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. : 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 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. : 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*. : : : 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. : 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. : 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. : : : 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. : isaac

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: