Your Color Red Really Could Be My Blue

Rock Well

Anyone with normal color vision agrees that blood is roughly the same color as strawberries, cardinals and the planet Mars. That is, they're all red. But could it be that what you call "red" is someone else's "blue"? Could people's color wheels be rotated with respect to one another's?

"I would say recent experiments lead us down a road to the idea that we don't all see the same colors," Neitz said.

Another color vision scientist, Joseph Carroll of the Medical College of Wisconsin, took it one step further: "I think we can say for certain that people don't see the same colors," he told Life's Little Mysteries.


One person's red might be another person's blue and vice versa, the scientists said. You might really see blood as the color someone else calls blue, and the sky as someone else's red. But our individual perceptions don't affect the way the color of blood, or that of the sky, make us feel.

source:http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/2612-color-red-blue-scientists.html


Some of yall probably will love this.
So
what do these findings say about a person ability to make a rational decision about the facts supporting the truthfulness or falsefullness of any given religion?


Just curious.

Ppl don't argue over which color is which but why when it comes to facts surrounding any given religion ppl can see the same facts and still draw all the way opposite conclusions?

Thoughts?

VIBE

If one sees a red apple and one might see a blue apple, the FACT doesn't change that it's an apple; they can test that as well, they can touch it, smell it, eat it, cut it, etc (a blind person could do this as well)

But with religion, there's only ONE exact similarity; god. Other than that, you cannot see god, touch god, smell god, taste god (nh)...

So what's the point? Color doesn't matter, they both can physically see it and test it, a blind person can do the same. I don't see the parallel you're trying to make.

Oceanic

Anyone that sees a red apple as blue is rare.
Everyone agreeing that a god exists and can corroborate his/its traits and or personality is also rare

Oceanic

I'll use an example. Let's say everyone in this forum were together in a large room. Everyone is visually impaired but can somewhat see to a certain degree. Only two doors lead to possible exits. One door is red with a sign that says DANGER: ALL WHO ENTER WILL BE VIOLENTLY MURDERED. The other door is blue and says ENTER: ALL VISITORS PEACEFULLY WELCOMED. The majority of the room sees clearly that the blue door is the best bet, given that the signs are true to the nature of what lies behind both doors. However, there are a few people who say that, "No, the blue door is obviously to be avoided. The red door is where we want to go." The majority is going to go through the blue door due to corroboration.
Now, let's say that atheists and theists in the world are gathered and counted. For argument's sake, we'll say that theists outnumber atheists (I don't know if that's true in reality but I'm guessing it is). By reason, we would say that a god exists strictly because most people can observe this god. ..BUT and a large BUT, in reality, this wouldn't do only because all theists do not agree on what god is, who god is, what god does, how god acts, what god thinks, how god thinks, if god thinks, if god is intervening, if god is not intervening, where god is, etc. etc., which divides the number of theists into X number of catergories based on personal belief. All atheists, becoming the majority, agree that no gods exist. Either the god of classical theism has a personality disorder, there are many strict personal gods (polytheism), or the best bet is that god doesn't exist.
Let's take this forum for another example. Judahxulu, GOINGTOHEAVEN, Dro, young_king, alissowack, solid analysis, waterproof, and disciplined insight all read from the same fuckin book but can't agree on god's qualities. If god existed, and all posters experience god's existence as they claim, the logical assumption would be that all posters agree on who god is, thus it would be a great chance that god exists. This is not the case. And that is a microcosm of the world.
The majority of the world sees the apple as red. You may see it as blue. That's fine, but hey, we don't.



Back to the drawing board for you, solid analysis : )

Rock Well

Im saying, soooo does this mean that Truth (spiritually speaking) give off different messages to diff ppl?

Not sure if there is a parallel or not

Rock Well

Or perhaps it can some what explain why so many reading the same Bible still come away with diff teaching.
or is that too far a stretch?

Rock Well

@Jaded - I'll respond to that next post

Oceanic

solid analysis wrote: »

Im saying, soooo does this mean that Truth (spiritually speaking) give off different messages to diff ppl?

Not sure if there is a parallel or not

If God is one way and not the other, and this "truth" tells one person one thing and another a different thing, then one is truth and the other is a lie or in this case both may be lies.

If I describe myself to you as black (or some quality like "nice" and I describe myself as red (or something like "not nice") to someone else, I may be the same entity, only expressing myself differently to different people. But if I describe in detail to you who I am, what I am and how I am in relation to humanity and the universe and how you and everyone else should act or think in accordance to my master plan; and I describe that differently to someone else, perhaps explicitly contradicting what I originally told you, then I am either lying to you, the second person, or both of you. There is a difference when you bring the entire universe in addition to just yourself into the equation. This ceases the idea that the god is solely personal and now this "Truth" has to work the exact same way for everyone and everything. If god is personal, it has to be a strict kind of personal. When I say strict, I mean only applying to you and not the universe.

Oceanic

solid analysis wrote: »

Or perhaps it can some what explain why so many reading the same Bible still come away with diff teaching.
or is that too far a stretch?

The Bible is subject to translations and interpretations and the contradictions in the Bible don't help, but Christianity teaches that god acts in the lives of human beings therefore the Bible supposedly is not the only evidence of god's existence. If interpretations are wrong, then personal experience has to match up. Not only within Christianity, but if there is one god who is the sole creator of the universe, then all religions have to agree. If not, then Christianity is now up against not only atheists but every religion that doesn't agree with Christianity and then the majority still rules Christianity out. That works the same way with any theistic religion; Christianity being an example.

Rock Well

well it seems we agree that truth is still truth no matter the 'color' we see it in.

ok so what am i getting at now?

i think one the implication of these findings here and what it goes to show is that people have the ability to think objectively regardless degree in which the 'lenses' they have on color things. ex. when it comes to morality, people might see in 'grays'. But because everyone at some point can learn to think objectively, God is fair in holding everyone to the same, one, objective standard as taught in the Bible,which teaches there are no 'grays' in God's judgement. Especially considering the same one, objective standard is observed in some way by everyone. So that would mean, everyone is rightly held responsible in their efforts to live up to said standard, whether standing long or falling short.

alissowack

Jaded Righteousness wrote: »

I'll use an example. Let's say everyone in this forum were together in a large room. Everyone is visually impaired but can somewhat see to a certain degree. Only two doors lead to possible exits. One door is red with a sign that says DANGER: ALL WHO ENTER WILL BE VIOLENTLY MURDERED. The other door is blue and says ENTER: ALL VISITORS PEACEFULLY WELCOMED. The majority of the room sees clearly that the blue door is the best bet, given that the signs are true to the nature of what lies behind both doors. However, there are a few people who say that, "No, the blue door is obviously to be avoided. The red door is where we want to go." The majority is going to go through the blue door due to corroboration.
Now, let's say that atheists and theists in the world are gathered and counted. For argument's sake, we'll say that theists outnumber atheists (I don't know if that's true in reality but I'm guessing it is). By reason, we would say that a god exists strictly because most people can observe this god. ..BUT and a large BUT, in reality, this wouldn't do only because all theists do not agree on what god is, who god is, what god does, how god acts, what god thinks, how god thinks, if god thinks, if god is intervening, if god is not intervening, where god is, etc. etc., which divides the number of theists into X number of catergories based on personal belief. All atheists, becoming the majority, agree that no gods exist. Either the god of classical theism has a personality disorder, there are many strict personal gods (polytheism), or the best bet is that god doesn't exist.
Let's take this forum for another example. Judahxulu, GOINGTOHEAVEN, Dro, young_king, alissowack, solid analysis, waterproof, and disciplined insight all read from the same fuckin book but can't agree on god's qualities. If god existed, and all posters experience god's existence as they claim, the logical assumption would be that all posters agree on who god is, thus it would be a great chance that god exists. This is not the case. And that is a microcosm of the world.
The majority of the world sees the apple as red. You may see it as blue. That's fine, but hey, we don't.



Back to the drawing board for you, solid analysis : )

But...can we trust the one who made the signs? You draw up this example assuming that the sign maker knows the truth about these two doors...the absolute truth about what to expect when going through them. There is no other way for the forum to know what is behind those doors unless we open and go through them. We are putting our trust in whether or not the signs mean what they say. And you are also involving something that is the difference between life and death. Right or wrong means nothing to a dead person...but it does to someone who is alive.

alissowack

I don't think the issue is so much whether the Bible is wrongly translated or interpreted. It has to do with how we perceive it. What worldviews, perspectives, and presuppositions are we bringing into our understanding of the Bible? When our perceptions are involved, we tend to "select" what we want the Bible to say instead of what it says through and through. If we think the Bible is about morals, then we read it looking for them. If we think it is a book of miracles, then we look for that. If we think it's apocalyptic, then we look for that. Then, it becomes very conflicting because the argument becomes not about the Bible and more about our world views.

loch121

Who looks in the sky and see's red?This is dumb to me

Oceanic

solid analysis wrote: »

well it seems we agree that truth is still truth no matter the 'color' we see it in.

ok so what am i getting at now?

i think one the implication of these findings here and what it goes to show is that people have the ability to think objectively regardless degree in which the 'lenses' they have on color things. ex. when it comes to morality, people might see in 'grays'. But because everyone at some point can learn to think objectively, God is fair in holding everyone to the same, one, objective standard as taught in the Bible,which teaches there are no 'grays' in God's judgement. Especially considering the same one, objective standard is observed in some way by everyone. So that would mean, everyone is rightly held responsible in their efforts to live up to said standard, whether standing long or falling short.

Your religion and Islam have different views on what God wants and says or even does and morality is subjective. Subjective thinking is religion.

Oceanic

alissowack wrote: »

Jaded Righteousness wrote: »

I'll use an example. Let's say everyone in this forum were together in a large room. Everyone is visually impaired but can somewhat see to a certain degree. Only two doors lead to possible exits. One door is red with a sign that says DANGER: ALL WHO ENTER WILL BE VIOLENTLY MURDERED. The other door is blue and says ENTER: ALL VISITORS PEACEFULLY WELCOMED. The majority of the room sees clearly that the blue door is the best bet, given that the signs are true to the nature of what lies behind both doors. However, there are a few people who say that, "No, the blue door is obviously to be avoided. The red door is where we want to go." The majority is going to go through the blue door due to corroboration.
Now, let's say that atheists and theists in the world are gathered and counted. For argument's sake, we'll say that theists outnumber atheists (I don't know if that's true in reality but I'm guessing it is). By reason, we would say that a god exists strictly because most people can observe this god. ..BUT and a large BUT, in reality, this wouldn't do only because all theists do not agree on what god is, who god is, what god does, how god acts, what god thinks, how god thinks, if god thinks, if god is intervening, if god is not intervening, where god is, etc. etc., which divides the number of theists into X number of catergories based on personal belief. All atheists, becoming the majority, agree that no gods exist. Either the god of classical theism has a personality disorder, there are many strict personal gods (polytheism), or the best bet is that god doesn't exist.
Let's take this forum for another example. Judahxulu, GOINGTOHEAVEN, Dro, young_king, alissowack, solid analysis, waterproof, and disciplined insight all read from the same fuckin book but can't agree on god's qualities. If god existed, and all posters experience god's existence as they claim, the logical assumption would be that all posters agree on who god is, thus it would be a great chance that god exists. This is not the case. And that is a microcosm of the world.
The majority of the world sees the apple as red. You may see it as blue. That's fine, but hey, we don't.



Back to the drawing board for you, solid analysis : )

But...can we trust the one who made the signs? You draw up this example assuming that the sign maker knows the truth about these two doors...the absolute truth about what to expect when going through them. There is no other way for the forum to know what is behind those doors unless we open and go through them. We are putting our trust in whether or not the signs mean what they say. And you are also involving something that is the difference between life and death. Right or wrong means nothing to a dead person...but it does to someone who is alive.

Read the bolded

Jaded Righteousness wrote: »

I'll use an example. Let's say everyone in this forum were together in a large room. Everyone is visually impaired but can somewhat see to a certain degree. Only two doors lead to possible exits. One door is red with a sign that says DANGER: ALL WHO ENTER WILL BE VIOLENTLY MURDERED. The other door is blue and says ENTER: ALL VISITORS PEACEFULLY WELCOMED. The majority of the room sees clearly that the blue door is the best bet, given that the signs are true to the nature of what lies behind both doors. However, there are a few people who say that, "No, the blue door is obviously to be avoided. The red door is where we want to go." The majority is going to go through the blue door due to corroboration.

Oceanic

loch121 wrote: »

Who looks in the sky and see's red?

Depends.

Rock Well

Loch - I'm not sure if its even possible to prove someone sees reds in blues anyway. How can we rly verify that? Though I think its interesting studies were done, I cant rly say im sold on what they say the findings suggest.

Rock Well

@ jaded - interesting so this is it that all morality is subjective or only some parts? Isnt it true that to claim all morality is subjective is to contradict what Gods word of truth teaches? What sense does it make that truth will self ether itself like that?

Oceanic

I don't believe in god's word of truth or a god for that matter

alissowack

Jaded Righteousness wrote: »

alissowack wrote: »

Jaded Righteousness wrote: »

I'll use an example. Let's say everyone in this forum were together in a large room. Everyone is visually impaired but can somewhat see to a certain degree. Only two doors lead to possible exits. One door is red with a sign that says DANGER: ALL WHO ENTER WILL BE VIOLENTLY MURDERED. The other door is blue and says ENTER: ALL VISITORS PEACEFULLY WELCOMED. The majority of the room sees clearly that the blue door is the best bet, given that the signs are true to the nature of what lies behind both doors. However, there are a few people who say that, "No, the blue door is obviously to be avoided. The red door is where we want to go." The majority is going to go through the blue door due to corroboration.
Now, let's say that atheists and theists in the world are gathered and counted. For argument's sake, we'll say that theists outnumber atheists (I don't know if that's true in reality but I'm guessing it is). By reason, we would say that a god exists strictly because most people can observe this god. ..BUT and a large BUT, in reality, this wouldn't do only because all theists do not agree on what god is, who god is, what god does, how god acts, what god thinks, how god thinks, if god thinks, if god is intervening, if god is not intervening, where god is, etc. etc., which divides the number of theists into X number of catergories based on personal belief. All atheists, becoming the majority, agree that no gods exist. Either the god of classical theism has a personality disorder, there are many strict personal gods (polytheism), or the best bet is that god doesn't exist.
Let's take this forum for another example. Judahxulu, GOINGTOHEAVEN, Dro, young_king, alissowack, solid analysis, waterproof, and disciplined insight all read from the same fuckin book but can't agree on god's qualities. If god existed, and all posters experience god's existence as they claim, the logical assumption would be that all posters agree on who god is, thus it would be a great chance that god exists. This is not the case. And that is a microcosm of the world.
The majority of the world sees the apple as red. You may see it as blue. That's fine, but hey, we don't.



Back to the drawing board for you, solid analysis : )

But...can we trust the one who made the signs? You draw up this example assuming that the sign maker knows the truth about these two doors...the absolute truth about what to expect when going through them. There is no other way for the forum to know what is behind those doors unless we open and go through them. We are putting our trust in whether or not the signs mean what they say. And you are also involving something that is the difference between life and death. Right or wrong means nothing to a dead person...but it does to someone who is alive.

Read the bolded

Jaded Righteousness wrote: »

I'll use an example. Let's say everyone in this forum were together in a large room. Everyone is visually impaired but can somewhat see to a certain degree. Only two doors lead to possible exits. One door is red with a sign that says DANGER: ALL WHO ENTER WILL BE VIOLENTLY MURDERED. The other door is blue and says ENTER: ALL VISITORS PEACEFULLY WELCOMED. The majority of the room sees clearly that the blue door is the best bet, given that the signs are true to the nature of what lies behind both doors. However, there are a few people who say that, "No, the blue door is obviously to be avoided. The red door is where we want to go." The majority is going to go through the blue door due to corroboration.

But, what is absolute truth in a world that doesn't believe there is such? Why trust in "the nature" of these two doors when truth, in relative terms, can be to be whatever we want them to be?

