Re: but arguments should be

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. : Convincing yourself of a belief is not changing your beliefs. Your self-convincing argument, whatever that may be (hey, could you list it here? I'd like to read it) is based on previous beliefs you have, such as the belief in (if a => b, and if b => c, then a => c) or the belief that perceptions exist. A derivative of previous beliefs is remarkably easy to believe, as it runs, not counter to or seperate from, but along with, the previous beliefs. And the reason that you can as quickly disbelieve it so that you can believe it again the next Saturday is that you have another belief, called Common Sense (and if I could underline that and put it in italics I would) that can overrule your logic. In a sense, extrapolating logically from previous beliefs is not changing the beliefs at all - it is merely looking at them in a new way. 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. : Oh, and thanks. Without you, most probably I would NEVER have learned the word "noumenon" or "noumenal". 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? Hey, if it IS part of your working language, could you give me a list of some other interesting philosophical words? : : : : : : Beliefs are fundamental things that underly people's thinking. Arguments about fundamental postulates are insane, because arguments are BASED on fundamental postulates. The entire argument must then come down to one person saying, in effect, "I believe this, and as a side effect of my belief being true, yours cannot be true," and the other person responding with exactly the same argument. Each argument is incredibly annoying to the other side - look at the Crusades! : : : Additionally, you talk about believing or disbelieving in God as if it were as easy as deciding to. It is not; changing one's beliefs is an amazingly tough task. Let me give you a demostration: Now, right now, believe that orange juice rules the world. See? You can't! It takes many years for someone to truly believe something that their beliefs were, at the outset, against. It is almost as hard to believe something that you had no stance on earlier, without support from your other beliefs. Can you truly believe that a guy named Jerry Davids just died in Australia from lung cancer? That doesn't run contrary to any of your beliefs, but it is unsupported by them as well - and I would bet anything that you are finding it impossible to believe that Jerry Davids just died. (I am not asking you to believe he MIGHT have died - I am asking you to believe he DID) You recommend a stance of neutrality about God, but that is hard for someone who already believes in God to do. If you doubt me, look at the ceiling and try to attain a stance of neutrality to the belief that Florida still exists (if you are not in Florida). If you ARE in Florida, try Kansas. This is possible to do, I admit - but it is still very hard, and you didn't really have a strong stance about the existence of Florida/Kansas at the outset. You had one, but not STRONG. If someone ADAMANTLY believes in God, it is proportionately harder for them to stop. If someone ABSOLUTELY believes in God, they CANNOT stop. : : : : mother margret posted this in the pets thread... : : : : >>>>>>>>> : : : : I always separate the 1)cost-benefit analysis from it's 2)probability/likelihood. : : : : 1)If you believe, what would you gain; and if you do not believe, what do you risk losing? : : : : Ok, so, too - the converse. If you believe, what do you risk losing; and if you do not believe, what would you gain? : : : : >>>>>>>>> : : : : basically, you're claiming that it's more useful to believe because there is little risk if yo'ure wrong and believe and a great risk if you don't believe and are wrong. now, i ahve to make this kinda quick cause i'm due at work in half hour, but in short, this is a remarkably stupid and illogical arguement, even if you DO take the pragmatist stance. : : : : why is it wrong? : : : : becasue i can use the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT to say the OPPOSITE THING, and, i bet you could even use the bible to back it up. : : : : here's your argument... : : : : B = believe in god : : : : E = god exists : : : : +,-,0 = outcome : : : : if (B & E), then + : : : : if (B & !E), then 0 : : : : if (!B & E), then - : : : : if (!B & !E), then 0 : : : : now, with B, you have the choice of either + or 0, while with !B, you have the choice of either - or 0, so you say, B is clearly the most logical choice. : : : : however, look at this argument... : : : : there is a god in heaven who does not want anyone to believe in anything they can't back up with sensory data. now, if you believe in this god, since he never gave you any evidence, you will go to hell. if you do'nt believe in this god, you're ok. if this god doesn't exist, and you believe, nothing will happen. if this god doesn't exist and you do believe, then nothing will happen. : : : : in this scenario, the stakes change to this... : : : : if (B & E), then - : : : : if (B & !E), then 0 : : : : if (!B & E), then + : : : : if (!B & !E), then 0 : : : : so, now !B is the preferred choice. : : : : you see how silly this gets? : : : : what's more, there could be a god that wants you to believe in him, and ifyou don't, then you'll go to hell, but who ISNT THE GOD YOU BELEIVE IN, so if you believe in THAT god, you're still going to hell. since there have been scores of thousands of god-models thru the course of human civilization, how can you be sure that it's the right one? how can you be sure that ANY of them are the right one? or that there even IS a "right" one?? : : : : if i have a firm belief with no evidence, then i am lying to myself. it is damaging to my own character to pretend to know that which i don't. as a 5, false knowledge and pretention are my demons, and in order to integrate i need to admit where i don't have enough evidence to make a conclusion. i must, to be a virtuous person, doubt both positions. therefor, to firmly believe or disbelieve anything for which i have no substantial evidence would be injurious to me and the people around me here in this life. and, while we can talk and talk about an afterlife, none of us know anything about that, so i refuse to use the promise of afterlife in my reasoning. : : : : so the stakes change even further... : : : : since i have no EVIDENCE, : : : : (let ~B = neither believe nor disbelieve) : : : : if (B & E), then - : : : : if (B & !E), then - : : : : if (!B & E), then - : : : : if (!B & !E), then - : : : : if (~B & E) then + : : : : if (~B & !E) then + : : : : so, you see, the existence of god doesnt' matter. what matters is being true to myself in order to be strong and virtuous and happy. : : : : now, you may say, "yeah, but what about the afterlife? doesn't that matter?" no, and here's why. : : : : i have found that for me to hold this form of non-belief is the most beneficial to humans on earth (since it adds a happy person to their ranks). any god who does not want humans on earth to have a good life is not deserving of my worship. if god DOES care about virtue, then he will respect my decision and i will go to heaven. i'm willing to go to hell in order to help humanity in a way that i'm POSITIVE i can actually do something, and belief in god wouldn't help that end. : : : : you see, if i pretend to beleive in god, then i don't DESERVE heaven. : : : : and if god doesn't respect the wellbeing of humans on earth, then i would rather goto hell than worship him. : : : : : : : : in truth, there is no way to logically prove the existence of god. therefor, there is only the pragmatism of believing or not believing. since the EFFECT of belief is different for each person, no pragmatic arguement can be applied to all people generally. that is, it may make you better to beleive. so believe. it would make me worse, so i don't. if it makes you happy, and is beneficial to persons, then go for it. : : : : (nb... where i said "humans on earth" i shoudl rephrase that. what i meant was more to the effect of "all people" regardless of species or location. my mistake.) : : : : isaac

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: