Interpreting ideologies and constructs.

Does the following observation sound right?

If someone is involved with a cult, sect, religion and they are taught various ideologies and constructs, later, when they view the world through those constructs, it stands to reason that they will have a different way of interpreting other constructs compared with people who are not a member of their group.

Emotions connected with those ideologies come into it, making understanding of opposing concepts difficult.

Everybody has a different opinion on creation, God and the big bang, and ultimately we do not know the cause of our universe that we are within. People become emotional when their ideologies are questioned, and if their ideologies are are conflict with general agreed principles then this makes consensus difficult.

>Everybody has a different opinion on creation.

less of load having no opinion at all, I find.

transition said:

>Everybody has a different opinion on creation.

less of load having no opinion at all, I find.

You think?

I can’t say I find it much of a load at all.

I’m also not convinced there are more than 7 billion different opinions on creation.

Unless we have god-like opinion differentiation abilities.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>Everybody has a different opinion on creation.

less of load having no opinion at all, I find.

You think?

I can’t say I find it much of a load at all.

I’m also not convinced there are more than 7 billion different opinions on creation.

Unless we have god-like opinion differentiation abilities.

Most people with a scientific mind accept the big bang theory and spiritual/religious based creation myths might only be a few hundred even over the span of human civilisation. Its interesting but I imagine unknowable and I don’t lose any sleep over it. I am not sure if most people even care, people who are interested in science probably give it more thought than any else as we can find evidence to back up theory

I’m confident that the complete, correct answer to the question: “How did the universe begin (if it had a beginning)?” would be sufficiently abstract and technical for most people’s eyes to glaze over after reading the first paragraph, and glancing at the first equations :)

There would be little if anything in it that relates to human hopes and fears.

I guess people with no opinions don’t think much.

For religious people, their thinking about creation has been done for them, so they don’t have to think about it.

Similar thing for political parties, like labor and liberal backbenches, their thinking has been done by other people.

Similar thing again with TV, people who watch TV all day, their thinking has been done for them.

Tau.Neutrino said:

I guess people with no opinions don’t think much.

For religious people, their thinking about creation has been done for them, so they don’t have to think about it.

Similar thing for political parties, like labor and liberal backbenches, their thinking has been done by other people.

Similar thing again with TV, people who watch TV all day, their thinking has been done for them.

You really shouldn’t be so dismissive about people you lump into other groups.

Most religious people are not Christians
Most Christians are not creationists
Many (perhaps most) creationists do think about it, even if we don’t agree with their thoughts.

So to lump all of the very large group of “religious people” into the very small group of creationists who don’t think about it is not very accurate.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I guess people with no opinions don’t think much.

For religious people, their thinking about creation has been done for them, so they don’t have to think about it.

Similar thing for political parties, like labor and liberal backbenches, their thinking has been done by other people.

Similar thing again with TV, people who watch TV all day, their thinking has been done for them.

You really shouldn’t be so dismissive about people you lump into other groups.

Most religious people are not Christians
Most Christians are not creationists
Many (perhaps most) creationists do think about it, even if we don’t agree with their thoughts.

So to lump all of the very large group of “religious people” into the very small group of creationists who don’t think about it is not very accurate.

Ill give it some thought.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I guess people with no opinions don’t think much.

For religious people, their thinking about creation has been done for them, so they don’t have to think about it.

Similar thing for political parties, like labor and liberal backbenches, their thinking has been done by other people.

Similar thing again with TV, people who watch TV all day, their thinking has been done for them.

You really shouldn’t be so dismissive about people you lump into other groups.

Most religious people are not Christians
Most Christians are not creationists
Many (perhaps most) creationists do think about it, even if we don’t agree with their thoughts.

So to lump all of the very large group of “religious people” into the very small group of creationists who don’t think about it is not very accurate.

Ill give it some thought.

LOL, s’if.

Bogsnorkler said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

You really shouldn’t be so dismissive about people you lump into other groups.

Most religious people are not Christians
Most Christians are not creationists
Many (perhaps most) creationists do think about it, even if we don’t agree with their thoughts.

So to lump all of the very large group of “religious people” into the very small group of creationists who don’t think about it is not very accurate.

Ill give it some thought.

LOL, s’if.

He might go all Kirk Cameron on us

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I guess people with no opinions don’t think much.

For religious people, their thinking about creation has been done for them, so they don’t have to think about it.

Similar thing for political parties, like labor and liberal backbenches, their thinking has been done by other people.

Similar thing again with TV, people who watch TV all day, their thinking has been done for them.

You really shouldn’t be so dismissive about people you lump into other groups.

Most religious people are not Christians
Most Christians are not creationists
Many (perhaps most) creationists do think about it, even if we don’t agree with their thoughts.

So to lump all of the very large group of “religious people” into the very small group of creationists who don’t think about it is not very accurate.

ok, your right I was being a bit dismissive.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>Everybody has a different opinion on creation.

less of load having no opinion at all, I find.

You think?

I can’t say I find it much of a load at all.

I’m also not convinced there are more than 7 billion different opinions on creation.

Unless we have god-like opinion differentiation abilities.

I’m in strong agreement.. however wishy-washy, vague and flimsy..

>>>I’m also not convinced there are more than 7 billion different opinions on creation.

Could it be calculated ?

>You think?

for the most part, day to day stuff, the subject is totally useless.

this thread will inevitably descend into a strident rant that demonizes emotions, involving some sort of projection from a single individual about them being a fatal flaw of humans, all the while futile attempts will be made to put them over there (emotions), still a messy labyrinthine construction will persist, as if sharing it was a good idea.

transition said:

>You think?

for the most part, day to day stuff, the subject is totally useless.

this thread will inevitably descend into a strident rant that demonizes emotions, involving some sort of projection from a single individual about them being a fatal flaw of humans, all the while futile attempts will be made to put them over there (emotions), still a messy labyrinthine construction will persist, as if sharing it was a good idea.

To be fair the working of the universe doesn’t care about emotions and its the human race that includes them in the origins of the universe

>>this thread will inevitably descend into a strident rant that demonizes emotions,

how is emotional intelligence related to demonizing it?

>> involving some sort of projection from a single individual about them being a fatal flaw of humans,

Not everyone has a fatal flaw.

>>all the while futile attempts

I dont think so.

>>will be made to put them over there (emotions),

What wrong with understanding emotions and being in control of them.

>>still a messy labyrinthine construction will persist,

The understanding looks ok to me.

>>as if sharing it was a good idea.

Another attempt at a put down and feeling superior ?

You dont like other peoples opinions which are different to yours.

>Another attempt at a put down and feeling superior ?

slides coffee across

it’ll give you the energy you’ll need for your religion bashing, to follow.

transition said:

>Another attempt at a put down and feeling superior ?

slides coffee across

it’ll give you the energy you’ll need for your religion bashing, to follow.

People wouldn’t religion bash as much if they minded their own business and didn’t try to tell people how to act and feel and then try to convert

Cymek said:

transition said:

>Another attempt at a put down and feeling superior ?

slides coffee across

it’ll give you the energy you’ll need for your religion bashing, to follow.

People wouldn’t religion bash as much if they minded their own business and didn’t try to tell people how to act and feel and then try to convert

don’t people sort of become religious when they make bashing it a hobby?

like the siege thing drives them into anti-religious fanaticism.

transition said:

>Another attempt at a put down and feeling superior ?

slides coffee across

it’ll give you the energy you’ll need for your religion bashing, to follow.

I have plenty of energy,

drinks fresh coffee

Thanks for offering it though.

I like science more than religion.

I put my interest in science at 99 percent and religion gets way less than 1.

I’m not into fiction stuff.

transition said:

Cymek said:

transition said:

>Another attempt at a put down and feeling superior ?

slides coffee across

it’ll give you the energy you’ll need for your religion bashing, to follow.

People wouldn’t religion bash as much if they minded their own business and didn’t try to tell people how to act and feel and then try to convert

don’t people sort of become religious when they make bashing it a hobby?

like the siege thing drives them into anti-religious fanaticism.

