on that particular child and "cure" it the way YOU think is the only RIGHT one.



If you tune yourself into the minds of people, who believe that there is more to



- a parent/ child relationship than sperm and egg donation

- "illness"

- or any other occurance in life



then you have no right to interfer.



You head might explode, your heart might cry - but IF you conclude that the universe unfolds exactly the way it is supposed to be, if you observe evidence and experience the peace this way of looking onto the world holds, if you come to the conclusion that ultimalively this life is more about making and taking choices, than telling others what (they have) to believe in and what is "right and wrong"... then you may be at the starting point to render what some call "bliss" in your very individual way.





The above seem to represent two opposite and polarised views.



I have to disagree with some of the stuff firetom seems to have slipped in-



for example



 Written by: firetom



If you tune yourself into the minds of people, who believe that there is more to



- a parent/ child relationship than sperm and egg donation

- "illness"

- or any other occurance in life



then you have no right to interfer.





as it's quite possible to believe there is something 'more' to a parent child relationship and yet still support the removal of a child in circumstances judged to be harmful to the child.



And, to me, it is 'judgement' which is central to this issue, because, in dealing with this world and the issues in it, judgement cannot be avoided.



Even if you decide to 'go with the flow of the world' and let everyone and everything be, that is still a choice (involving judgement) and, often, the consequences of that choice can affect others negatively as much as if you choose to 'interefere'.



If a child has individual rights, that in no way stops it being helpless and subject to abuve by others.



If some choose to try to prevent such abuse, they are most definitly not disregarding the individuality of the child.



I do fully agree that, for example, in the scientific community there is a substantial minority who are arrogant, judgemental, intolerant etc.



But, equally, the same holds for the 'believer community'.



I do feel that the 'believer' community tends to be more prone to the view that, by avoiding 'interfering' they can be, in some way, more morally 'right'.



If, as they seem to believe, everything is as it should be, then, presumably, the tendency of some to judge/impose, is also a manifestation of the world/spiritand, therefore, not open to condemnation?



(not that I think all, or even most, of the believer community actually do view the world this way, but some definitely seem to).
EDITED_BY: onewheeldave (1166362816)
"You can't outrun Death forever. But you can make the Bastard work for it." --MAJOR KORGO KORGAR, "Last of The Lancers" AFC 32 Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
Nice one, OWD - thank you for pointing out and showing me the light once more.

If everything is as it should be, then also judgement and imposing ones philosophy on others is part of it, as much as interfering with other peoples rights, including dismissal of human rights, war, violence and all the other stuff.

If I believe that it's okay to tell others what is right and wrong, I also have to accept others to tell me what is right and wrong...

If I believe that my view of the world is valid for everyone, I also have to accept that others think the exact same thought (but possibly not the same content)...

... and in the end it may (once more) only be important who's got no scruples to impose these views.

*twinkles his eyes, as the light becomes bright*

--- off to NineBar ---

one week and Santa comes around... will he bring me, what I'm wishing for? (errm... what am I actually wishing for?) or will I receive a beating? the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

faith enfireBRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA


Posted:
[quote/]If I believe that my view of the world is valid for everyone, I also have to accept that others think the exact same thought (but possibly not the same content)..



no just accept, that if now they do not, that they are not ummmm enlightened enough to come round to your way of thinking

[quote/]If I believe that it's okay to tell others what is right and wrong, I also have to accept others to tell me what is right and wrong...




no just that they have not realized that you are right and they are wrong Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

SymBRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom


Posted:
It is not a question of 'my view' or 'your view' at all.

My view is that well tested drugs will in most cases be better for someone than untested. By that I mean, double blind testing where possible, or some other sure fire way of testing that excludes chance as much as it can.

Someone else's view may well be that untested but 'natural' or old treatments are better.

However, the fact that it is 'my view' is irrelevant to to argument.

If the question is "what is the best way to cure my child" then a well tested, known to work and be save within expected limits cure will always be the answer.

Something that has not been subjected to secure, unbiased, repeatable testing will not be the best answer if there is another option in the former category.

So now we get on to the parent/child relationship with society. I think that if a parent isn't doing the best it can for a child then society should step in and set things right. The aim should be to keep the parent and child together, but in the worst case then the child should be taken away an looked after in safe hands.

Obviously this doesn't apply to someone giving a 'harmless' drug like Echinacea to a child, but in cases where parents are shunning scientific cancer treatment for their kids and taking them to acupuncture sessions then I 100% think that we have no right to stand aside and let children die because of their parents stupid ideas.

(I heard about a case in the states where an acupuncture ward got closed down because it was taking kids with cancer and saying it could cure them with no other treatment. I can't remember where, but I will look for a link) There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

faith enfireBRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA


Posted:
with the fundalmentalists...i thought they believed that medicine was interfering with God's will, if they prayed and the child got better, it was God's will...

what if there were people who were vegetarians and raised their kids as so...and the pediatrician believed the diet was detrimental to the child and wanted them to eat meat 3 times a week (fish). Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

jo_rhymesSILVER Member
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom


Posted:
 Written by: faithinfire



what if there were people who were vegetarians and raised their kids as so...and the pediatrician believed the diet was detrimental to the child and wanted them to eat meat 3 times a week (fish).



maybe in that scenario, they should ask the kids what they want to do. smile Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.

robnunchucksBRONZE Member
enthusiast
363 posts
Location: manchester uk


Posted:
Obviously quite a derived scenario, but similar situations have happened.



actualy jeff its not derived at all its actualy quite a common situation expecialiy in the 3rd world but there have also been alot of cases in the U.S i read about a case recently where a very religous couple had managed to lose one of there children then two years later after a lengthy court trile they managed to lose another both to illness that could have been easly cured with anti bioticis however because of there religion they prayed instead of takeing them to a hospital.



there are other cases as well such as one in the UK in which a nigieran women beleaved her daughter was a witch and proceaded to beat and torcher her as a result.



false belefes can be very dangorus things! and while beleaf shouldn't be forced on someone there must be a cut off point where. someones right to hold a beleafe is superseaded by someones right not to be harmed. such as in the two cases above.
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166386581)
My nunchucks vital statictics weight: 500g handle lenght: 16 inches chain length: 2 inches

Page: