Dear Derideo and Numan:
There are three atheist friends who cannot understand my long msgs
about NOT trying to prove the existence of God, but aligning definitions and concepts.
Can you please help shorten this so I can explain to other people who
do NOT see the world like Christian Deists with personified views of God.
How do I get AWAY from their focus on rejecting personified God as the object or point,
to what do we already AGREE is the point, and how do align the terms we naturally use to describe these?
Obviously they can't even read my msgs, so they don't agree to these terms or style of explaining.
Can I please ask your help to write how YOU would explain this?
That the point is NOT to prove something that is contradictory and cannot be proven
(ie God cannot exist as a finite representation and have created something infinite)
but the point is to ALIGN different ways of expressing what we DO agree is "universal"
(and acknowledge we just have different ways of symbolizing similar or parallel concepts)
Anything other than the way I did would help!
Thank you so much!
Yours truly,
Emily
=======================================================
(Attempt #2 of 2)
"I am basically saying instead of trying to convert people to believe
in each other's systems, like forcing a French person to speak and understand Spanish, or vice versa.
You let people use their own native languages of preference.
And just translate between them, to align terms for the same concepts.
If you stick with concepts that are UNIVERSAL to both systems, then
you agree which words "align".
So you can show that the languages don't have to be the same, you don't convert people from one system to another if they don't want to,
for the principles and concepts to be universal across the board.
Quit fighting over converting systems, and just agree what concepts exist that we all agree on. Start there and work out the rest if it is necessary."
REPLY: Emily, why don't you spend an hour going through the threads here and take note how people talk, how they present their arguments...plain and concise... and then try to do the same? Haven't you ever wondered why people don't respond to your posts? It's because we don't understand what the fuck you are talking about; people start to read your posts and after two lines they lose the will to live. For fucks sake speak in plain English will you!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Attempt #1 of 2)
"Why should one define what has not been proven to exist?"
EMILY: "That's why I suggest the opposite approach.
Start with values principles or concepts you DO agree exist,
agree on names for these variables,
and then show they align in harmonious patterns.
So there is no more need to fight over whether X Y Z exists.
You can accept to use VARIABLES for "someone else's beliefs in X Y Z"
and science concepts of A B C, or Buddhist terms of 1 2 3, etc. then show they
align and follow the same patterns when each system is used consistently.
This "can be interpreted to show" there are universal laws or PROCESS behind all people's
views (regardless and independent of ABC or XYZ systems which are relative)
and we can agree on that UNIVERSAL level. We do NOT need to fight over
local/relative levels of ABC or XYZ symbols because those are NOT required conditions.
The meanings and process BEHIND the symbols are universal, but the symbols are relative and vary.
NOTE: what I'd like to prove statistically is show that
people/groups across the different systems
A. can align their views in harmony IN CORRELATION
with their reported ability to "FORGIVE their differences"
B. people who report inability to forgive conflict and differences
with each other should also show CORRELATION with
reported failure to resolve these conflicts and work out
solutions they both agree to
if you want to do more than rely on human reporting of
forgiveness/unforgiveness, this can be measured by technogical
readings of emotional reactions the way the Scientologists
use to 'audit' biases in perception and to 'clear' these out
so you can scientifically prove whether people experience
forgiveness healing and conflict resolution
or whether people experience unforgiven conflict and stress instead of peace
this can get as scientific as you want to get,
or can be shown using real life examples of people
"reporting" successfully resolving religious or political conflicts
by forgiveness and healing the relationships
I'd prove that first, then apply that process to
showing how all systems of 123, ABC, XYZ can
be reconciled WITHOUT converting any person
from one system to another. you can keep your
own system, but just change how you "interpret"
the other systems as being in harmony instead of in conflict with yours!"
There are three atheist friends who cannot understand my long msgs
about NOT trying to prove the existence of God, but aligning definitions and concepts.
Can you please help shorten this so I can explain to other people who
do NOT see the world like Christian Deists with personified views of God.
How do I get AWAY from their focus on rejecting personified God as the object or point,
to what do we already AGREE is the point, and how do align the terms we naturally use to describe these?
Obviously they can't even read my msgs, so they don't agree to these terms or style of explaining.
Can I please ask your help to write how YOU would explain this?
That the point is NOT to prove something that is contradictory and cannot be proven
(ie God cannot exist as a finite representation and have created something infinite)
but the point is to ALIGN different ways of expressing what we DO agree is "universal"
(and acknowledge we just have different ways of symbolizing similar or parallel concepts)
Anything other than the way I did would help!
Thank you so much!
Yours truly,
Emily
=======================================================
(Attempt #2 of 2)
"I am basically saying instead of trying to convert people to believe
in each other's systems, like forcing a French person to speak and understand Spanish, or vice versa.
You let people use their own native languages of preference.
And just translate between them, to align terms for the same concepts.
If you stick with concepts that are UNIVERSAL to both systems, then
you agree which words "align".
So you can show that the languages don't have to be the same, you don't convert people from one system to another if they don't want to,
for the principles and concepts to be universal across the board.
Quit fighting over converting systems, and just agree what concepts exist that we all agree on. Start there and work out the rest if it is necessary."
REPLY: Emily, why don't you spend an hour going through the threads here and take note how people talk, how they present their arguments...plain and concise... and then try to do the same? Haven't you ever wondered why people don't respond to your posts? It's because we don't understand what the fuck you are talking about; people start to read your posts and after two lines they lose the will to live. For fucks sake speak in plain English will you!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Attempt #1 of 2)
"Why should one define what has not been proven to exist?"
EMILY: "That's why I suggest the opposite approach.
Start with values principles or concepts you DO agree exist,
agree on names for these variables,
and then show they align in harmonious patterns.
So there is no more need to fight over whether X Y Z exists.
You can accept to use VARIABLES for "someone else's beliefs in X Y Z"
and science concepts of A B C, or Buddhist terms of 1 2 3, etc. then show they
align and follow the same patterns when each system is used consistently.
This "can be interpreted to show" there are universal laws or PROCESS behind all people's
views (regardless and independent of ABC or XYZ systems which are relative)
and we can agree on that UNIVERSAL level. We do NOT need to fight over
local/relative levels of ABC or XYZ symbols because those are NOT required conditions.
The meanings and process BEHIND the symbols are universal, but the symbols are relative and vary.
NOTE: what I'd like to prove statistically is show that
people/groups across the different systems
A. can align their views in harmony IN CORRELATION
with their reported ability to "FORGIVE their differences"
B. people who report inability to forgive conflict and differences
with each other should also show CORRELATION with
reported failure to resolve these conflicts and work out
solutions they both agree to
if you want to do more than rely on human reporting of
forgiveness/unforgiveness, this can be measured by technogical
readings of emotional reactions the way the Scientologists
use to 'audit' biases in perception and to 'clear' these out
so you can scientifically prove whether people experience
forgiveness healing and conflict resolution
or whether people experience unforgiven conflict and stress instead of peace
this can get as scientific as you want to get,
or can be shown using real life examples of people
"reporting" successfully resolving religious or political conflicts
by forgiveness and healing the relationships
I'd prove that first, then apply that process to
showing how all systems of 123, ABC, XYZ can
be reconciled WITHOUT converting any person
from one system to another. you can keep your
own system, but just change how you "interpret"
the other systems as being in harmony instead of in conflict with yours!"
Last edited:
