[Iarwain]

I failed to notice when belief in one truth rather than opening up the mind to contradicition and "tolerance" became biggotry. If I may, here is a segment from another discussion (PM) with a fellow downer... I fear that I offended him (it was, perhaps, a tad on the rude side) so please accept my appologies.

What you see as close mindedness is probably merely an affirmation of belief in a single thing, rather than openness to all possibilities. And, if you think about it, this is really one of the most rational things a person can do (there can, after all, be only one true solution the problem of existence). This is the idea of faith: that just as the solution to 2x+1=5 is always 4, there must be a God, merely because the entire universe suggests and proves His existence. I'm now finding it even more comical how extremely normal and expected your ideas are. Many of the people I know share this idea: that of complete tolerance of faith, lifestyle, and general manners of thinking. Yet how twisted it becomes when you try to find a purpose to life without killing oneself for lack of direction. If "all is true" then surely with the extraordinary amounts of contradictions between manners of thinking, all must be untrue. Confusion sets in. Hope is lost; life becomes mere self-gratification without any end other than death itself. We are lost...

Basically, the most fundamental proof of truth lies in one's self, that is, what one believes without normality or tolerance. Eliminate the human race and nature, and even your body; everything but your mind, and then tell me what you believe deep within. What does the depth of your existence tell you?

Your view on society is quite optimistic, and I think that its good of you to think in a positive manner, but alas, that is not my way of thinking. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] Another warning about the groundbreaking work in discrimination: let us not, in our search for peace and equality (a worthy pursuit) loose sight of the need for morality among us. Also, we must be careful not to become irrationally accepting of others. You say that you think that society is becoming too moral. If I believed that society was anywhere near the point you described, I probably wouldn?t take the time to write this message. I see society becoming so incredibly amoral that it frightens me to think of what lies ahead. Though it is nothing new, it is at least with revived passion that many people are criticizing religion for claiming to have the only right answer. In my last message, I used a mathematical equation to represent the world, while x was God. I think you misunderstood the metaphor, so I?ll make a better one.

I am six-month-old child, sitting in a chair wearing clothes. It is up to me to decide how I became clothed. The first logical response would be that someone (i.e. my mother) clothed me. I am satisfied with this idea for a good while, but then I start to look around me to see what is happening. I analyze the fabric of my clothes, I take samples of the air around me, I even throw a rattle to the far end of the room to discover that a blanket, of the same fabric as my clothes, is lying there. Now I begin to like the idea of my own independence. How could someone have dressed me, I ask, when there are cloth fibers in the air, and an abundance of fabric - some of it similar to that which I am wearing - all around me. The fibers in the air, originating from various sources around me, must have been statically drawn to my body and formed these clothes that I am wearing. I, a clothed child, am a miracle of nature. Perhaps there are other clothed children out there somewhere too? And with that I deny the existence of a mother that clothed me, gave birth to me, and put me in my chair.

This child?s foolishness is quite reflective of how I view Darwinism. I dislike it because I see it as man?s means of separating himself from God. Through the idea of Evolution by Natural Selection, so many people are denying the existence of God and removing from their lives any feeling of obligation or responsibility for their actions. It?s a huge ego booster, and it largely contributes to the idea of religious equality that I so strongly refute. Another pointer: the way you view religion is that all ways are the way, and no way is the only way. Taking this into my metaphor, you would be the person that said that while several people of the same family clothed me, at the same time only one person clothed me, and still at the same time no one clothed me, and I was correct in my assumption that the clothes formed themselves. Now, when we look at an action, only one thing could have happened, lest we forsake logic for equality and say that one person and several people and no people could have done the same thing separately at the same time without the existence of the others. Or, you could also be the person that says that it doesn?t matter who is my parent that clothed me, as long as I am here and wearing my clothes, even if my mother demands that I wear my clothes in a certain way to avoid punishment.

Iarwain

P.S. Forgot to mention, but I believe this argument has already been done in full. InklingElf's "Tolkien v.v. Rowling (NOT on Equal Grounds)" It was a great thread, very much worth reading, but dead all the same.

[ June 04, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]