5 ms·

Just because those "objective" answers are satisfactory for you does not imply that they are for everybody. Unless of course you consider yourself to be averag

by alyx 18y ago

Just because those "objective" answers are satisfactory for you does not imply that they are for everybody. Unless of course you consider yourself to be average. And thus expect your opinions and thoughts to be similar to those of the masses. I never understand people's problem with the core ideas of religion. So long as nobody tries to convert me, I'm really happy to accept other people's beliefs.

berntb 18y ago
>>Just because those "objective" answers are satisfactory for you does not imply that they are for everybody. ... and we should respect that people believe X because they feel good by believing X, even without serious reasons to think X is true? I can agree so far that it lacks respect to laugh outright at other people, even when they do hilariously stupid things.
- sho 18y ago
  "I can agree so far that it lacks respect to laugh outright at other people, even when they do hilariously stupid things." Mere laughter is disrespectful and immature, but pointing out the stupidity of their actions and the absurdity of their core beliefs is right and necessary. I would strongly criticise parents who refuse to vaccinate their children based upon unproven New Age beliefs. How is religion any different?
  - berntb 18y ago
    I don't disagree. I thought my irony was obvious.
- alyx 18y ago
  Without getting too philosophical ... I personally believe that I am in no position to ultimately judge what someone else believes. For me to label what someone believes as "stupid", would be quite odd as that would imply that I am the ultimate authority on the subject. I can disagree but ultimately my opinion and beliefs are of no more accuracy than that of the fellow. You see?
  - berntb 18y ago
    I seem to see that you argue that all opinions are equal and proof and facts doesn't matter. (My determination to not laugh is sorely, sorely tested...)
  - gnaritas 18y ago
    > I personally believe that I am in no position to ultimately judge what someone else believes. Really? If you met someone who walked around insisting that the earth was flat, despite all evidence to the contrary, you wouldn't openly question that belief? > I can disagree but ultimately my opinion and beliefs are of no more accuracy than that of the fellow. There exists objective facts, and when those facts are on your side, then your opinions and beliefs are more accurate than the other fellows. This idea that all our beliefs are equally valid is just absurd. Some peoples beliefs really are just stupid.
- anamax 18y ago
  > and we should respect that people believe X because they feel good by believing X, even without serious reasons to think X is true? Yes. Why? Because everyone has such beliefs so harshing on folks who have them is like harshing on people because they have heads. What? You think that you don't have such beliefs? Back when I was into being a serious jerk, I loved finding folks who thought like that because it didn't take much to find their "religion" and then I got to go to town.
  - berntb 18y ago
    Oh please, talk about mixing apples and moons. (I assume you thought I follow some other stupid ideology when you wrote that post.) There might be some things I hold for true on an emotional level, like that the sun will rise tomorrow, even if behind clouds. (see Hume and induction proofs, for instance). The difference is that there are very few, if any, things I really connect to my own self image in a hard way. This means that I can list facts and possible events that will change my opinion. That is, my opinions are testable.
    - anamax 18y ago
      > (I assume you thought I follow some other stupid ideology when you wrote that post.) > The difference is that there are very few, if any, things I really connect to my own self image in a hard way. > This means that I can list facts and possible events that will change my opinion. That is, my opinions are testable. Like I said, I've played this game many times before. It starts with statements like the above. And, if it goes through "but those are the only ones", I've always been able to come up with another. I'm not a mind-reader, so I don't know what your "religions" are, but I'd start looking around the "difference" claim.
      - berntb 18y ago
        I don't know you so I'm not going to call you a liar, but I've discussed religion quite a bit ... and your claim is new to me. I am certain lots of my opinions are wrong, I have changed them lots of times and I'll change again. What you claim is that there are opinions I have which I can't handle changing. I say "bullshit". Hell, vi might be more usable than emacs. Microsoft and other criminal monopolists might not be bad for the world. (I seriously doubt both claims, but they might be true.) If you want credibility here, you need to give some examples, where people don't just shrug and say "my opinion here is a working hypothesis, if I had the energy + time + money I'd test it with X, Y and Z ... and if those tests failed, I'd change opinion". (Note that, as I wrote, I've already discounted ideologies; same garbage as religion for believers. I've also read enough science to believe in the skeptic viewpoint.)

