Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-28-2012, 06:50 PM #1
Treghc
 
 
Treghc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Treghc is a Supporting Member
Treghc is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Treghc is a Forum Captain
Where do you draw the line with "belief?"

Forgive me if this ends up being a bit short. I'm near the end of work with little to do and I wanted to get a thought out while I had it fresh in my mind.

I hear a constant usage of the term "it's what I believe" when it comes to discussions around religion and morality and it's an incredibly hard thing to refute.

My question is, if a term such as this is okay to be a valid belief:

"I believe Jesus was born on Earth to absolve us of our sins."

What gives it more validity than someone stating:

"I believe all Jews must be extinguished from the Earth, for they are a race not worthy of life."

Both are beliefs. Both have no backing to base themselves off of. To me, both are equally valid. So, what makes person A's belief okay and not person B's? Where is the foundation in which we can honestly judge both situations appropriately and honestly? Does this negate the idea that someone "believing" something has value?
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Tarsier Slave


We are Sapien

Last edited by Treghc : 02-28-2012 at 06:54 PM.
Treghc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 02-28-2012, 07:13 PM #2
wavesport001
 
 
wavesport001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The River
Belief A confirms our innate sense of morality while belief B contradicts our innate morality, so we know it's wrong? Good questions.
__________________
"It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing, than to believe what is wrong." -Thomas Jefferson

"it really doesnt matter what you say on here. if there was truly evidence, it would come from a professor, not from a member on pbnation.com." - Anonymous poster
wavesport001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2012, 08:27 PM #3
Treghc
 
 
Treghc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Treghc is a Supporting Member
Treghc is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Treghc is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by wavesport001 View Post
Belief A confirms our innate sense of morality while belief B contradicts our innate morality, so we know it's wrong? Good questions.
Therein begs another explanation though. Which innate morality is correct then? One side may "believe" that morality stems from God. There's nothing to show for that. The other side may "believe" otherwise. So, the difference isn't made concrete yet. It's simply branching out to another form of belief. If one is to differentiate the two, one must objectively identify moral spectrums. That can't be done when one simply "believes" morality comes from a deity; it's derived from yet another belief. So, again, where is the boundary placed? And why?
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Tarsier Slave


We are Sapien
Treghc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2012, 08:41 PM #4
Fubarius
Yep, it's orange.
 
Fubarius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: New Richmond, WI
Annual Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Fubarius supports our troops
Fubarius has achieved Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
Fubarius has achieved Level 2 in PbNation Pursuit
Fubarius is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
Therein begs another explanation though. Which innate morality is correct then? One side may "believe" that morality stems from God. There's nothing to show for that. The other side may "believe" otherwise. So, the difference isn't made concrete yet. It's simply branching out to another form of belief. If one is to differentiate the two, one must objectively identify moral spectrums. That can't be done when one simply "believes" morality comes from a deity; it's derived from yet another belief. So, again, where is the boundary placed? And why?
Careful, you're stacking beliefs. We're approaching "Inception" levels of confusion.

Wavesports "innate morality" is the same morality regardless of the root of the morality. I have no idea why you brought up the whole divine or not argument into the mix, since the whole point of an innate morality is that it's, well, innate.

Back to the original topic. The thing with beliefs is that they are ALL valid. Of course, they are not all correct. I could honestly believe that the capitol of New York is Buffalo. The statement "I believe the capitol of New York is Buffalo" would be logically true. The subject of the belief just happens to be wrong (the correct answer is Albany for you kids playing along at home).

Beliefs are at their heart opinions. And opinions can change, given enough new data. However another belief is not data, just another opinion. If your belief is opposite of another no amount of strongly repeating your belief will change the other.
__________________
David Johnson, AKA Fubarius.