ChromaStoned

a color aint tellin me im going to hell

Oceanic

What exactly is truth?

alissowack wrote: »

Jaded Righteousness wrote: »

alissowack wrote: »

Jaded Righteousness wrote: »

I'll use an example. Let's say everyone in this forum were together in a large room. Everyone is visually impaired but can somewhat see to a certain degree. Only two doors lead to possible exits. One door is red with a sign that says DANGER: ALL WHO ENTER WILL BE VIOLENTLY MURDERED. The other door is blue and says ENTER: ALL VISITORS PEACEFULLY WELCOMED. The majority of the room sees clearly that the blue door is the best bet, given that the signs are true to the nature of what lies behind both doors. However, there are a few people who say that, "No, the blue door is obviously to be avoided. The red door is where we want to go." The majority is going to go through the blue door due to corroboration.
Now, let's say that atheists and theists in the world are gathered and counted. For argument's sake, we'll say that theists outnumber atheists (I don't know if that's true in reality but I'm guessing it is). By reason, we would say that a god exists strictly because most people can observe this god. ..BUT and a large BUT, in reality, this wouldn't do only because all theists do not agree on what god is, who god is, what god does, how god acts, what god thinks, how god thinks, if god thinks, if god is intervening, if god is not intervening, where god is, etc. etc., which divides the number of theists into X number of catergories based on personal belief. All atheists, becoming the majority, agree that no gods exist. Either the god of classical theism has a personality disorder, there are many strict personal gods (polytheism), or the best bet is that god doesn't exist.
Let's take this forum for another example. Judahxulu, GOINGTOHEAVEN, Dro, young_king, alissowack, solid analysis, waterproof, and disciplined insight all read from the same fuckin book but can't agree on god's qualities. If god existed, and all posters experience god's existence as they claim, the logical assumption would be that all posters agree on who god is, thus it would be a great chance that god exists. This is not the case. And that is a microcosm of the world.
The majority of the world sees the apple as red. You may see it as blue. That's fine, but hey, we don't.



Back to the drawing board for you, solid analysis : )

But...can we trust the one who made the signs? You draw up this example assuming that the sign maker knows the truth about these two doors...the absolute truth about what to expect when going through them. There is no other way for the forum to know what is behind those doors unless we open and go through them. We are putting our trust in whether or not the signs mean what they say. And you are also involving something that is the difference between life and death. Right or wrong means nothing to a dead person...but it does to someone who is alive.

Read the bolded

Jaded Righteousness wrote: »

I'll use an example. Let's say everyone in this forum were together in a large room. Everyone is visually impaired but can somewhat see to a certain degree. Only two doors lead to possible exits. One door is red with a sign that says DANGER: ALL WHO ENTER WILL BE VIOLENTLY MURDERED. The other door is blue and says ENTER: ALL VISITORS PEACEFULLY WELCOMED. The majority of the room sees clearly that the blue door is the best bet, given that the signs are true to the nature of what lies behind both doors. However, there are a few people who say that, "No, the blue door is obviously to be avoided. The red door is where we want to go." The majority is going to go through the blue door due to corroboration.

But, what is absolute truth in a world that doesn't believe there is such? Why trust in "the nature" of these two doors when truth, in relative terms, can be to be whatever we want them to be?

Relative truth is the world as you observe it through your senses. Absolute truth is the fact that everything is impermanent and without self. Don't waste your time asking me any more questions or responding because I'm not going to get pulled into a pointless debate with you about what truth is.

Rock Well

Jaded Righteousness wrote: »

I don't believe in god's word of truth or a god for that matter

Oh...dunno why I thought you may have been agnostic.

Oceanic

solid analysis wrote: »

Jaded Righteousness wrote: »

I don't believe in god's word of truth or a god for that matter

Oh...dunno why I thought you may have been agnostic.

nope

melanated khemist

Thoughts?

who cares? quit wasting time with atheist

its All Light and Light has consciousness that is creative. slow light produces sound which creates the perpetual motion of particles. matter and light are basically the same thing with everything having its own unique light frequency signature. space-time = 4th dimension... light = 5th-dimesional vibration..

Oceanic

melanated khemist wrote: »

its All Light and Light has consciousness that is creative. slow light produces sound which creates the perpetual motion of particles. matter and light are basically the same thing with everything having its own unique light frequency signature. space-time = 4th dimension... light = 5th-dimesional vibration..

explain more