How consistent are your beliefs?

1246789

Comments

  • angelica
    angelica Posts: 6,038
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    angelica wrote:
    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.
  • Abuskedti
    Abuskedti Posts: 1,917
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.

    I have no problem with what anyone thinks.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abuskedti wrote:
    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.

    I have no problem with what anyone thinks.

    cOOL.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    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.
  • Abuskedti
    Abuskedti Posts: 1,917
    Abuskedti wrote:
    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.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    The Loch Ness monster is not supposed to be anything, necessarily. It too could be beyond our ability to comprehend.

    I s'pose it could...maybe the loch ness monster is god?
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abuskedti wrote:
    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.
  • decides2dream
    decides2dream Posts: 14,977
    The taboo thingy:
    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.

    abookamongstthemany wrote:
    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.
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    I s'pose it could...maybe the loch ness monster is god?

    That would be pretty anti-climatic. THERE IS A GOD!!! It's a big lizard. Damn....
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    decides2dream wrote:
    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.
  • decides2dream
    decides2dream Posts: 14,977
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    decides2dream wrote:
    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.
  • decides2dream
    decides2dream Posts: 14,977
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • Laz
    Laz Posts: 118
    Who said consistency was something to be achieved? Or even logic, what is logic? What makes it logical? These are the real questions...
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Laz wrote:
    Who said consistency was something to be achieved?

    Nature.
    Or even logic, what is logic?

    The process by which true is seperated from false.
    What makes it logical?

    A=A hence A!=B
    These are the real questions...

    The answers are out there:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_logic
  • Laz
    Laz Posts: 118
    What is true? What is false? What is 'Nature?'

    I thought Nature was random, so I guess it's consistently random?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Laz wrote:
    What is true?

    That which exists, or accurately describes that which exists.
    What is false?

    That which does not exist, or inaccurately describes that which exists.
    What is 'Nature?'

    The environment in which we live and all the entites, attributes, and immutable laws that dictate our existence.
    I thought Nature was random, so I guess it's consistently random?

    You thought wrong. Nature is not random. Aristotle said it best:

    "Nature does nothing uselessly"
  • Laz
    Laz Posts: 118
    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...

    Did logic exist before Aritstotle?

Categories