000110 200 11202 10 000020
012211 021 22110 22 121101
222001 222 10220 00 022212
Fubarius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2012, 09:35 PM #5
vijil
Giant Paintball Robot
 
vijil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New Zealand
"both have no backing"

Incorrect. Hitler and co. believed they had good reasons to believe that Jews were bad for society. We now believe those reasons were ultimately untrue, but they were there. Hating Jews was not at all arbitrary. The fact that those beliefs originally stemmed from pure racism and to some extent jealousy is doesn't change that. Most people's beliefs (Christian, atheist, whatever) have an emotional root. We're only human.

Jesus likewise has had stacks of books written and studies done from whatever angle, and some people (myself included) feel there is some merit to some of those.

But yes, belief itself has no inherent value. It only really matters one way or the other when it's put into practice and the results are observed.

Last edited by vijil : 02-28-2012 at 09:39 PM.
vijil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2012, 09:49 PM #6
Spock
Live Long and Bluster
 
Spock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SE PA
Spock is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
Does this negate the idea that someone "believing" something has value?
Yes. Believing something for which there is no rational basis is utterly useless.

I believe that with all my heart.
__________________
"Once I make someone die, and they see me....they can't change their mind." -- God

Originally posted by matt00iconoclast:
"there are variables outside of physics that will affect the flight of the ball"
Spock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2012, 12:18 PM #7
Treghc
 
 
Treghc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Treghc is a Supporting Member
Treghc is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Treghc is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fubarius View Post
Careful, you're stacking beliefs. We're approaching "Inception" levels of confusion.

Wavesports "innate morality" is the same morality regardless of the root of the morality. I have no idea why you brought up the whole divine or not argument into the mix, since the whole point of an innate morality is that it's, well, innate.
I answered his post rather horribly, I admit. I was on my way out from work at the time. I should ask him to define innate morality.

He stated that belief B contradicts our innate morality, but it in fact does not. There have been and still are people that believe that statement is morally right. Obviously, wavesport is not correct in this situation.

Now, we can study further within the brain to find that these people will (almost certainly) have neural deficiencies that lead us to labeling them as subject psychopathy. But here we are, using facts and evidence to determine the validity of that belief. What if no such evidence is available? Do we still dismiss that belief? If we don't automatically dismiss it, do we allow it? Which ones do we allow? Where is the line drawn?

Quote:
Back to the original topic. The thing with beliefs is that they are ALL valid. Of course, they are not all correct. I could honestly believe that the capitol of New York is Buffalo. The statement "I believe the capitol of New York is Buffalo" would be logically true. The subject of the belief just happens to be wrong (the correct answer is Albany for you kids playing along at home).
So, you used factual evidence to support the rightness or wrongness of a belief. What if said beliefs have no factual evidence? Let me reiterate my first two scenarios to conform to this new finding:

Person A:

"I believe Jesus Christ was born of a virgin and died on the cross for our sins as part of God's plan."

Person B:

"I believe God is a six-headed monster and wants us to kill all Jews."

Neither have a factual basis. So, are we able to label one as having more merit than the other?

Quote:
Beliefs are at their heart opinions. And opinions can change, given enough new data. However another belief is not data, just another opinion. If your belief is opposite of another no amount of strongly repeating your belief will change the other.
Again, you're traveling down to my point. Beliefs are validated by fact or evidential support. So, where do we draw the line when no such fact or evidential support can be found?

-----

Quote:
Originally Posted by vijil View Post
"both have no backing"

Incorrect. Hitler and co. believed they had good reasons to believe that Jews were bad for society. We now believe those reasons were ultimately untrue, but they were there. Hating Jews was not at all arbitrary. The fact that those beliefs originally stemmed from pure racism and to some extent jealousy is doesn't change that. Most people's beliefs (Christian, atheist, whatever) have an emotional root. We're only human.
You can't state a belief had backing by yet another belief. That's not solid reasoning, nor an evidential basis. It's just belief; the very thing in question. By accepting that belief can be backed by belief, you accept that any belief is valid, no matter how horrible, and therefore cannot be a moral judge of their actions.

Quote:
Jesus likewise has had stacks of books written and studies done from whatever angle, and some people (myself included) feel there is some merit to some of those.

But yes, belief itself has no inherent value. It only really matters one way or the other when it's put into practice and the results are observed.
I would argue that study of beliefs can dictate their prior actions. Look at Hezbollah as an example. If they obtain nuclear weapons, their beliefs have shown that they do intend to use said weapons.

-----

Quote:
Originally Posted by HelloItsKT View Post
When beliefs get in the way of another's happiness and well being, then it is definitely morally wrong. It's technically not wrong to have those beliefs that people should not live (though it can be said that the person is immoral), but it's wrong to act on them. This does also depend on the society one lives.
You need to have an actual foundation for what constitutes one's happiness and well-being though. Psychopaths and masochists will have a very skewed sense of morality from most people. To them, the suffering of others or even the suffering of themselves brings them pleasure and happiness.

Quote:
But really. I don't want to be stopped on the road and waste my time because of a certain church that has police officers helping them leave their parking lot. That's wrong. When your beliefs get in the way of my time and it is completely unwarranted, it makes me very upset.
There's reasoning in the underlined part of that post. It's getting somewhere closer to the area I'm digging in to. Is this the line you would draw where belief is no longer acceptable; that, if it's unwarranted and upsets you, it is no longer acceptable? That, in of itself, is a belief unless we define the foundation of what it is to make not just you, but the average person upset.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Tarsier Slave


We are Sapien

Last edited by Treghc : 02-29-2012 at 12:23 PM.
Treghc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 06:09 PM #8
Gnarly Whyn (Banned)
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
It's wrong because thousands of years of cultural interactions at the individual level have provided us with a basic set of pragmatic rights that are considered ethical and pragmatic enough to be recognized by the Sovereign and enforced by the Sovereign.

Not to mention polycentric governance structures that clearly represent the evolution of communal values within a culture that likely condemn such acts.

I mean we can attack the jews thing from so many directions I could care less whether one is innately more moral than other. "Innate moral values" are purely materialistic mechanisms, the enforcement of such values on a collective level is an evolutionary cultural process.
Gnarly Whyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 09:36 PM #9
Treghc
 
 
Treghc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Treghc is a Supporting Member
Treghc is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Treghc is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnarly Whyn View Post
It's wrong...
What's wrong? Please be more specific. There are a few subjects being talked about right now.


Quote:
...because thousands of years of cultural interactions at the individual level have provided us with a basic set of pragmatic rights that are considered ethical and pragmatic enough to be recognized by the Sovereign and enforced by the Sovereign.
You're not telling me, nor anyone here anything new. What I'm asking is at the root of what you're saying. What I'm trying to identify is the root of just why people came to these solutions. Belief has shaped pragmatic rights. But which beliefs are valid and which aren't?

Quote:
Not to mention polycentric governance structures that clearly represent the evolution of communal values within a culture that likely condemn such acts.

I mean we can attack the jews thing from so many directions I could care less whether one is innately more moral than other. "Innate moral values" are purely materialistic mechanisms, the enforcement of such values on a collective level is an evolutionary cultural process.
Don't feed in to wavesport's post. I feel like you're missing the entire point here. Again, you're not stating anything I don't already know and, again, you're out with the leaves while I'm attempting to discuss the roots.

What is it that we, as human beings, identify as solidifying or validating a belief? Is it necessarily okay to simply say something is valid simply because the majority say so? Because if so, we would have next to nothing that we have today. Blacks wouldn't have rights. Women wouldn't have rights. We'd be bleeding people to try and cure them of sickness. The Earth would still be thought to be the center of the universe.

Is it not apparent that we rely on evidential findings to confirm beliefs?
Of course it is.

Now what if there are no evidential findings? No true backing support for the beliefs? Where do we draw the line of what is acceptable and what is not? Is it okay for infant girls to have their clitoris sewn off shortly after birth, simple because because somebody believes it's what a higher power wants? We can't prove/disprove that higher power, but they truly believe it to be what is asked of that power. So if it's okay for someone to defend themselves by saying they believe something to be that way, why is there any ethical solutions to anything at all? Is there a scenario in which it's finally acceptable for someone to believe in something that has no evidential support?

Where is that line drawn?
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Tarsier Slave


We are Sapien
Treghc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2012, 10:33 PM #10
vijil
Giant Paintball Robot
 
vijil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New Zealand
Quote:
You can't state a belief had backing by yet another belief. That's not solid reasoning, nor an evidential basis. It's just belief; the very thing in question. By accepting that belief can be backed by belief, you accept that any belief is valid, no matter how horrible, and therefore cannot be a moral judge of their actions.
All beliefs are backed by or based on a string of other beliefs besides perhaps "I think therefore I am" - so I fail to see your point here. The Nazis considered their ideas to be based on solid reasoning. Likewise scientists believe evolution because they (and I) consider it based on solid reasoning and as you say "evidential findings". But in the end it's all just belief.

So for your question "where do you draw the line" - I don't think a line can be drawn because any line that is drawn will be based on someone's beliefs. There are those who would make religion illegal or at least do everything in their power to marginalise it. There are those who would make atheism illegal. In the end any line in the sand will involve people imposing their beliefs on others - and to a certain extent we already do that via the law. Most western countries have also enshrined a certain freedom of belief in their laws as far as things like religion goes. Based on current social trends I wouldn't be at all surprised if that freedom diminishes in the next few decades.

Last edited by vijil : 03-03-2012 at 10:39 PM.
vijil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 03:59 PM #11
Gnarly Whyn (Banned)
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Validity is real but we all subjectively observe it in regards to things we can't objectively observe i.e. logical validity/etc.

So yeah majority support, superior rhetoric, etc. equal out to validity in practice.
Gnarly Whyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2012, 12:48 PM #12
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by vijil View Post

The fact that those beliefs originally stemmed from pure racism and to some extent jealousy is doesn't change that.
That is most certainly untrue. There is a negligible difference of outward appearances between Jews and Europeans. Especially compared to Arabs or Blacks. As a matter of fact, the entire list of grievances were cultural & economic disparities.

It's never as simple as pure outward appearance. No matter how much people like to over simplify things.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2012, 12:49 PM #13
Treghc
 
 
Treghc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Treghc is a Supporting Member
Treghc is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Treghc is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by vijil View Post
All beliefs are backed by or based on a string of other beliefs besides perhaps "I think therefore I am" - so I fail to see your point here.
Interesting thought about the distinctions here. Do you think that the direct observation of evidence is nothing more than a belief? The fact that we can observe the Earth orbiting the Sun is nothing more than a belief? I'd argue that it is truth and you could only "believe" the contrary, not the fact.

Quote:
The Nazis considered their ideas to be based on solid reasoning.
I'm not arguing for solid reasoning because such reasoning is entirely subjective. I'm still interested in what you think that reasoning would be, especially since I'm relating to evidential findings. I don't think you'll be able to provide me or anyone else of any hard evidence that they used to support their cause.

Quote:
Likewise scientists believe evolution because they (and I) consider it based on solid reasoning and as you say "evidential findings". But in the end it's all just belief.
And such belief is validated through evidence, is it not? If the idea of evolution were nothing more than idea with no supporting evidence, you have to admit that it would not hold the ground that it does; we're using evidence to validate belief.

Quote:
So for your question "where do you draw the line" - I don't think a line can be drawn because any line that is drawn will be based on someone's beliefs. There are those who would make religion illegal or at least do everything in their power to marginalise it. There are those who would make atheism illegal. In the end any line in the sand will involve people imposing their beliefs on others - and to a certain extent we already do that via the law. Most western countries have also enshrined a certain freedom of belief in their laws as far as things like religion goes. Based on current social trends I wouldn't be at all surprised if that freedom diminishes in the next few decades.
By saying this, aren't you admitting you have no foundation in which to call out others for moral actions? For example, you cannot scrutinize the people who caused the events that occurred on 9/11, leading to the deaths of thousands of innocent people because they did it based on their "belief."

I'd say that leads to a very dangerous moral compass.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Tarsier Slave


We are Sapien
Treghc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2012, 03:06 PM #14
potato2
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
 has been a member for 10 years
For the vast majority, morality is learned not reasoned. If they do not reason they are not truly moral.
potato2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2012, 03:36 PM #15
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
Interesting thought about the distinctions here. Do you think that the direct observation of evidence is nothing more than a belief? The fact that we can observe the Earth orbiting the Sun is nothing more than a belief? I'd argue that it is truth and you could only "believe" the contrary, not the fact.
Most philosophers (Kant, Descartes, Hume) would disagree that sensory data is truth. You would be hard-pressed to find a modern philosopher who did.

An often argument against it would be: We have organs that sense things (light, vibrations) and transfer those to our brain which deciphers what they are. There are two possible flaws. I suppose it is possible that the sense data doesn't properly make it to the brain (due to a medical issue). For instance, sensory data still enters the eye of a blind person but a flaw with the "wiring" to the brain can corrupt that. The second possibility of failure is a misinterpretation of the brain. This can range from thinking you saw something you didn't (a double-take experience) to neurological diseases that lead to delusions. Ultimately, we cannot be certain that what we see is true, because there is always a possibility that it's not.
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads

Last edited by TheSilentAssassin : 03-06-2012 at 03:54 PM.
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2012, 05:54 PM #16
Treghc
 
 
Treghc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Treghc is a Supporting Member
Treghc is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Treghc is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
Most philosophers (Kant, Descartes, Hume) would disagree that sensory data is truth. You would be hard-pressed to find a modern philosopher who did.

An often argument against it would be: We have organs that sense things (light, vibrations) and transfer those to our brain which deciphers what they are. There are two possible flaws. I suppose it is possible that the sense data doesn't properly make it to the brain (due to a medical issue). For instance, sensory data still enters the eye of a blind person but a flaw with the "wiring" to the brain can corrupt that. The second possibility of failure is a misinterpretation of the brain. This can range from thinking you saw something you didn't (a double-take experience) to neurological diseases that lead to delusions. Ultimately, we cannot be certain that what we see is true, because there is always a possibility that it's not.
I'm very aware of these ideas. I'm also very aware of their lack of practice. I always like to make the scenario in which, if I put a shotgun to your head and fire it, will your sensory data be wrong when you're dead? You saw the shotgun. I saw the shotgun. You felt the cold steel barrel against your skin. I seriously doubt you would put faith in to believing they're not real.

Yes, sight can trick us. Yes, we can hear things that aren't there. That doesn't mean that what we do see isn't there. Nor does it mean every sound we hear is a figment of our imagination. This is why multiple sources must observe the same experience in order for us to validate its existence.

This is all without bringing the fact that we proved heliocentrism through mathematics.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Tarsier Slave


We are Sapien
Treghc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2012, 06:30 PM #17
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
I'm very aware of these ideas. I'm also very aware of their lack of practice. I always like to make the scenario in which, if I put a shotgun to your head and fire it, will your sensory data be wrong when you're dead? You saw the shotgun. I saw the shotgun. You felt the cold steel barrel against your skin. I seriously doubt you would put faith in to believing they're not real.

Yes, sight can trick us. Yes, we can hear things that aren't there. That doesn't mean that what we do see isn't there. Nor does it mean every sound we hear is a figment of our imagination. This is why multiple sources must observe the same experience in order for us to validate its existence.

This is all without bringing the fact that we proved heliocentrism through mathematics.
I don't understand how this is a response to my post. If I see a shotgun to my head, I would believe that one is there. Hell, I would assume that one is there (based on probability and possible outcomes (if yes, I die. if not, oh well. I'm gonna act as if there is just in case)). But I still don't know that one is there. That is not truth because I can guarantee you that at some point someone has seen a shotgun, felt a shotgun, and believed that a shotgun was pointed at them when in fact they were having a delusion/trip.

Yes, we must validate existence through multiple sources (although that can't prove anything). Yes, we have math to prove that the Earth orbiting the sun isn't a belief (even though those mathematical proofs are ultimately a posteriori but I'll let that go). I don't see how any of this matters. Direct observation is still not valid justification for truth. I would consider it "belief beyond a reasonable doubt" but not truth.
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads

Last edited by TheSilentAssassin : 03-06-2012 at 06:32 PM.
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2012, 12:08 PM #18
Treghc
 
 
Treghc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Treghc is a Supporting Member
Treghc is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Treghc is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
I don't understand how this is a response to my post. If I see a shotgun to my head, I would believe that one is there. Hell, I would assume that one is there (based on probability and possible outcomes (if yes, I die. if not, oh well. I'm gonna act as if there is just in case)). But I still don't know that one is there. That is not truth because I can guarantee you that at some point someone has seen a shotgun, felt a shotgun, and believed that a shotgun was pointed at them when in fact they were having a delusion/trip.
Thus the need for multiple sources...

Quote:
Yes, we must validate existence through multiple sources (although that can't prove anything). Yes, we have math to prove that the Earth orbiting the sun isn't a belief (even though those mathematical proofs are ultimately a posteriori but I'll let that go). I don't see how any of this matters. Direct observation is still not valid justification for truth. I would consider it "belief beyond a reasonable doubt" but not truth.
So this is an argument based off the semantics of "truth?" I apologize for using that word then. I guess it shouldn't even be a word, for it's an impossibility in which it's only real definition is that it is unable to be achieved.

This did take things in a sour direction. I'm still interested in what makes certain beliefs okay for an individual and what makes others not okay. If it is as Gnarly Whyn states, then we have to admit that the human populace is nothing more than credulous and lacks personal reasoning or the ability to stand for themselves. I don't think that works.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Tarsier Slave


We are Sapien
Treghc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2012, 06:13 PM #19
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
So this is an argument based off the semantics of "truth?" I apologize for using that word then. I guess it shouldn't even be a word, for it's an impossibility in which it's only real definition is that it is unable to be achieved.
You do realize that is a very normal philosophical stance, right? A great deal of philosophers would agree with that. I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said 100 times by 100 people.

However, you did make the jump from "sensory data =/= truth" to "there is no truth" far too quickly. Descartes would say that I must exist ("I think therefore I am"). Descartes would actually say that a priori mathematical proofs can be truth (because they are true based upon their own definitions). And Descartes even said that we can know that God's existence is true (ontological argument) although personally I think it's a load.

But you seem quick to dismiss this argument and I don't want to make you talk about something you would rather not. (However, it is rather hypocritical that whenever I choose to end a conversation I get *****ed out, but I'll let that slide.)
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads

Last edited by TheSilentAssassin : 03-16-2012 at 06:16 PM.
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2012, 06:38 PM #20
Treghc
 
 
Treghc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Treghc is a Supporting Member
Treghc is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Treghc is a Forum Captain
I'm not attempting to end the argument. It's just gone off course. But, then again, so does every thread in this place, so let's continue.

I have to admit that I have been in a ****ing terrible place for the past few days. Things finally cleared up a bit today and I'm more willing to converse and probably less likely to be a dick

Only problem is, this thread has begun to age and I'm not even quite sure where things were going anymore. Feel free to steer the conversation if you wish, as I'm not sure of just how much time I'll have over the next few days to try and read through it all again.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Tarsier Slave


We are Sapien
Treghc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2012, 07:32 PM #21
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
Only problem is, this thread has begun to age and I'm not even quite sure where things were going anymore. Feel free to steer the conversation if you wish, as I'm not sure of just how much time I'll have over the next few days to try and read through it all again.
Well I guess if we are ruling out sensory data as a means of truth, then we must look at the other possible means of acquiring truth before we can say that truth is impossible to find.
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump