Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Siquo]

Shade-o: It's called a belief. A belief that the world is real, and knowable through empiricism, a belief that there is a God, a belief that your fellow human beings have equal rights to you, those are the things that makes us function.

You know, Siquo, you don't just "try on" a belief. You need to accept all that it stands for to be able to call yourself a believer. Otherwise you're just, I don't know, fooling around? Fooling yourself?
If a belief asks you to reject all the other belief systems as false, then you can only call yourself a believer if you follow that commandment to a letter.

Sure, but you can choose to stop believing that at any moment. You can also stop yourself from acting on a belief. I believe that smoking is wrong and bad for you, but I stop acting on that belief about once every 1.5 hours, max. And you can "try on" a belief, dabble in it, see how it makes you feel about yourself and the world. You might not be regarded as a "True Believer of the 9th Circle" by fellow believers, but if you believe to belong, you're doing it wrong. Wow, that sounded way cooler than intended. I might sig myself.

Changing beliefs is hard at first, but it gets easier.

[Jackrabbit]

Yeah, actually, I had a whole post worked out, but your opinion is so utterly alien to mine that it's not worth  bothering. I am a man who likes to know things. I think that by knowing things I am richer for it. I think that diving head first into things without knowing about them will end with a fractured skull and if you keep doing it you're headed in that direction. Just be careful and utilize a little basic caution and preparation before you do something as drastic as changing your beliefs. I mean that sincerely, because you have a family and you're going to hurt yourself if you keep doing it without knowing what it is you're getting into.

[Il Palazzo]

Sure, but you can choose to stop believing that at any moment. You can also stop yourself from acting on a belief. I believe that smoking is wrong and bad for you, but I stop acting on that belief about once every 1.5 hours, max. And you can "try on" a belief, dabble in it, see how it makes you feel about yourself and the world. You might not be regarded as a "True Believer of the 9th Circle" by fellow believers, but if you believe to belong, you're doing it wrong. Wow, that sounded way cooler than intended. I might sig myself.

Changing beliefs is hard at first, but it gets easier.

That sounds dangerously like insanity to me.

Also, try not to shove everything under the most broader possible definition of belief, and assume that you being able to do so, equates all the ideas. Going in the same direction, you could call everything we percieve as a sort of belief, and while arguably true, this doesn't lead the conversation to any sensible place.
Let's keep the discussion centered around those specific kinds of beliefs that the whole tread is supposedly about: religion and scientific method(or empirism, or logical inquiry, etc.).

While I understand your insistence on allowing people to choose freely what they want to believe in, I think you're missing the larger view.
The society we all live in, is built on achievements of the scientific revolution. Centuries of adhering to that particular perception of the world have benefited the humankind immensely, on both personal and global levels. If you're going to try to spread religious point of view, with all it's narrowmindedness, sacred taboos and ready-made answers for everything, then you're going to be seen as a harmful element of the society that thrives on scientific advancement, for hampering that very advancement. Not to mention, you're going to be seen as a hypocrite, unless you'll abandon all the tools and toys of modern age, and leave to practice your religion in a cave.

[SniHjen]

@Siquo

There is a difference between supernatural belief, and everyday belief.

There is also a difference between a belief, and a assumption.

you have taken all 3 of these concepts, and called them belief, this is where you error of reasoning lie.

If you have an hour... you could hear Dan Dennett talk about belief, he explains this better than me.

starts at 11 min 0 sec

[Flaede]

Ack! Nooo!

What happened to all the talk of cheese and ninjas? (who are cheese personified, really)

[SniHjen]

Ack! Nooo!

What happened to all the talk of cheese and ninjas? (who are cheese personified, really)

the law of inverse ninja ability disagree with you!

If ninjas where cheese then ninjas where everywhere!
If there are ninjas everywhere, then they should be useless! (All of them!)
And a useless ninja is easy to spot!
since I havn't seen any ninjas in my lunch box... ( a perfectly fine hidding place for a ninja, I assure you)

when where the last time you saw a ninja?

I THINK NOT!

Therefor, not all ninjas are cheese, but all cheese are useless ninjas.

[Phmcw]

Siquo, your point only hold if you're ready to jump off a windows anytime.
Else it's just a sophism.

What you're doing is using the non believer 's argument against non believing, but in a sloppy way : since a belief must be criticized and can be proven wrong, all belief may be proven wrong, and thus every belief is equal.
In the last point lie the sophism.
Call everything a belief if you will (though it's against scientific method to have faith in a fact), you cannot help but notice that some are almost certainly true, that some are good work hypothesis, and that some are downright nonsense.

[Andir]

Admitting that you've been wrong all along and choosing a new path, instead of desperately clinging to your old ideas, that is growth. Overcoming an addiction is growth, and relinquishing everything you've ever believed in is growth. Yes, even if you were right before and wrong now, it's still growth. Dropping your religion for atheism is growth, and so is vice-versa. Giving up what you believe in is HARD. Especially if you KNOW for certain that you are RIGHT.

Can you tell me when you decide to change your belief that all beliefs are truth?  I think we might get something further out of life.  We can push aside the stuff that's been proven to not work and learn from the experiences of previous generations.  There's so much wrong with believing something that isn't real that it just doesn't make sense to continue.

Which brings me to the next point... You kept talking about "new ideas" being good and holding to "old ideas" being bad, but you stick to the oldest idea in the literal book: God.

I'm pretty sure from previous posts (in this same thread) that you are simply arguing just to argue because everything you've said has been fairly contradictory to itself.  You tend to disagree with everyone and twist definitions to fit your current argument in hand.

Also, RE: "[Atheist cannot be atheist because they'd need proof that God doesn't exist]"  (and I realize this has been argued)... Atheism isn't a belief/religion.  It's a rejection of that belief/religion.  I don't belong to the "sentient toaster cult" because there's no point joining a cult that doesn't believe in sentient toasters.

[Flaede]

Ack! Nooo!

What happened to all the talk of cheese and ninjas? (who are cheese personified, really)

the law of inverse ninja ability disagree with you!

If ninjas where cheese then ninjas where everywhere!
If there are ninjas everywhere, then they should be useless! (All of them!)
And a useless ninja is easy to spot!
since I havn't seen any ninjas in my lunch box... ( a perfectly fine hidding place for a ninja, I assure you)

when where the last time you saw a ninja?

I THINK NOT!

Therefor, not all ninjas are cheese, but all cheese are useless ninjas.

I was thinking more in the "shadows on the cave wall" sort of sense. The essence of the true cheese-concept, the Ur-Cheese, is most brought into this world as embodied in the antics of Ninjas. By that I mean both unstoppable loners, and the highly innefectual horde variety.

After all, cheese comes in both sharp and gooey varieties.

[Starver]

Ack! Nooo!

What happened to all the talk of cheese and ninjas? (who are cheese personified, really)

Some Berskwell always cry "Yarg!", amidst all the Chaource, and Crowdie out the Seras of cheesy posts.  I'd hoped they'd Comte appreciate the situation, and Motta the others are happy about it, I'm sure, but then along the odd individual comes and cries E' "Dam!"

However, unTilsit uations change, I shall work Harzer and Harzer to remedy the situation, trying to accomplish a Feta complis.

[Siquo]

I am a man who likes to know things.

And thus, the notion that you know jack must be unnerving. (pun intended) I get it, don't worry about it. It doesn't make you a lesser person

[blabla, I agree with, except that insanity]

The society we all live in, is built on achievements of the scientific revolution.

Thank GOD it isn't. How I treat my fellow human being is largely based on humanism, which was conceived in the age of enlightenment, along with reason and science. But it's very much not science. It's based on some very Christian values, even, coupled with rational thinking.

There is a difference between supernatural belief, and everyday belief.

There is also a difference between a belief, and a assumption.

No time to watch the vid now, I might later. I know the difference between the three, but I also know all three are, in essence, the same. The supernatural belief (God is part of nature, and belief-in-science counts in this category) and everyday belief are loosely intertwined, and both are based solely on assumptions. And by now it should be obvious I'm reasoning, nor reasonable. Which makes arguing with me irritating for the people who want to argue based on reason only. I just value emotion and feelings equally high as reason, and that makes it all a bit... off.

Siquo, your point only hold if you're ready to jump off a windows anytime.
Else it's just a sophism.

"True" and "Nonsense" are things you made up. Or rather, someone else did and you believed him. The fact that some things work or not, is what defines for instance the scientific method, and it's the most efficient way of living.

On the other hand, screwing people over might work for you, but it can still be against your beliefs. In which case your beliefs are not entirely based on what works and what doesn't. In this day and age, we've got the advantage and superfluous time to believe and do stuff that doesn't work at all. A luxury, if you will. But defining that "things that work" are "true" and things that don't are "nonsense" is just a label, a made-up label.


I believed I could fly at age 8. I ran while flapping my arms using a sheet, and jumped off the roof of my house (which was 1 story high). I flew straight down, and did not get hurt (I wasn't that stupid). So yeah, I tried that, it didn't work, but at least I found out for myself, instead of believing people who told me I couldn't. A lot of scientific breakthroughs were made by people who broke the mold, and did not listen to their superiors, and insisted on trying stuff themselves. That goes for assumptions, beliefs and faiths. It's what got us today's civilisation. Discarding nonsense just because it's nonsense by your current standard, is a waste of potentially really awesome ideas.

[Andir]

I believed I could fly at age 8. I ran while flapping my arms using a sheet, and jumped off the roof of my house (which was 1 story high). I flew straight down, and did not get hurt (I wasn't that stupid). So yeah, I tried that, it didn't work, but at least I found out for myself, instead of believing people who told me I couldn't. A lot of scientific breakthroughs were made by people who broke the mold, and did not listen to their superiors, and insisted on trying stuff themselves. That goes for assumptions, beliefs and faiths. It's what got us today's civilisation. Discarding nonsense just because it's nonsense by your current standard, is a waste of potentially really awesome ideas.

Using your logic, you are the one who is closed minded.  You haven't even tried other methods of flying.  One could largely replace flying with "God" in the above paragraph and you'd call them silly for giving up.

[Leafsnail]

I definitely have heard people use the existence of the Bible as proof that God exists.  So while it may seem extremely obvious to you (indeed, it does to me too)... I guess some people haven't grasped it?

The IPU is also meant to go against the "God's chance of existence is 50/50" argument.

He makes a few good points, then takes a few out-of-context quotes, makes up a few others

This is a pretty serious accusation.  Care to provide any basis for it?

God did not lie. The serpent did lie, but subtly (he's even called subtle in Genesis). He then continues to ramble on about how we should either take the bible literally, or throw it away as nonsense. There's no middle road because that's muddy.

Ok, pretty sure you didn't watch the video now.  Or horribly, horribly misunderstood it.  He leaves it available as a story - his point is that it doesn't work as a story or metaphor either for the reasons he outlined.

And what about these "made up quotes"?

His video on open-mindedness was strangely self-defeating, in that sense. He believes in careful thought and logic as strongly as his parents in the bible. Of course, whatever floats your boat, but I get this very big hypocrisy vibe off of it.

...

So it's self defeating because it's doing exactly what it's advocating?

I also have to laugh at the "he said ALL ideas! Let's use logic to prove that it's PARADOXICAL and thus WRONG!". You're missing the point by... about 2.5 kilometers.

Well, you haven't denied that point.  Even when I gave you plenty of ideas you could reject.  Your viewpoint remains self destroying until you clarify it.

Well fuck you, I have a choice. Even if he would stand before me in all the biblic pompous glory, I can choose not to believe in him. If he's nowhere to be found, no evidence whatsoever, I can still believe in him. So yeah, I refuse to let the world tell me what I can and can't believe in, and I hold that same standard to myself. Therefore anyone has all the right in the world. All people are equal in worth, and so are their viewpoints. They may not agree with mine, but hey, that does not mean we have to bash in each others heads.

Bolded are the contradictory statements.  If everyone's viewpoints are equal in worth, including your own, who are you to say that you have a choice even when presented with blinding evidence to the contrary?  Indeed, who are you to say that we shouldn't bash each other's heads in if other people believe that we should?

Everyone should leave their mind so open their brain falls out.

*sigh*

You're gonna say this quote is out of context, but it looks exactly the same in context.

Look, if people operated on the principles you're suggesting... society wouldn't exist.  Indeed, nothing would exist.  For example, let's say I want to live in a new house.  Under your logic, the following two beliefs are equally valid (and no amount of evidence on either side will change this):
1. Getting a building project together and building a house will allow me to live in it.
2. Building a house will be useless, I need to just wait for 6 months and I'll get one automatically.
If everyone did just randomly change beliefs, ignore things they've learnt in the past and refuse to apply logic to anything, noone would get anywhere.

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

I wish I hadn't clicked on this thread again.

[Siquo]

Using your logic

proof
plenty of ideas you could reject. 
Your viewpoint remains self destroying
contradictory statements
blinding evidence to the contrary
Under your logic
equally valid
evidence on either side
refuse to apply logic to anything

I just took everything out of context. You're not getting it as long as you refuse to let go of (cue reverbing sound effect) Absolute Logic. As the serpent who takes every rule literally and twists it to his own end, instead of looking at the intent of the laws, you're missing the point by concentrating on grammar.

And what about these "made up quotes"?

One day was not in my translation, it was in the king james' when I looked it up, so I retract that.

So it's self defeating because it's doing exactly what it's advocating?

It's self defeating because he's rallying against something he's practicing.

Look, if people operated on the principles you're suggesting... society wouldn't exist.  Indeed, nothing would exist.  For example, let's say I want to live in a new house.  Under your logic, the following two beliefs are equally valid (and no amount of evidence on either side will change this):
1. Getting a building project together and building a house will allow me to live in it.
2. Building a house will be useless, I need to just wait for 6 months and I'll get one automatically.
If everyone did just randomly change beliefs, ignore things they've learnt in the past and refuse to apply logic to anything, noone would get anywhere.

Well, both are actually equal in worth, but also both work. With six months waiting time you can get a house from the housing comittee, albeit a bad one. And guess what? A lot of people do believe that way. And guess again? It still works, we hardly have homeless people, and we're all still "getting somewhere". So yeah, you took a bad example and I slapped you around with it, but if we did not change beliefs all the time, we'd still be worshipping stones and stars from our caves.