9 ms·

You don't have to explain your reasoning. My point is predicated on my understanding your reasoning perfectly. And, based on those same estimates of probabilit

You don't have to explain your reasoning. My point is predicated on my understanding your reasoning perfectly. And, based on those same estimates of probabilities, none of us should be here, given what we know so far. It just strikes me as profoundly short-sighted (and unwitting self-parody) for people to claim such assuredness of the falseness of others' beliefs when we all know so very little. In truth, neither of us can prove what we know or don't know in many regards. It matters because it also smacks of the same moral/intellectual high-ground staking that serves to dismiss entire groups of people. Sure, we can claim tolerance, but is real tolerance (i.e. seeing others as equals, respecting their beliefs vs. just allowing that they have them, etc.) truly compatible with one group believing that another is actually insane? The approach you take is materially no different than that taken by those whom attacked Hebdo. And, you both believe your positions to be evidence-based.

tomp 12y ago
> It just strikes me as profoundly short-sighted (and unwitting self-parody) for people to claim such assuredness of the falseness of others' beliefs when we all know so very little. It's the other way around; I ridicule others based on their self-assuredness that their belief is correct (without proof). Discussion of things that probably don't exist (e.g. time travel) or that we don't know whether they exist or not (wormholes) can be perfectly rational and reasonable, as long as all parties fully acknowledge that their knowledge is limited, and abstain from referring to strong, but ultimately unprovable, belief. Discussions about god/religion usually are not like that; in particular, most religions are based on an implicit denial of all other religions/prophets/versions of the truth. > The approach you take is materially no different than that taken by those whom attacked Hebdo. My approach might be philosophically no different, but it is very materially different (I didn't even attack anybody physical (in the material world), let alone kill anyone). > And, you both believe your positions to be evidence-based. No, I just ridicule other's belief when it's not evidence based (which is, essentially, the basis of science).
- unclebucknasty 12y ago
  >I ridicule others based on their self-assuredness that their belief is correct (without proof) The point you're missing is that your basis for proof is flawed. Given that you substantively know so little (if anything) more in the relative sense, you are in no more of a position to require proof than are those with whom you disagree. The other, and perhaps bigger, point is why the need for ridicule in the first place? Even if you possessed the complete set of Universal, Provable Knowledge, is ridicule the right approach to those who do not? Perhaps you would be inclined to understand, teach, etc. In any case, I suspect that if you did possess such knowledge, then you would be less likely to suffer from the glaring insecurities that obviously motivate your current scorn. >My approach might be philosophically no different, but it is very materially different (I didn't even attack anybody physical (in the material world), let alone kill anyone). Actually, a frequently and perhaps most often used definition of "materially" is "substantially" or "considerably". Has nothing to do with the physical world. I suppose it's good that I can "prove" that to you with a dictionary, else be subjected to your ridicule. Still, possessing an attitude of intolerance towards others, then feigning superiority when the intolerance of others plays out in the physical world seems myopic. In either case, I suppose that it is a starting place that you agree that your approach to these issues is not unlike the intolerant approach of those whom attacked Hebdo. Seems that, from here, you would want to explore whether that is wise.
  - tomp 12y ago
    > The other, and perhaps bigger, point is why the need for ridicule in the first place? > Perhaps you would be inclined to understand, teach, etc. What approach do you suggest? Imagine, for a case, that you meet someone that claims to believe in unicorns. Most people would say that person is insane, and there is no point in "teaching" him/her otherwise; if one is so oblivious to the reality as to believe in the existence of unicorns, you probably won't be able to convince him/her otherwise using "conventional" means (words). I simply apply the same reasoning to people who believe in a god. (For the matter of case, I would also apply the same reasoning to someone who blindly believed in e.g. evolution or that the Earth is round - although my default assumption, when I come across such people, is that they have reasons for their beliefs, and could at least outline the method of the proof, and discuss its limits). > I suppose it's good that I can "prove" that to you with a dictionary, else be subjected to your ridicule. Thanks for clarifying that. Still, I think I have a point when I say that my approach is "considerably" different than that of Charlie Hebdo attackers.
Nursie 12y ago
>> And, based on those same estimates of probabilities, none of us should be here, given what we know so far. Heard of the anthropic principle? >> It just strikes me as profoundly short-sighted (and unwitting self-parody) for people to claim such assuredness of the falseness of others' beliefs when we all know so very little. That's kinda the point though, sure we don't know everything, sure I can't disprove your god. But you have no more evidence for it than I do, you've taken the same knowledge base (actually usually less) and built a tissue of wishful thinking and fantasy upon it. I don't agree that tolerance is respecting others beliefs. Respecting their right to have them is fine, but taking a philosophical stand that they're all just as valid is a stretch too far. >> The approach you take is materially no different than that taken by those whom attacked Hebdo. And, you both believe your positions to be evidence-based. Physicists believe their positions to be evidence based. People with paranoid delusions also believe it. Are these the same too?
- unclebucknasty 12y ago
  >Heard of the anthropic principle? Can you conclusively prove that principle with scientific evidence? :) >sure I can't disprove your god. But you have no more evidence for it than I do There's evidence that some consider compelling and others do not. But, my bigger point is regarding the need to ridicule. Why is that? If you don't believe it, then just don't believe it. >I don't agree that tolerance is respecting others beliefs. Tolerance is not just "allowing" people to believe something, then thinking them insane or idiots and treating them as such. >taking a philosophical stand that they're all just as valid is a stretch too far. But, you can't prove that they are not equally valid or even that religious beliefs are inconsistent with scientific evidence in many cases. EDIT: You may find this interesting: http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568 http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingl... /EDIT >Physicists believe their positions to be evidence based. People with paranoid delusions also believe it. Are these the same too? Philosophically? Maybe. But, that's not what we're talking about.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Tolerance is not just "allowing" people to believe something, then thinking them insane or idiots and treating them as such. "Treating them as such", maybe not; it certainly can include thinking that certain beliefs are insane. I'd say, in its best forms, it doesn't include dismissing out-of-hand everything from followers of a particular belief system because you believe some elements of that belief system are insane, though.

