Debate about Gun Control

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-08-2017, 07:22 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Your view is to me outdated and traditional, as traditional materialism is. Your view is very dogmatic and narrow, specifying as you do that something "counts for everything."

That's called fundamentalism.

Dogma?  Fundamentalism?  That mode of thought to me means following the writings of a book, the teachings of a bureaucracy, or some combination of the above.  I'm doing neither.  What makes you think 'dogma'?  What text or hierarchy to you believe I am beholden to?  How could you swing an miss so badly?

(06-08-2017, 07:22 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I see "many worlds" in the realm of thought. You see only one.

(of course there's lots of evidence; you just don't look at it, apparently)

there is lots of evidence for thought.  There is much less so for thought without brains.  That comes from old agricultural age thinking, or perhaps before.  I quite believe there are ancient traditions that embrace such things, but I don't see science as able to bite into that problem.  There is no Journal of Gods, Demons and Spirits being published.

(06-08-2017, 07:22 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Your statement above that you "crossed over" into a science view is amusing. I had to add above, congratulations! You have crossed over from Medieval times to the Renaissance. But, that's about 300-500 years ago!

In my youth, I abandoned a split and confused double scientific - religious world view for pure science.  I did this based on evidence, even if it was obscure and often disregarded evidence.  

On the other hand, movement in the direction of religion or the occult might have been based on faith, old books, or the teachings of some religious or mystic order.  Depending on the rigidity of the teaching methods, a religious or occult order might be described as practicing fundamentalism, its teachings could be dogmatic.  As far as I know, you have always been an independent free spirit, though, not tightly rigidly bound to a single outside influence.  'Fundamentalist' and 'dogmatic' would not describe you well.

What is one's prime tool for looking at the world?  One's world view is certain to feature that tool.  I just found the conflict between evidence, dogma and faith too strong to disregard.  There are many technical and religious people who can shift between these thought modes easily.  I couldn't.  Still can't.

Lots of people have struggled with this issue, and have been doing so, perhaps since Newton, when the scientific world view was first clearly defined.  There were snippets of science before then, of course.  I'm hardly the only one to get obsessed with the question.  To my mind, religion once dominated, but that mode of thought has been diminishing with time.

Many worlds against Copenhagen is a much newer question, of course, first asked relatively recently.  It is still up in the air, and may continue to be in the air indefinitely unless reverse time causality starts being taken seriously.  It's really only then that the question becomes significant.  In the meantime, acknowledging and respecting the origins and the perceived validity of many points of view is quite different from being an advocate of the many worlds perspective on quantum.  You give lip service to many worlds quantum, as far as I can figure without understanding it.  You also give lip service to respecting other points of view, but in practice you present those who disagree with you as evil, not to be tolerated, to be defeated.

Thus, you are an extreme partisan extremely ready to demonize opposing flavors of extreme partisan.  Truly listening to and comprehending a point of view opposed to your own is rare.  Your pride in your supposed ability to do so seems misplaced.  Your trumpian attacks when thwarted just reinforce the point.