by alyx 18y ago

berntb 18y ago

>>Just because those "objective" answers are satisfactory for you does not imply that they are for everybody. ... and we should respect that people believe X because they feel good by believing X, even without serious reasons to think X is true? I can agree so far that it lacks respect to laugh outright at other people, even when they do hilariously stupid things.

sho 18y ago
"I can agree so far that it lacks respect to laugh outright at other people, even when they do hilariously stupid things." Mere laughter is disrespectful and immature, but pointing out the stupidity of their actions and the absurdity of their core beliefs is right and necessary. I would strongly criticise parents who refuse to vaccinate their children based upon unproven New Age beliefs. How is religion any different?
- berntb 18y ago
  I don't disagree. I thought my irony was obvious.
alyx 18y ago
Without getting too philosophical ... I personally believe that I am in no position to ultimately judge what someone else believes. For me to label what someone believes as "stupid", would be quite odd as that would imply that I am the ultimate authority on the subject. I can disagree but ultimately my opinion and beliefs are of no more accuracy than that of the fellow. You see?
- berntb 18y ago
  I seem to see that you argue that all opinions are equal and proof and facts doesn't matter. (My determination to not laugh is sorely, sorely tested...)
- gnaritas 18y ago
  > I personally believe that I am in no position to ultimately judge what someone else believes. Really? If you met someone who walked around insisting that the earth was flat, despite all evidence to the contrary, you wouldn't openly question that belief? > I can disagree but ultimately my opinion and beliefs are of no more accuracy than that of the fellow. There exists objective facts, and when those facts are on your side, then your opinions and beliefs are more accurate than the other fellows. This idea that all our beliefs are equally valid is just absurd. Some peoples beliefs really are just stupid.
anamax 18y ago
> and we should respect that people believe X because they feel good by believing X, even without serious reasons to think X is true? Yes. Why? Because everyone has such beliefs so harshing on folks who have them is like harshing on people because they have heads. What? You think that you don't have such beliefs? Back when I was into being a serious jerk, I loved finding folks who thought like that because it didn't take much to find their "religion" and then I got to go to town.
- berntb 18y ago
  Oh please, talk about mixing apples and moons. (I assume you thought I follow some other stupid ideology when you wrote that post.) There might be some things I hold for true on an emotional level, like that the sun will rise tomorrow, even if behind clouds. (see Hume and induction proofs, for instance). The difference is that there are very few, if any, things I really connect to my own self image in a hard way. This means that I can list facts and possible events that will change my opinion. That is, my opinions are testable.
  - anamax 18y ago
    > (I assume you thought I follow some other stupid ideology when you wrote that post.) > The difference is that there are very few, if any, things I really connect to my own self image in a hard way. > This means that I can list facts and possible events that will change my opinion. That is, my opinions are testable. Like I said, I've played this game many times before. It starts with statements like the above. And, if it goes through "but those are the only ones", I've always been able to come up with another. I'm not a mind-reader, so I don't know what your "religions" are, but I'd start looking around the "difference" claim.
    - berntb 18y ago
      I don't know you so I'm not going to call you a liar, but I've discussed religion quite a bit ... and your claim is new to me. I am certain lots of my opinions are wrong, I have changed them lots of times and I'll change again. What you claim is that there are opinions I have which I can't handle changing. I say "bullshit". Hell, vi might be more usable than emacs. Microsoft and other criminal monopolists might not be bad for the world. (I seriously doubt both claims, but they might be true.) If you want credibility here, you need to give some examples, where people don't just shrug and say "my opinion here is a working hypothesis, if I had the energy + time + money I'd test it with X, Y and Z ... and if those tests failed, I'd change opinion". (Note that, as I wrote, I've already discounted ideologies; same garbage as religion for believers. I've also read enough science to believe in the skeptic viewpoint.)