tomp 12y ago

> It just strikes me as profoundly short-sighted (and unwitting self-parody) for people to claim such assuredness of the falseness of others' beliefs when we all know so very little. It's the other way around; I ridicule others based on their self-assuredness that their belief is correct (without proof). Discussion of things that probably don't exist (e.g. time travel) or that we don't know whether they exist or not (wormholes) can be perfectly rational and reasonable, as long as all parties fully acknowledge that their knowledge is limited, and abstain from referring to strong, but ultimately unprovable, belief. Discussions about god/religion usually are not like that; in particular, most religions are based on an implicit denial of all other religions/prophets/versions of the truth. > The approach you take is materially no different than that taken by those whom attacked Hebdo. My approach might be philosophically no different, but it is very materially different (I didn't even attack anybody physical (in the material world), let alone kill anyone). > And, you both believe your positions to be evidence-based. No, I just ridicule other's belief when it's not evidence based (which is, essentially, the basis of science).

unclebucknasty 12y ago
>I ridicule others based on their self-assuredness that their belief is correct (without proof) The point you're missing is that your basis for proof is flawed. Given that you substantively know so little (if anything) more in the relative sense, you are in no more of a position to require proof than are those with whom you disagree. The other, and perhaps bigger, point is why the need for ridicule in the first place? Even if you possessed the complete set of Universal, Provable Knowledge, is ridicule the right approach to those who do not? Perhaps you would be inclined to understand, teach, etc. In any case, I suspect that if you did possess such knowledge, then you would be less likely to suffer from the glaring insecurities that obviously motivate your current scorn. >My approach might be philosophically no different, but it is very materially different (I didn't even attack anybody physical (in the material world), let alone kill anyone). Actually, a frequently and perhaps most often used definition of "materially" is "substantially" or "considerably". Has nothing to do with the physical world. I suppose it's good that I can "prove" that to you with a dictionary, else be subjected to your ridicule. Still, possessing an attitude of intolerance towards others, then feigning superiority when the intolerance of others plays out in the physical world seems myopic. In either case, I suppose that it is a starting place that you agree that your approach to these issues is not unlike the intolerant approach of those whom attacked Hebdo. Seems that, from here, you would want to explore whether that is wise.
- tomp 12y ago
  > The other, and perhaps bigger, point is why the need for ridicule in the first place? > Perhaps you would be inclined to understand, teach, etc. What approach do you suggest? Imagine, for a case, that you meet someone that claims to believe in unicorns. Most people would say that person is insane, and there is no point in "teaching" him/her otherwise; if one is so oblivious to the reality as to believe in the existence of unicorns, you probably won't be able to convince him/her otherwise using "conventional" means (words). I simply apply the same reasoning to people who believe in a god. (For the matter of case, I would also apply the same reasoning to someone who blindly believed in e.g. evolution or that the Earth is round - although my default assumption, when I come across such people, is that they have reasons for their beliefs, and could at least outline the method of the proof, and discuss its limits). > I suppose it's good that I can "prove" that to you with a dictionary, else be subjected to your ridicule. Thanks for clarifying that. Still, I think I have a point when I say that my approach is "considerably" different than that of Charlie Hebdo attackers.

Nursie 12y ago

>> And, based on those same estimates of probabilities, none of us should be here, given what we know so far. Heard of the anthropic principle? >> It just strikes me as profoundly short-sighted (and unwitting self-parody) for people to claim such assuredness of the falseness of others' beliefs when we all know so very little. That's kinda the point though, sure we don't know everything, sure I can't disprove your god. But you have no more evidence for it than I do, you've taken the same knowledge base (actually usually less) and built a tissue of wishful thinking and fantasy upon it. I don't agree that tolerance is respecting others beliefs. Respecting their right to have them is fine, but taking a philosophical stand that they're all just as valid is a stretch too far. >> The approach you take is materially no different than that taken by those whom attacked Hebdo. And, you both believe your positions to be evidence-based. Physicists believe their positions to be evidence based. People with paranoid delusions also believe it. Are these the same too?

unclebucknasty 12y ago
>Heard of the anthropic principle? Can you conclusively prove that principle with scientific evidence? :) >sure I can't disprove your god. But you have no more evidence for it than I do There's evidence that some consider compelling and others do not. But, my bigger point is regarding the need to ridicule. Why is that? If you don't believe it, then just don't believe it. >I don't agree that tolerance is respecting others beliefs. Tolerance is not just "allowing" people to believe something, then thinking them insane or idiots and treating them as such. >taking a philosophical stand that they're all just as valid is a stretch too far. But, you can't prove that they are not equally valid or even that religious beliefs are inconsistent with scientific evidence in many cases. EDIT: You may find this interesting: http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568 http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingl... /EDIT >Physicists believe their positions to be evidence based. People with paranoid delusions also believe it. Are these the same too? Philosophically? Maybe. But, that's not what we're talking about.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Tolerance is not just "allowing" people to believe something, then thinking them insane or idiots and treating them as such. "Treating them as such", maybe not; it certainly can include thinking that certain beliefs are insane. I'd say, in its best forms, it doesn't include dismissing out-of-hand everything from followers of a particular belief system because you believe some elements of that belief system are insane, though.