51 replies to this topic

[KiWi]

But what if that knowledge is simply that you are a powerless pawn and nothing you can do will ever change it?

If I am that powerless, then I would be forced anyway. I must have some power if I am given a choice, or the ones in charge like me for some reason.

Perhaps we exist under some altruistic God?

In either case, I don't know, so until I'm beaten or forced into it, I'll choose to know.

[Shokkou]

You know what's absolutely awful? I'll stick with the Red Pill vs Blue Pill metaphor here. Imagine you have the red pill slipped innocuously into your drink one day. You don't know it's there, you don't understand the significance. You now know a truth. Some time later, maybe you think you've forgotten the truth. Maybe it seems to have lost relevance. Then suddenly you become aware of someone else to whom this truth is extremely relevant and has the potential to save them from a lot of trouble and suffering, only to be forced to watch silently as they choose to take the blue pill. Now you know a truth which could benefit someone you care about in the long term, but you are powerless to reveal it to them without disrespecting their decision to take the blue pill. It is situations like this that make me a hermit.

 

http://tvtropes.org/.../AndIMustScream

[Redezra]

And this is where I take the red pill and ram it down their throat so hard it makes onlookers barf.

 

Knowing the truth when the truth can be known is a responsibility, not a right.

[Shokkou]

Knowing the truth when the truth can be known is a responsibility, not a right.

I wish everyone felt this way, but I also struggle with the responsibility of truth versus the freedom of choice.

[Redezra]

I believe you can choose some things, and you cannot choose others. You can choose which toothpaste you use, you can't choose to kill your loved ones, you can choose your car, you can't choose what a safe speed in a school zone is, you can choose what you believe, you can't choose what's true.

[Shokkou]

I agree, but where is the line drawn with regards to someone choosing to believe something that is untrue or choosing not to believe something that is true? If the consequences are localized to just themselves, and it's just a matter of when they're going to suffer emotional distress that they can hopefully learn from is it right to force them to confront it immediately? (I mean, the specific case is now moot so this is purely an academic question )

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

I have never liked the phrase "choose what to believe."  If it were a choice I would believe in God — it would make for a much simpler, happier world, not to mention a happier me, if all we had to do was follow some arbitrary set of rules to be rewarded with eternal bliss in the afterlife.  But it doesn't work that way.  I go where the evidence leads.  I believe those things that have been shown to be true, and my beliefs can change in the face of new evidence.  If it were a choice the world would not seem nearly so shitty.

[Dre4mwe4ver]

I have never liked the phrase "choose what to believe."  If it were a choice I would believe in God — it would make for a much simpler, happier world, not to mention a happier me, if all we had to do was follow some arbitrary set of rules to be rewarded with eternal bliss in the afterlife.  But it doesn't work that way.  I go where the evidence leads.  I believe those things that have been shown to be true, and my beliefs can change in the face of new evidence.  If it were a choice the world would not seem nearly so shitty.

I think this in itself, is the distinction, though. It's not about whether you chose to believe in simple facts like the fact that the wall that's in my way will disappear if I run faster and don't believe in it. You choose to base your beliefs off of the evidence that exists before you, while others may choose to place their belief in faith. Perhaps, you're right, you have no choice in the matter, and this is simply how you are hardwired to view the world, but there are certainly individuals who hold onto their beliefs so tightly, that even the light of the strongest evidence, they cannot shake those beliefs. It may not be that they are fully ignoring the evidence, but that their interpretation is different. For example, there is no proof of God, and thus, there is no God, or there is no proof there is no God, and thus, there is God. Those are definitive statements that are based, at the end of the day, on the evidence of there being no evidence. So, I mean... :|

If you truly, with all of your heart, chose to not approach the world the way that you do, I'm sure you could manage it. Depending on the degree, some might put you in a padded cell, though, but hey, it's kinda like a B&B as a reward for cracking the code, right?

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

You are conflating belief with faith.  Belief comes from examining the evidence and arriving at a conclusion.  Faith is belief without evidence.  One is rational, the other is not.  I am rational.  I did not choose to be this way, it is simply my nature.  I can no more "choose" to believe something than I can "choose" to be taller or better looking.

[Dre4mwe4ver]

In this context, yes, I'm using them more or less interchangeably. The distinction between the two rests in, as you stated, whether or not it is rational, and to define what is rational and what is not is a very strong statement to make. The line is blurred for me, because I define both to be personal assertions, whether they be based on observational evidence or not. If we are to go by your definition of belief, then, yes, there is no choice in belief because belief must be grounded in fact, and that to believe in something, is for that something to be fact. You say, "if it were a choice, I would believe in God," but your example is "if it were a choice, I would be God," and you are no God (correct me if I'm wrong) and that is how we understand it to be no choice.God

Edited by Dre4mwe4ver, 09 July 2014 - 02:06 PM.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Uh... you lost me there somewhere.  But it seems to me that you are using the "everything's relative" argument that many people of faith fall back on when debating atheists.  This is an ideal argument because there is essentially no way to refute it.  I would argue that you don't need to prove a negative, i.e. you don't have to prove that God doesn't exist.  The onus is on the believer to prove He/She/It (depending on your belief system) does exist.  An analogy can be found in our legal system:  You don't have to prove you're NOT guilty, the state has to prove you ARE.  Now, you might well say that this is a matter of perspective, or world view, and again, there's really no way to argue that.  Which brings us back to square one.

 

What I will say is this:  I long for genuine, scientific evidence of God, or the afterlife, or the supernatural of any sort.  I have looked for a long time.  I have never found any. 

[Haflinger]

Hell, I'd take the blue pill if it just meant I could play drums.

[Dre4mwe4ver]

lol, I lose myself form time to time, too. I'm not using that argument, I'm using it as an example, which is a terrible example of an argument and I'd agree not in itself really a valid argument. But my point (at least I think so) is that your argument rests solely on your definition of belief being accurate.

 

For you, belief equals the product of a conclusion achieved through the analysis of observable evidence. For others, they may not need that evidence to believe, or perhaps their analysis of the same evidence leads them to a different conclusion. You may not be able to change that your belief needs some proof, but the level of evidence considered to be adequate and the quality of interpreting that evidence, varies from person to person, and I would argue, can vary within a single person. In that regard, you may not be in control 100%, but you do have choice.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Hmm.  I guess I disagree with that final statement.  I certainly don't feel like I have a choice.  I cannot imagine saying to myself, "The evidence here is inconclusive, but I am going to choose to believe X."  And, again, if I did do that it would be an act of faith, not belief.  I suppose I am making a "choice" as far as what constitutes sufficient proof, but I feel like my standards are pretty, well, standard.  Heh.

 

There is no way to prove this, but I have always suspected that deep down most religious people have doubts, and that this is why some of them get so upset when the tenets of their faith are challenged.  It's an awfully cold and scary universe out there without a God.

[Dre4mwe4ver]

In that case, I suppose it varies from person to person. I guess things are more set in stone for you. Personally, I know i can be persuaded. I'm not proud of it, but you know, even given the same set of evidence, I know I've lowered my standards before, or changed my point of view based simply by viewing things from a different perspective. Maybe I'm just weak minded and less resolute with my beliefs. (No, Nas, that's not an invitation to turn me gay.) But I do suppose if you don't feel you have a choice, whether or not you do have a choice, you won't be making those choices, and thus, for all intents and purposes, yeah, you're right, you really don't have a choice.

 

So scary that some opt for more than one as an insurance policy?

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Maybe this guy had the right idea...

 

[Redezra]

Nawwww that film is ruined for me now :< The Egyptians never had Israelite slaves.

[Justavictim82]

I believe you can choose some things, and you cannot choose others. You can choose which toothpaste you use, you can't choose to kill your loved ones, you can choose your car, you can't choose what a safe speed in a school zone is, you can choose what you believe, you can't choose what's true.

 

I understand what you are saying but I choose not to kill my loved ones on a daily basis, sometimes very begrudgingly towards Mrs. Justa.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Nawwww that film is ruined for me now :< The Egyptians never had Israelite slaves.

 

THE BIBLE SAYS OTHERWISE BLASPHEMER!!!

[Redezra]

But the Egyptians were coooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool. And the Bible is poorly translated, you know that.