That’s a good point and yes it’s almost like that, I mentioned the yammering atheists that almost have a cult following and how they probably don’t represent the majority of us yet speak as if they do. Quite possibly they are just attention seekers first and use it to make money

>I’m not into fiction stuff

but you are, by being anti-fiction.

it happens when you try so hard not to be something.

Some creationists like bashing science.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Some creationists like bashing science.

They do come across as quite stupid though

transition said:

>I’m not into fiction stuff

but you are, by being anti-fiction.

it happens when you try so hard not to be something.

>>but you are, by being anti-fiction.

No I’m into fiction or anti fiction, stop trying to put words into other peoples mouths.

>>it happens when you try so hard not to be something.

I am one with the universe.

:)

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Some creationists like bashing science.

They do come across as quite stupid though

Indeed.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Some creationists like bashing science.

They do come across as quite stupid though

Indeed.

I find science bashing quite silly, no science is bad it’s how humans have used it that is destructive.
Science is fascinating can always learn more and I do everyday reading articles whenever I can

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

>I’m not into fiction stuff

but you are, by being anti-fiction.

it happens when you try so hard not to be something.

>>but you are, by being anti-fiction.

No I’m into fiction or anti fiction, stop trying to put words into other peoples mouths.

>>it happens when you try so hard not to be something.

I am one with the universe.

:)

opps

No I’m “not” into fiction or anti fiction, stop trying to put words into other peoples mouths.

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

They do come across as quite stupid though

Indeed.

I find science bashing quite silly, no science is bad it’s how humans have used it that is destructive.
Science is fascinating can always learn more and I do everyday reading articles whenever I can

I like reading articles too.

>I am one with the universe.

:)

excellent, no siege here, we’re friends.

Bubblecar said:

I’m confident that the complete, correct answer to the question: “How did the universe begin (if it had a beginning)?” would be sufficiently abstract and technical for most people’s eyes to glaze over after reading the first paragraph, and glancing at the first equations :)

There would be little if anything in it that relates to human hopes and fears.

fairly spot on i’d reckon

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

I’m confident that the complete, correct answer to the question: “How did the universe begin (if it had a beginning)?” would be sufficiently abstract and technical for most people’s eyes to glaze over after reading the first paragraph, and glancing at the first equations :)

There would be little if anything in it that relates to human hopes and fears.

fairly spot on i’d reckon

Considering the universe most likely doesn’t care we exist then yes I imagine

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

I’m confident that the complete, correct answer to the question: “How did the universe begin (if it had a beginning)?” would be sufficiently abstract and technical for most people’s eyes to glaze over after reading the first paragraph, and glancing at the first equations :)

There would be little if anything in it that relates to human hopes and fears.

fairly spot on i’d reckon

>after reading the first paragraph, and glancing at the first equations

The answer may not be in the form of sentences or equations.

>I can’t say I find it much of a load at all.

I might be losing neurons faster than you, and possibly started off with fewer, so they are a scarce resource, threatened with extinction.

It occurred to recently when I had a thought, that the most believable God is one that doesn’t exist, and that an imaginary God is the most useful too.

transition said:

>I can’t say I find it much of a load at all.

I might be losing neurons faster than you, and possibly started off with fewer, so they are a scarce resource, threatened with extinction.

It occurred to recently when I had a thought, that the most believable God is one that doesn’t exist, and that an imaginary God is the most useful too.

Only the true messiah denies his own existence.

I don’t understand your desire to find a God to believe in, but I’m probably in a minority there.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>I can’t say I find it much of a load at all.

I might be losing neurons faster than you, and possibly started off with fewer, so they are a scarce resource, threatened with extinction.

It occurred to recently when I had a thought, that the most believable God is one that doesn’t exist, and that an imaginary God is the most useful too.

Only the true messiah denies his own existence.

I don’t understand your desire to find a God to believe in, but I’m probably in a minority there.

i’m just fond of metaphor, really, nothing much else to it.

it is nice though to think there might be some pervasive beauty in the world (at work, a force), the universe and all, keeps the endorphins and all pumped.

I like some idealization, instrumental a lot of it is. Some days it’s all work, other days not.