|
Post by phludowin on Mar 18, 2017 23:41:11 GMT
People should base their beliefs on evidence, IMO, because that's the only way to maximise the chance that you will believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. Now if you're asking why should you care if your beliefs are true or false, I'd say I don't think it's really possible for a person to not value truth on some level. That's what the word "belief" means - an acceptance that something is true. In my experience people who dismiss the value of truth are really just looking for excuses. I tend to be utilitarian; so when it comes to beliefs I believe that it's legitimate to believe things not necessarily because they are true; but because they make you happy. Example: If you believe that a certain rockband is the best band in the world, then listening to their music makes you happy; even if musicologists say that their music is by far not the best music in the world by any metric available in musicology (e.g. harmonic complexity, melodic originality, rhythm, instrumentation, lyrics...). Is that true, or is it just something that makes you happy? It's true for me, and I believe it makes me neither happy nor unhappy. It's just the way I see things. Water is wet, grass is green, truth is relative. People living in arctic regions or desert regions may disagree.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 19, 2017 0:02:05 GMT
Avoiding my questions.. gotcha! Btw, if you think by what you replied is an answer to my question you quoted, then there is seriously something up with you. It's a direct answer to your question, but I'll make it even more simple for you.
Either something is true, or it isn't. It has nothing to do with the state or perception of other things. You're simply wrong.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 19, 2017 0:04:28 GMT
I think you've made it abundantly clear that you would never actually believe in anything so it would be tough for you to understand what someone who is perfectly fine with belief (aka normal people) would do. I believe in lots of things. They are just all supported by evidence.
If you're trying to suggest it's normal to believe things that aren't supported by evidence, and that because it's normal those are beliefs are justified, you're simply wrong. Beliefs are justified by evidence, and if you don't have any for a particular belief, that belief is irrational.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 19, 2017 0:09:51 GMT
Your example is lab testing. Now what isn't lab testable in your example is that your brother even likes his girlfriend. After all, maybe he just likes to boink her. Really you can't actually know that love exists. Since you cam't really test that, it doesn;t exist. Regarding your second example, you can;t possibly have a knowledge of how the universe was created with a belief. I'm not one to say atheism is a religion since it's much to slight a concept for that, but it is silly to pretend that as an atheist what you know is what is fact. Really because you don;t have support regarding the origins of the universe, the universe clearly doesn't even exist. It depends on what you mean by love, because many aspects of it we absolutely have evidence for, such as the chemicals involved that produce the sensation we associate with the emotion.
I get this idea that theists think there is no evidence for the circumstances we define as "love" and they can convince somebody they believe in love even though there's no evidence, that somehow this makes the idea of a god legitimate. First, there is evidence depending on what your definition of love even is. Second, it wouldn't matter. God would still need it's own justification to justify believing it.
I didn't say I knew how the universe began or claim that anybody does. The honest answer is we don't know, although we do have several possibly models we are testing. I don't see how you think that means I can't believe the universe exists.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 19, 2017 0:23:51 GMT
Most of these points listed have nothing to do with believing in things with questionable evidence; they have something to do with wanting to impose your beliefs and values on others. In human history there have been plenty of terrorist groups who were not theistic. RAF (Germany), PKK and ETA come to mind. When I said that I see no problem with people believing delusional things if it makes them happy, I was talking only about the person themselves. Believing something is one thing; trying to convince others of these beliefs is something else. What people who make the argument you just made always miss, is that those delusional beliefs lead to irrational actions based on them, and those actions impact society. You don't get to pretend that they don't impact society. It's like you think there is no impact at all.
Those actions I listed directly have to do with thinking holy books are instructions from a god, that these books are true, that their teaching are moral, etc etc etc. The problem you aren't seeing, is that people make decisions based on what they believe, and if they have irrational beliefs, they are going to make irrational decisions.
Nobody here is suggesting there be laws against thoughts, but your best response here is that you support being delusional. Have a good time with that, I advocate against it, because I see a benefit in people making rational decisions based on a rational understanding of reality.
Is there a problem with my position?
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Mar 19, 2017 0:56:04 GMT
Avoiding my questions.. gotcha! Btw, if you think by what you replied is an answer to my question you quoted, then there is seriously something up with you. It's a direct answer to your question, but I'll make it even more simple for you.
Either something is true, or it isn't. It has nothing to do with the state or perception of other things.
Here's the question I asked which you quoted: Here's your answer: How does this answer my question and if you wasn't answering the question, then why did you quote it? I am totally flabbergasted that you think this is a direct relevant answer to my question. It is not even in the same fucking ballpark as truth needs to be demonstrated because...Btw, it's not whether I'm right or wrong, it about whether you are ever going to answer my question so we may get to whats right or wrong. Your presumptions of rightness and wrongness are embarrassingly naive.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 19, 2017 1:00:45 GMT
It's a direct answer to your question, but I'll make it even more simple for you.
Either something is true, or it isn't. It has nothing to do with the state or perception of other things.
Here's the question I asked which you quoted: Here's your answer: How does this answer my question and if you wasn't answering the question, then why did you quote it? I am totally flabbergasted that you think this is a direct relevant answer to my question. It is not even in the same fucking ballpark as truth needs to be demonstrated because...Because the only way to establish something is true, is to demonstrate it.
I tried to elaborate, but there it is, short and sweet.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Mar 19, 2017 1:03:39 GMT
Here's the question I asked which you quoted: Here's your answer: How does this answer my question and if you wasn't answering the question, then why did you quote it? I am totally flabbergasted that you think this is a direct relevant answer to my question. It is not even in the same fucking ballpark as truth needs to be demonstrated because...Because the only way to establish something is true, is to demonstrate it.
I tried to elaborate, but there it is, short and sweet.
Why does truth need to be demonstrated? Are you going to answer? So truth needs to be demonstrated because the only way to establish something is true, is to demonstrate it. You circular twit!
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 19, 2017 1:05:57 GMT
Why does truth need to be demonstrated? Are you going to answer? If you're claiming something is true, the only way to validate your claim, it to demonstrate it is true.
Or is your question asking why learning is important? Because I don't think I need to answer that.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Mar 19, 2017 1:06:49 GMT
Why does truth need to be demonstrated? Are you going to answer? If you're claiming something is true, the only way to validate your claim, it to demonstrate it is true.
Or is your question asking why learning is important? Because I don't think I need to answer that.
So truth needs to be demonstrated because the only way to establish something is true, is to demonstrate it. You circular twit! Nah no need to answer anymore questions, I think I understand you now.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 19, 2017 1:08:32 GMT
So truth needs to be demonstrated because the only way to establish something is true, is to demonstrate it. You circular twit! No you name calling buffoon. If you're claiming something is true, you have to demonstrate that it's true. Otherwise it's just a claim.
There is nothing circular about that.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Mar 19, 2017 1:12:26 GMT
So truth needs to be demonstrated because the only way to establish something is true, is to demonstrate it. You circular twit! No you name calling buffoon. If you're claiming something is true, you have to demonstrate that it's true. Otherwise it's just a claim.
There is nothing circular about that.
My question which you quoted btw and said you directly answered was: why does truth need to be demonstrated? Your answer now is that truth need to be demonstrated because If you're claiming something is true, you have to demonstrate that it's true. You being a circular twit is not name-calling. Now is the truth that you're a circular twit relative or absolute?
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 19, 2017 1:16:43 GMT
My question which you quoted btw and said you directly answered was: why does truth need to be demonstrated? Your answer now is that truth need to be demonstrated because If you're claiming something is true, you have to demonstrate that it's true. You being a circular twit is not name-calling. Now is the truth that you're a circular twit relative or absolute? It's not circular, but I'll explain it for you simply one more time.
If I claim something exists, I have to demonstrate that it exists.
Get it?
It's not circular, you hopelessly confused twat.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Mar 19, 2017 1:24:03 GMT
It's not circular, but I'll explain it for you simply one more time.
Please do.. for the love of sanity.. please do! Fucking hell, truth has changed into exists! Now I didn't see that coming!
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 19, 2017 1:31:12 GMT
Fucking hell, truth has changed into exists! Now I didn't see that coming! wow
If I claim something is true, I have to demonstrate that it's true.
Are you just trying to be disagreeable, because I'm concerned if you have this much trouble understanding simple sentences. Already you've shown that you can't understand something if it's more than a one sentence explanation. It's getting difficult to communicate with you.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Mar 19, 2017 1:33:57 GMT
Are you just trying to be disagreeable, because I'm concerned if you have this much trouble understand simple sentences. Already you've shown that you can't understand something if it's more than a one sentence explanation. It's getting difficult to communicate with you.
Last time I seen this much projection, was at the local IMax. Why don't you change the words so your answer is not circular, totally incoherent... but no sirey, no circular, not me...
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 19, 2017 1:36:11 GMT
Last time I seen this much projection, was at the local IMax. So are we onto the random useless banter portion of the discussion?
As soon as people start losing arguments it just winds up with this pointless jibber jabber.
If you have something productive to add I'm all ears, but otherwise I don't care about this ego stroking name calling stuff.
I'm glad you finally understood though. Took long enough.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Mar 19, 2017 1:45:28 GMT
Last time I seen this much projection, was at the local IMax. So are we onto the random useless banter portion of the discussion?
As soon as people start losing arguments it just winds up with this pointless jibber jabber.
If you have something productive to add I'm all ears, but otherwise I don't care about this ego stroking name calling stuff.
I'm glad you finally understood though. Took long enough.
Nah, I think what loses arguments is when people change one word in a circular answer, without an explanation, just with the intent, of not getting at the truth in a discussion, but just to save face by not having an answer circular. Fucking pathetic. And your moral high ground is nothing more than theistic sanctimonious bullshit. You fucking plastic wannabe atheist.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 19, 2017 1:48:46 GMT
Nah, I think what loses arguments is when people change one word in a circular answer, without an explanation, just with the intent, of not getting at the truth in a discussion, but just to save face by not having an answer circular. Fucking pathetic. And your moral high ground is nothing more than theistic sanctimonious bullshit. You fucking plastic wannabe atheist. Yes, I know you're out of gas, you don't have to be so obvious. You're done. I got it. Have a good night.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Mar 19, 2017 1:51:12 GMT
Nah, I think what loses arguments is when people change one word in a circular answer, without an explanation, just with the intent, of not getting at the truth in a discussion, but just to save face by not having an answer circular. Fucking pathetic. And your moral high ground is nothing more than theistic sanctimonious bullshit. You fucking plastic wannabe atheist. Yes, I know you're out of gas, you don't have to be so obvious. You're done. I got it. Have a good night. Theist with a wig on.
|
|