ilovefuzz.com

jfrey wrote:I feel like you missed what I was getting at. Or you didn't watch the whole video. Either one.

Beliefs about nonsense are what cause people to impose their wills on others. Because of that, we shouldn't say it's ok for people to believe whatever they want. There ARE answers to questions, even if we don't yet know them, and we should value truth, and the pursuit of truth. We should not value belief above observation, and evidence.

I watched the video I had seen it a few days ago than watched it again when you brought it up.
Dude makes a good point but does not include problems like drugs, war, and poverty.
take drugs for instance, are they wrong? Not so clear cut. Do we make them all illegal? some? none? if some where do we draw the line and who is drawing this line?
beliefs in nonsense is not what causes people to impose their will on others. although lots of people that believe nonsense do.
If we didn't say its ok for people to believe in whatever they want we as a people would stop growing. Take physics for example, Einstein wrote the Special Theory of Relativity. It was published in a scientific journal that same year, but took many years to gain general acceptance. In fact, it was not verified by actual experiment until 25 years later. Two years after that paper was published, Einstein wanted a job as assistant professor of mathematics. This job required the applicant to submit a thesis paper, so Einstein submitted his Special Theory of Relativity. The university rejected it.
There are lots of examples of this where a single scientist theorizes something, no one believes him/her, and than its proven when Instruments "catch up".

Derelict78 wrote:take drugs for instance, are they wrong? Not so clear cut. Do we make them all illegal? some? none? if some where do we draw the line and who is drawing this line?

Well, it was a short video. He does address things like drugs and how they fit into what he's talking about, but you'd have to read his books and watch his other talks. Basically he asserts that where harm is clear, we have to minimize threat to ourselves and others. This may even be by not legislating against drugs if we found that this minimized the problem more significantly than active pursuit. Where harm is less clear, we need to know more - but even though we may not know the answers now, that doesn't mean there aren't answers. When we do know enough to make a rational and scientific judgement in those cases, then we are obligated to do so, regardless of which side of the table the answer lands on.

Derelict78 wrote:beliefs in nonsense is not what causes people to impose their will on others. although lots of people that believe nonsense do.

Then what does? Name one war, or atrocity, or any other sort of imposition that was not the result of a belief. Belief in superiority, belief in entitlement, belief in divine direction, belief in some mystical nonsense. No one has ever been worse off by being more rational.

Derelict78 wrote:If we didn't say its ok for people to believe in whatever they want we as a people would stop growing.

Why? I believe in nothing, and every day I am growing. I spend the majority of my time working, studying, learning new skills, and exercising. I don't need to believe in anything to know that those things have value, or that growing as a person has value. The evidence is clear, observable, and studied. (I don't really see how the example you gave relates to what you're saying, if anything I would think it would be an argument for exactly what I have been saying)

jfrey wrote:

Derelict78 wrote:take drugs for instance, are they wrong? Not so clear cut. Do we make them all illegal? some? none? if some where do we draw the line and who is drawing this line?

Well, it was a short video. He does address things like drugs and how they fit into what he's talking about, but you'd have to read his books and watch his other talks. Basically he asserts that where harm is clear, we have to minimize threat to ourselves and others. This may even be by not legislating against drugs if we found that this minimized the problem more significantly than active pursuit. Where harm is less clear, we need to know more - but even though we may not know the answers now, that doesn't mean there aren't answers. When we do know enough to make a rational and scientific judgement in those cases, then we are obligated to do so, regardless of which side of the table the answer lands on.

I have not read any of his books.
what about war, poverty?
Im not disagreeing with you on this I do think science can answer most if not all questions but we have to keep questioning. Imagination and thinking outside the box however irrational it may seem is important. Thinking that the earth revolved around the sun seemed pretty irrational in the 3rd century BC but Aristarchus was correct.

jfrey wrote:

Derelict78 wrote:beliefs in nonsense is not what causes people to impose their will on others. although lots of people that believe nonsense do.

Then what does? Name one war, or atrocity, or any other sort of imposition that was not the result of a belief. Belief in superiority, belief in entitlement, belief in divine direction, belief in some mystical nonsense. No one has ever been worse off by being more rational.

I agree no one has ever been worse off by being rational.
You are talking about a very small minority of people being irrational. Most Muslims are not out to kill westerners and most christians are not out to convert everyone they come in contact with. Also I am not to sure about statistics but the vast majority of christians I know believe in evolution and think its pretty dumb to be teaching anything else in schools. It tends to be the irrational person yelling from a podium and that is using their religion/views for their own selfish means. So it is not a religion that starts a war it is the sociopaths that do.

jfrey wrote:

Derelict78 wrote:If we didn't say its ok for people to believe in whatever they want we as a people would stop growing.

Why? I believe in nothing, and every day I am growing. I spend the majority of my time working, studying, learning new skills, and exercising. I don't need to believe in anything to know that those things have value, or that growing as a person has value. The evidence is clear, observable, and studied. (I don't really see how the example you gave relates to what you're saying, if anything I would think it would be an argument for exactly what I have been saying)

You working, studying, learning new skills, and exercising is not We as a race growing. There are things in the world that we do not understand and it takes imagination and thinking outside the box to solve some of these things. If we adopted your model of its not OK to think this way or that than we our limiting ourselves.
I would like to reiterate that I am not a big fan of beliefs I do think they get Us into an awful lot of shit. I like Ideas. I like testing those Ideas and if they work for me GREAT! They may not work for you but I dont care. So why do you care so much about what works for me? I am not trying to impose my views on you. I am not hindering the growth of us as a people. In fact Through my Magick and occultly things I have become a better person so in a way Magick has helped us as a people through me.

Derelict78 wrote:the vast majority of christians I know believe in evolution and think its pretty dumb to be teaching anything else in schools.

Then they are rational to the extent that they are not religious. To be religious is to be a fundamentalist. If you do not believe the teachings of your religion which are supposedly handed down by some all powerful being, then on what authority are you doing so? This is another case where you can't have things both ways.

Derelict78 wrote:Imagination and thinking outside the box however irrational it may seem is important. Thinking that the earth revolved around the sun seemed pretty irrational in the 3rd century BC but Aristarchus was correct.

I think perhaps we are defining belief differently. New ideas are part of science. Belief is the opposite of science. Belief is holding something to be true which has neither evidence to support it, nor even a reasonable supposition of evidence as yet unfound (or as I mentioned before, holding something to be true - in fact correct - but with the wrong reasoning).

Derelict78 wrote:If we adopted your model of its not OK to think this way or that than we our limiting ourselves.

I have no problem with thinking. Belief is different. One can hypothesize that - to use an example from our earlier discussion - homeopathy may have some credibility. You retain skepticism. So we test that, and we find that no, it doesn't work. So now we know that. However, if one believes, then this isn't what they are doing. They aren't thinking. Belief is blind, and deaf. Belief holds no skepticism.

jfrey wrote:

Derelict78 wrote:the vast majority of christians I know believe in evolution and think its pretty dumb to be teaching anything else in schools.

Then they are rational to the extent that they are not religious. To be religious is to be a fundamentalist. If you do not believe the teachings of your religion which are supposedly handed down by some all powerful being, then on what authority are you doing so? This is another case where you can't have things both ways.

To be religious IS NOT to be Fundamentalist. It is pretty easy for a christian(or any other religion) to believe in evolution. Just because someone believes in a higher power does not mean they cant believe we evolved.

jfrey wrote:

Derelict78 wrote:Imagination and thinking outside the box however irrational it may seem is important. Thinking that the earth revolved around the sun seemed pretty irrational in the 3rd century BC but Aristarchus was correct.

I think perhaps we are defining belief differently. New ideas are part of science. Belief is the opposite of science. Belief is holding something to be true which has neither evidence to support it, nor even a reasonable supposition of evidence as yet unfound.

Belief: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

Derelict78 wrote:If we adopted your model of its not OK to think this way or that than we our limiting ourselves.

I have no problem with thinking. Belief is different. One can hypothesize that - to use an example from our earlier discussion - homeopathy may have some credibility. You retain skepticism. So we test that, and we find that no, it doesn't work. So know we know that. However, if one believes, then this isn't what they are doing. They aren't thinking. Belief is blind, and deaf. Belief holds no skepticism.[/quote]

you are right belief can be blind, and deaf see my last post.

Derelict78 wrote:To be religious IS NOT to be Fundamentalist. It is pretty easy for a christian(or any other religion) to believe in evolution. Just because someone believes in a higher power does not mean they cant believe we evolved.

Then on what authority do they disagree with supposed edicts? You can be a theist and believe in evolution, although being a theist is I think more defined by what you don't believe in than by what you do. You cannot be a Christian - in the literal sense - and believe in evolution, or really in science at all. People do like to play loose with religion though. Technically if you are a Christian, you have to believe that there are other gods also, but you just can't worship them.

When speaking of belief in a thread titled "Esoterics // Superstition" and about the topics that have been discussed, I think it's pretty clear what type of meaning we are ascribing to the word. I am speaking in context. There are of course other meanings and uses. If it was unclear I'll make the distinction here. When I refer to beliefs, it will be 'holding something to be true, with neither evidence, the supposition of evidence as yet unfound, or without relevant reasoning.'

As for caring about what others believe - what people believe does matter. Even when it is not overtly harmful, it is degrading to our integrity (I'd recommend reading Hitchens for more about why - also for more about that first point up above). Also, it provides a smokescreen of tolerance for people of far less moderation, and who readily will impose themselves on others.

jfrey wrote:

alexa. wrote:I would like you to answer the question I asked before.

I thought I had, although I suppose not directly. I think it is all the same problem. I think beliefs - and all that beliefs entail - are the problem. If you say: 'It's not beliefs, it's flawed logic' it's kind of like saying: 'it's not the water, it's the wetness'. Now, a belief may be correct, but even when it is, it's still wrong. Think in terms of math for a second. Someone says 2+2=4, 5+2=7, and 1+3=10. Even where they answered right, they're still wrong, because they're obviously only right in those cases by accident. They don't actually understand addition. It's the same thing with something like homeopathy, or religion, or politics. If your stances - and all that lead from them - are based on belief, then you are inevitably wrong - even when you're right. To expand on this, you can't believe in things, and then also say that flawed logic is a problem. This doesn't mean you have to be closed minded. It means trusting logic and evidence, and judging things on their merits.

The question was directed at devnulljp, and you missed the point of the question.

You're acting like you didn't read a word I said.*
Where does 'believing' something exclude the part where you trust logic and evidence? Where is that part? So the people that 'believe' that the Higgs won't be found are nuts?
They have beliefs, we all have beliefs.*** I don't know why you hate on 'beliefs' so much. It's an integral part of functioning as a human being. If we didn't have belief systems we would all have to put our hands in fire to experience the burn, cuz direct experience is the only true evidence. If you 'believe' fire will burn you you're a coot?
I don't really get it.
You misunderstood the whole point of everything I was saying. Peoples brains work in a variety of ways and it seems as tho you impose on strict paradigm of brain usage, and thank you I'm not a robot, I'm infinitely more than that.
My capacity is enough to hold beliefs AND to use logic, critical thinking, creativity, and to understand the interconnections of it all together, possibly even more.

jfrey wrote:Basically he asserts that where harm is clear, we have to minimize threat to ourselves and others. This may even be by not legislating against drugs if we found that this minimized the problem more significantly than active pursuit. Where harm is less clear, we need to know more - but even though we may not know the answers now, that doesn't mean there aren't answers. When we do know enough to make a rational and scientific judgement in those cases, then we are obligated to do so, regardless of which side of the table the answer lands on.

*This is what I'm talking about all along. Did you read what I said at all? Or is the nature of the problem more in the form of your personal belief perhaps?

jfrey wrote:Then what does? Name one war, or atrocity, or any other sort of imposition that was not the result of a belief. Belief in superiority, belief in entitlement, belief in divine direction, belief in some mystical nonsense. No one has ever been worse off by being more rational.

INDEED IT IS!
You truly believe that wars were fought over religion? Religion was only a tool to give peasants moral and an excuse to raid, destroy or commit whatever act they wanted. The true reasons of wars are greed, always were, always have been. Think that the barbarian tribes just went down and took only how much they needed? Yeah right. If you think belief is the true reason for bad things, you should critically rethink the whole human history my friend.

***The WHOLE thing I've been saying over and over again is that beliefs aren't bad, beliefs are the normal function of the brain that relates to reality.
The thing is to have/develop a mechanism to FILTER OUT the bad beliefs and UPGRADE the good ones, a system that tests itself constantly, that questions everything, a system of thinking that can see the perspective of the bigger picture, that can tell the long-term consequences, that can properly use logic and that can use creativity in a constructive way.

What you're saying (in the long run) equates to imposing beliefs to people without the mechanism to filter them. Again, logic alone is not enough cuz logic is limited by the current amount of knowledge the individual has.

That better?

I say fuck knowledge if you don't have the wisdom to use it!

*I didn't realize before that you were directing your question at Dev.

I think I addressed most of what you just said subsequently with Derelict. Read the bits on how I'm considering belief. Once again, I think communication is the problem.

To further underscore what I'm saying - if you have evidence, then it isn't a belief, it's knowledge.

And a side note: If you think religion has not been the cause of a lot of conflict, you're kidding yourself. Also, greed (the destructive kind I'm talking about, not the creative kind) is just a different manifestation of belief.

And again, because I'd rather not type an essay, please refer to Harris' 'why we aren't obligated to respect peoples beliefs'.

To prevent the further decimation of this thread, maybe this? viewtopic.php?f=42&t=26635

jfrey wrote:To further underscore what I'm saying - if you have evidence, then it isn't a belief, it's knowledge.

How can you have evidence of what a pineapple tastes like?
Indirect knowledge is just an approximation of the truth/of reality.
And that's all folks.
I'm out.

jfrey wrote:You cannot be a Christian - in the literal sense - and believe in evolution, or really in science at all.

why?

jfrey wrote:please refer to Harris' 'why we aren't obligated to respect peoples beliefs'.
To prevent the further decimation of this thread, maybe this? http://ilovefuzz.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=26635

I think this boils down to a simple difference of opinion. I feel we are all obligated to respect peoples beliefs you dont have to agree.
I may think homosexuality is wrong (I don't) and I could base that on scientific fact (procreation of the species and natural selection). Thats ok. its when you start imposing that on others that it becomes a problem. Your not derailing its all good. I enjoy healthy conversation. We have differences of opinion and we can each learn from each other. If I was not allowed to have my opinion or belief we wouldn't be having this conversation and we would not be better off because of it.

Derelict78 wrote:

jfrey wrote:You cannot be a Christian - in the literal sense - and believe in evolution, or really in science at all.

why?

How does redemption through crucifixion make any sense without Adam and Steve and the Fall? Without the Fall, there is no original sin, no fall from grace, and no need for blood sacrifice to redeem us of that sin. Sure you can believe in deities, but not christianity per se, which is based on the whole guilt/redemption schtick.

devnulljp wrote:

Derelict78 wrote:

jfrey wrote:You cannot be a Christian - in the literal sense - and believe in evolution, or really in science at all.

why?

How does redemption through crucifixion make any sense without Adam and Steve and the Fall? Without the Fall, there is no original sin, no fall from grace, and no need for blood sacrifice to redeem us of that sin. Sure you can believe in deities, but not christianity per se, which is based on the whole guilt/redemption schtick.

My brain hurts to much to explain how this works right now but it is all about the actual language of the old testament.
any who
if you have not seen Southpark's Go God Go and Go God Go XII(2) you should check it out its a pretty funny commentary on the religion vs. logic debate
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-ep ... -go-god-go
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-ep ... god-go-xii

First off, I think the word "belief" is getting tossed around too much here. I think the word you guys want is "faith."

I'm with dev and jfrey on the more of the recent stuff here. It's always been a pet peeve of mine when people claim to be Christian and then say "but I believe in evolution" or make similar such statements. IF YOU BELIEVE IN IT, then isn't your holy book the final word on your entire religion? Otherwise you're just making up your own shit. And for most of us, that called having your own opinion. They should just own up and say "I'm scared of dying and I want my life to have meaning." Guess what.....me too! And the same for everyone else. This falls along the lines of "if you really believe you're going to heaven when you die, then why are you so scared to?"

jfrey wrote:Name one war, or atrocity, or any other sort of imposition that was not the result of a belief. Belief in superiority, belief in entitlement, belief in divine direction, belief in some mystical nonsense. No one has ever been worse off by being more rational.

Jfrey is right here. All his talk about Hitchens and Harris isn't just blowing hot air. Go and read Hitchens' book "God is Not Great; why Religion poisons Everything." From cover to cover it's filled with examples of how pretty much all major conflicts started as religious discrimination.

jfrey wrote:Name one war, or atrocity, or any other sort of imposition that was not the result of a belief. Belief in superiority, belief in entitlement, belief in divine direction, belief in some mystical nonsense. No one has ever been worse off by being more rational.

I'm with Steven Weinberg on that one too:
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."