TAP, TAP, blam! Counterspell! (who you calling immature?)

Subject:

Comments:
: : : I am accusing Margaret of intolerance too. I am verbally pounding on YOU for trying to convince Margaret that the best thing for you was to have no belief either way. SHE believes that you SHOULD believe, and you arguing with her on the basis that you should NOT believe IS contradicting her belief. You, too, were being intolerant. : : tolerance is misunderstood and overrated. : : in your criticism of my and margaret's argument, you are being intolerant, calling us intolerant and intolerant of our intolerance, which was actually just the tolerance of arguments regarding the pragmatic value of beliefs. you see how silly this gets? : ======= : I didn't consider your intolerance a deeply held belief. Perhaps I should have, and I could have avoided offending it. I don't think you were being tolerant of arguments regarding the pragmatic value of beliefs - you seemed to be arguing to reach a verdict rather than arguing for the sake of argument. You were trying to squash Margaret's point, not for the sake of seeing the argument played out, but because you truly wanted to squash Margaret's point. : So, maybe I WAS being intolerant. I can't justify myself, except that there was no other way to get my point across, and I didn't consider what I was attacking to be your beliefs. Sorry. <-- Don't take that wrong, I reread it and it looks like sarcasm. It is NOT, and neither is this. I truly am sorry. : : i think that both margaret and i (of course, i can only speak for myself) were interested in the pragmatic value of the belief in the judeo-christian god. that is, we were discussing whether it is useful or practical or beneficial to believe; since we can't really make any concrete claims as to the actual TRUTH of the belief itself. : ====== : She said you should believe; you said that you should neither believe nor disbelieve. Each of those statements are beliefs in themselves. You WERE arguing over beliefs. MOST beliefs have nothing to do with God or religion. : : the pragmatic stance takes a lot of heat, because you can justify some pretty outrageous things sometimes. it really comes down to what your goals are that you are being so practical about. but i'm getting off topic... : : margaret was saying that it's more useful, regardless of the person, to believe in god. i was actually arguing the same point you're trying to make with the tolerance hoohah by saying that it DOES depend on person, and what's more, you *can't take the pragmatic stance if you are severely incertain of the outcome*. : ======= : Yeah, I was saying that too, with my stuff about how hard it is to change your beliefs. It is, however, also very hard to take the uncertain stance if you truly believe in God. : : : : : : Convincing yourself of a belief is not changing your beliefs. : : yes it is. if it isn't, what do you mean by "convince"? : : the belief is that information that is held to be true. it's up to you what you believe. : ======= : What I mean by "convince" is to use your other beliefs, such as logic, to find out new things that are based on them. What I mean by "change" is to adopt an entirely new belief without basis on the ones you held earlier. : : my self convincing argument is the same one i use to believe that there IS a "real" world. the information i have thusfar recieved allows for several conclusions, the most likely (simplest) of those being solipsism and realism. then i pick one. in fact, sometimes i flipflop from situation to situation. : : when you're uncertain of something, and it could just as easily be either one, just use the one that's most useful. for example, look at light. when it's useful to think of it as a wave, we do so. when it's useful to think of it as a particle, we do that, instead. you can't do both at once, but both are equally true at the same time. (equally true meaning equally supported by evidence.) : : being a realist is not common sense, i dotn' think. it's just useful. : : : >>>> : : Did you TRY the exercises I gave you? I bet you had some trouble with them if were honest with yourself about whether you actually believed them. : : oj ruling the world... : : well, you see, i have evidence that contradicts that, and it is not useful to just go ahead and believe it anyway. : ======= : That was the challenge - to see if you could adopt a belief that directly contradicts your previous beliefs. This task is one of the hardest things to do in the world. I, personally, would have a very tough time with it, because it contradicts my beliefs too. "Evidence", by the way, is just beliefs supported by other, deeper beliefs. In this case, the deeper ones would be realism and logic. : It appears that you could not accomplish the first challenge. : : how is that different from the god/solipsism sort of belief shifting? : : well, i have no evidence that specifically contradicts or supports a "real" world or a diety. so, it's up to me what to believe. i pick the one which is most useful in a given moment, or sometimes, i just stop believing either way. it really is that easy. : ======= : I gave you another, easier, challenge too - to disbelieve the existence of Florida. You had no current evidence of its existence, besides your faith that it exists. But, could you do it? I doubt it, judging by your lack of response to the challenge. That exactly parallels trying to disbelieve in God, if you already believe in him. : Oh, and about picking what is most useful - EVERYONE is constricted by what they want to do. This is the biggest obstacle to changing your beliefs; your current ones say that you want to have them. If you truly WANT to believe in God, and you don't, it is quite a bit easier (though by no means simple) to believe in God. : I do not believe your statement that you can choose which belief is best at the moment, and actually believe it. From your writings, you ALWAYS think that having no stance toward the existence of God is best - you NEVER think that believing in God is a good idea. Thus, you never change your beliefs. If you actually HAVE been able to TRULY change your beliefs, I applaud you, but I think you are lying to yourself. : : : : : Did you put that particular vocabulary tidbit in your post just to see how I would respond to it, or (snigger snigger) is that actually part of your working language? : : no, i'ts a part of my actual working vocab., not just a 10cent word for affect. (tho there are plenty of 10 cent words in my working vocab, thank you honors college :) if there was a word with less syllables that meant the same thing, and didn't have as many other connotations as "real" does, then i'd much prefer that. : ======= : I said before, got any more of those words? I was serious, I really would like a bunch of 'em to learn, so I can dip into them whenever I want to get on someone's nerves. : : isaac

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: