I think you're saying this just to antagonize and you actually understood me, but ill indulge you
the original poster referred to 'basing ones beliefs' which is very much an action. to hold a belief is not to act, but to form a belief is to act.
the operative question in the survey was not asking if the rapist's actions were right or wrong but rather justified by his convictions. the original poster now claims that it is ok to believe anything as long as you act in a manner consistent with his opinion on actions. but that would require ingrained beliefs that, considering the context of the question, do not exist.
sorry for any typos, I'm on a pda right now
I LOVE it when we just put our cards out on the table! I did throw in the "hate to break it to you, but" at the last minute and I was aware I might be throwing caution to the wind, BUT.... actually, I have been very busy today and I just skimmed quickly, did not read everything and therefore am not getting "context" here at all (have I mentioned I notoriously have attention "issues"??) and honestly, besides confronting what I saw as a flaw, I did not mean to antagonise you. But I do love it when you indulge me.
As much as I'd love to get into this subject, it's almost painful for me to anal-ise over logical details. Seriously. Especially when I'm distracted. I'm still not really getting what you are saying, but I'm going to try to grasp more of what's being said by reading more of the details. Regardless, A != B! (okay, you're a bit right, there is some antagonism in there, but only in the best sense. )
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
As much as I'd love to get into this subject, it's almost painful for me to anal-ise over logical details. Seriously. Especially when I'm distracted. I'm still not really getting what you are saying, but I'm going to try to grasp more of what's being said by reading more of the details. Regardless, A != B! (okay, you're a bit right, there is some antagonism in there, but only in the best sense. )
It's cool....it was a poorly worded statement on my part anyways that took a few too many shortcuts.
you said that anyone can believe anything they want but that a person may only act justly in a manner consistent with your beliefs or societys beliefs, did you not?
first, the survey is not asking about the action, it is asking about the validity of the belief of the rapist. and since you've indicated that anyone may justly believe anything for any personal reason, you say that your beliefs hold no more inherent validity than the rapists.
secondly. the clear distinction you see between a belief and an action does exist, but it exists in a matter different than you define it. the contents of one's mind is not an action, the use of one's mind is an action.
then what is your system of justice based on? a whim? a feeling?
No, I never said must act in a manner consistent with my beliefs.
However, I may have misread the survey.. if it said is he is right in justifying what he did.. I'd say sure. When I read it, I was thinking that if his belief justifys it then its ok to do it.
No, I never said must act in a manner consistent with my beliefs.
Then you don't reject the rapist's actions??? I'm confused now.
However, I may have misread the survey.. if it said is he is right in justifying what he did.. I'd say sure. When I read it, I was thinking that if his belief justifys it then its ok to do it.
The loch ness monster question got me...because I think it is reasonable to believe in a god without evidence even though I don't, personally. If there is a god, her methods of creation could very well be beyond our ability to comprehend. The loch ness monster is supposed to be of this earth, correct?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The loch ness monster question got me...because I think it is reasonable to believe in a god without evidence even though I don't, personally. If there is a god, her methods of creation could very well be beyond our ability to comprehend. The loch ness monster is supposed to be of this earth, correct?
The Loch Ness monster is not supposed to be anything, necessarily. It too could be beyond our ability to comprehend.
No, I never said must act in a manner consistent with my beliefs.
However, I may have misread the survey.. if it said is he is right in justifying what he did.. I'd say sure. When I read it, I was thinking that if his belief justifys it then its ok to do it.
I have no problem with what anyone thinks.
Huh.. as it turns out you misquoted the test also... the question was where he should carry out the rape... which of course is an entirely different thing that believe it is ok to rape.
I believe the world would be much better off without my x-wife. But I don't kill her - in spite of my strong belief it would be justified.
Huh.. as it turns out you misquoted the test also... the question was where he should carry out the rape... which of course is an entirely different thing that believe it is ok to rape.
Does the question you see say this (bold added by me)?
"The serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to rape and murder prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions."
It asks if he was justified in his belief, not his rape.
I believe the world would be much better off without my x-wife. But I don't kill her - in spite of my strong belief it would be justified.
Yikes. That's an entirely different issue that I'll just steer clear of.
Originally Posted by Abookamongstthemany
The loch ness monster question got me...because I think it is reasonable to believe in a god without evidence even though I don't, personally. If there is a god, her methods of creation could very well be beyond our ability to comprehend. The loch ness monster is supposed to be of this earth, correct?
me too, that was the one trip up for me as well. personally, i still fail to see the contradiction. i think it's certainly 'logical' to not believe in something w/o evidence of existence.....but i don't think it wrong to believe in something based on 'faith'.....so dunno.
me too, that was the one trip up for me as well. personally, i still fail to see the contradiction. i think it's certainly 'logical' to not believe in something w/o evidence of existence.....but i don't think it wrong to believe in something based on 'faith'.....so dunno.
The contradiction comes from the standard of belief. For most people who get this contradiction the reason is because you say it's ok to believe in God based on faith, but not the Loch Ness monster. So the person who doesn't believe in the Loch Ness monster, to you, is rational, but the person who doesn't believe in God, to you, is faithful.
The contradiction comes from the standard of belief. For most people who get this contradiction the reason is because you say it's ok to believe in God based on faith, but not the Loch Ness monster. So the person who doesn't believe in the Loch Ness monster, to you, is rational, but the person who doesn't believe in God, to you, is faithful.
actually, i didn't read it in that way at all. i think the way each question was worded threw me off. b/c one i think was asking is it logical to not believe in the loch ness monster without evidence...and i said 'yes'. doesn't mean ithat i don't believe one can believe in it based on faith alone....it didn't ask that. yet, the question in regards to atheiests was worded differently, moreso on faith...so to me, comparing the 2 questions was deceiving as i differentiate between the language used....thus seemed, no contradiction. whateva.
personally, i think belief in ANYthing with lack of evidence is both logical...and an act of faith on the believer's part.
personally, i think belief in ANYthing with lack of evidence is both logical...and an act of faith on the believer's part.
Unfortunately, that creates a logical contradiction because technically you could then "logically" believe in God and disbelieve in God at the same time, based on the standard above. That violates the law of identity.
Unfortunately, that creates a logical contradiction because technically you could then "logically" believe in God and disbelieve in God at the same time, based on the standard above. That violates the law of identity.
not in my mind...who said anything about doing it simultaneously? all i said is on the one hand, sure, it's logical to disbelieve in something w/o any evidence. however, someone else may choose to believe in that very same thing due to faith. i wasn't saying both at the sme time. merely meant, god, or the loch ness monster....either process works for both in my mind...logically disbelieving due to lack of evidence OR believing based on faith. to ME, the quiz asked the questions in a way like they were different, and to me, it's the same. if they worded both questions in regards to loch ness or god in the same manner...i don't think any 'contradictions' would've been evident...b/c to me, i still don't see my answers as contradictory. so either it's my own warped sense, or how the questions were worded, my interpretation, or a bit of all...who knows?
perhaps i worded it poorly and should've said:
personally, i think belief in ANYthing with lack of evidence is both logical for the non-believer...and an act of faith on the believer's part, not mutually exclusive.
I am mistaken, nature isn't random, my apologies... that's why the single sperm that fertilized that one egg was the only spermatozoan released...
You think sperm is evidence that nature is random? I think you're accepting the term "random" as a rejection of the concept that nature is "predestined". Nature is neither random nor predestined. Nature simply exists and its form is altered over time based on its laws and the interactions of entities within it.
That single sperm fertilized that one egg because both had attributes that supported fertilization.
Did logic exist before Aritstotle?
Logic was born on whatever day man first understood himself, his surroundings, and the separation between them.
For something to be logical, it must be consistent within a set of premises. These premises are not set in stone, and might give different logics if altered. An example from bookreading here. I like reading imaginative books in the sf/fantasy vein. The settings and worlds are often not logical according to our own true world, but the plot may develop logically, given the new premises of these worlds. So although the plot in itself would be illogical to our experienced standards, it may very well be logical according to it's own premises, for instance presence of timetravel, hyperspace, and above lightspeed engines. At least the really good fiction does that.
Logic does not equal truth, but is a way of reasoning by which one can determine the quality and truth/falsity of statements given that the set of premises that builds under the logic is true. A bit like math really, just with propositions.
Just thought I'd embellish, as your answer seemed a bit on the short side.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Who said consistency was something to be achieved?
Nature.
I agree with what Laz is alluding to here: it is perfectly valid to look at life through the context wherein inconsistency is perfectly acceptable, and merely the state of "what is". Considering it is 100% natural and "what is" it is therefore 100% absolutely valid.
At the same time, I also agree with what farfromglorified is saying: That there is consistency all around us as well. We seem to move towards consistency.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Nature is neither random nor predestined. Nature simply exists and its form is altered over time based on its laws and the interactions of entities within it.
I believe nature is both random and predestined as well as being not random and predestined. And I agree with the rest that you said.
When one learns to comprehend infinity in action, one realises all that ever existed before us, exists all around us right now, and that all that ever will exist exists all around us in the now. While we choose with free will in the now, from a higher sense of awareness, one comes to understand that we're programmed/predestined for such choice--this including our ability to wake up to our programming. When we wake up, we need not be programmed, but we recognise that we are everything all at once and in order to be whole, we must align to that power far beyond our small-ego sense. Upon doing so, we recognise that there is a perfect order and a predestination beyond our individuality, and that predestination includes our individual choice in the moment.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
As much as I'd love to get into this subject, it's almost painful for me to anal-ise over logical details. Seriously. Especially when I'm distracted. I'm still not really getting what you are saying, but I'm going to try to grasp more of what's being said by reading more of the details. Regardless, A != B! (okay, you're a bit right, there is some antagonism in there, but only in the best sense.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
It's cool....it was a poorly worded statement on my part anyways that took a few too many shortcuts.
No, I never said must act in a manner consistent with my beliefs.
However, I may have misread the survey.. if it said is he is right in justifying what he did.. I'd say sure. When I read it, I was thinking that if his belief justifys it then its ok to do it.
I have no problem with what anyone thinks.
Then you don't reject the rapist's actions??? I'm confused now.
cOOL.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The Loch Ness monster is not supposed to be anything, necessarily. It too could be beyond our ability to comprehend.
Huh.. as it turns out you misquoted the test also... the question was where he should carry out the rape... which of course is an entirely different thing that believe it is ok to rape.
I believe the world would be much better off without my x-wife. But I don't kill her - in spite of my strong belief it would be justified.
I s'pose it could...maybe the loch ness monster is god?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Does the question you see say this (bold added by me)?
"The serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to rape and murder prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions."
It asks if he was justified in his belief, not his rape.
Yikes. That's an entirely different issue that I'll just steer clear of.
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/taboo.htm
And also, a morality test:
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/morality_play.htm
interesting. i took both, no idea what to really make of my 'results'......0.08, 0.0 and 0.0. hmmmm.
me too, that was the one trip up for me as well. personally, i still fail to see the contradiction. i think it's certainly 'logical' to not believe in something w/o evidence of existence.....but i don't think it wrong to believe in something based on 'faith'.....so dunno.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
That would be pretty anti-climatic. THERE IS A GOD!!! It's a big lizard. Damn....
The contradiction comes from the standard of belief. For most people who get this contradiction the reason is because you say it's ok to believe in God based on faith, but not the Loch Ness monster. So the person who doesn't believe in the Loch Ness monster, to you, is rational, but the person who doesn't believe in God, to you, is faithful.
actually, i didn't read it in that way at all. i think the way each question was worded threw me off. b/c one i think was asking is it logical to not believe in the loch ness monster without evidence...and i said 'yes'. doesn't mean ithat i don't believe one can believe in it based on faith alone....it didn't ask that. yet, the question in regards to atheiests was worded differently, moreso on faith...so to me, comparing the 2 questions was deceiving as i differentiate between the language used....thus seemed, no contradiction. whateva.
personally, i think belief in ANYthing with lack of evidence is both logical...and an act of faith on the believer's part.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Unfortunately, that creates a logical contradiction because technically you could then "logically" believe in God and disbelieve in God at the same time, based on the standard above. That violates the law of identity.
not in my mind...who said anything about doing it simultaneously? all i said is on the one hand, sure, it's logical to disbelieve in something w/o any evidence. however, someone else may choose to believe in that very same thing due to faith. i wasn't saying both at the sme time. merely meant, god, or the loch ness monster....either process works for both in my mind...logically disbelieving due to lack of evidence OR believing based on faith. to ME, the quiz asked the questions in a way like they were different, and to me, it's the same. if they worded both questions in regards to loch ness or god in the same manner...i don't think any 'contradictions' would've been evident...b/c to me, i still don't see my answers as contradictory. so either it's my own warped sense, or how the questions were worded, my interpretation, or a bit of all...who knows?
perhaps i worded it poorly and should've said:
personally, i think belief in ANYthing with lack of evidence is both logical for the non-believer...and an act of faith on the believer's part, not mutually exclusive.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Nature.
The process by which true is seperated from false.
A=A hence A!=B
The answers are out there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_logic
I thought Nature was random, so I guess it's consistently random?
That which exists, or accurately describes that which exists.
That which does not exist, or inaccurately describes that which exists.
The environment in which we live and all the entites, attributes, and immutable laws that dictate our existence.
You thought wrong. Nature is not random. Aristotle said it best:
"Nature does nothing uselessly"
Did logic exist before Aritstotle?
You think sperm is evidence that nature is random? I think you're accepting the term "random" as a rejection of the concept that nature is "predestined". Nature is neither random nor predestined. Nature simply exists and its form is altered over time based on its laws and the interactions of entities within it.
That single sperm fertilized that one egg because both had attributes that supported fertilization.
Logic was born on whatever day man first understood himself, his surroundings, and the separation between them.
Not necessarily.
Welcome to the board.
lol, thx
Of which that would be an example, surely.
For something to be logical, it must be consistent within a set of premises. These premises are not set in stone, and might give different logics if altered. An example from bookreading here. I like reading imaginative books in the sf/fantasy vein. The settings and worlds are often not logical according to our own true world, but the plot may develop logically, given the new premises of these worlds. So although the plot in itself would be illogical to our experienced standards, it may very well be logical according to it's own premises, for instance presence of timetravel, hyperspace, and above lightspeed engines. At least the really good fiction does that.
Logic does not equal truth, but is a way of reasoning by which one can determine the quality and truth/falsity of statements given that the set of premises that builds under the logic is true. A bit like math really, just with propositions.
Just thought I'd embellish, as your answer seemed a bit on the short side.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I agree with what Laz is alluding to here: it is perfectly valid to look at life through the context wherein inconsistency is perfectly acceptable, and merely the state of "what is". Considering it is 100% natural and "what is" it is therefore 100% absolutely valid.
At the same time, I also agree with what farfromglorified is saying: That there is consistency all around us as well. We seem to move towards consistency.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
When one learns to comprehend infinity in action, one realises all that ever existed before us, exists all around us right now, and that all that ever will exist exists all around us in the now. While we choose with free will in the now, from a higher sense of awareness, one comes to understand that we're programmed/predestined for such choice--this including our ability to wake up to our programming. When we wake up, we need not be programmed, but we recognise that we are everything all at once and in order to be whole, we must align to that power far beyond our small-ego sense. Upon doing so, we recognise that there is a perfect order and a predestination beyond our individuality, and that predestination includes our individual choice in the moment.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!