Religion

Gelzo

I think most people are just as motivated to do good things whether or not they believe in a god, but I think belief in a god is at least symptomatic of... well I guess it'll sound arrogant, but some lack of willingness to approach some things with reason, which is something I find worrisome especially when it concerns such a large portion of the population.

Also, you don't have to go very far to find examples of people doing bad things and justifying it with their religion. There's also the bit about people imagining they know something about an afterlife and letting it affect their priorities in real life.

Beholderess

Well, this one is certainly not in favour of ignoring reality. But here we run in another problem - people tend to fit new  information, and interpret it in accordance with, already existing belief. Again, this one is  not speaking specifically about religious  belief.

In order for  it to  be  otherwise, one  would  have  to find a  person who somehow reached adulthood as a blank state without  becoming feral. Either that, or break themselves to the point  of  blank state and start from the  beginning.

Often there's a thin line between rationality and rationalizaton. What
you think of as your rational world view can be just a bunch of excuses
for stuff you wanted to do anyway for non-rational reasons.

This, too.

Again, this one agrees  that unwillingness to accept facts and new  information is worrisome, and that  if facts break belief system, then it should go down and  is not worth keeping. All that  this one wanted to say is that it is  nearly impossible for people to be rational all the time, and religion is not much worse than other irrational beliefs people have.

One  thing this one is against is making any sort of exceptions for religion - positive as well as negative.

I've always wondered why people get all excited over whether or not
there is a god. Why does it matter? If people base their beliefs around a
god, and those beliefs lead them to doing good things, then why look a
gift horse in the mouth?

Personally, for this  one  the question of whether there is a god is irrelevant. What  is  relevant for this  one is  whether [particular] god deserves worship. If god is  what this  one  considers good and  just, this one would  use it for inspiration even if he/she/it does not exist. If god is capricious tyrant, this  one  would  not be able  to worship him even if she  knew for sure he exists.

vandro

People use anything to justify bad behavior, religion is just the most apparent.

Gelzo

I don't get it, how can you say that you should abandon a belief system if there are known facts to contradict it, if you can accept your own belief system as irrational?

Beholderess

Because  there is  no clear contradiction. And also because  this one  tries to recognise her own irrational beliefs as such and treat them accordingly - as something  that is only true for her, not as  argument for other people.

Bee

>this one agrees  that unwillingness to accept facts and new  information
is worrisome, and that  if facts break belief system, then it should go
down and  is not worth keeping.

Sometimes what ought to be is worth more than what is.  We owe many of our most important pillars of society to those times that the truth broke first.

You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?

Beholderess

True. But that's the thing - accurate  knowledge  of what is does not have to destroy the idea of what  is ought to be. There is  no contradiction between them.

And yes, there are quite  a lot of things that only became true because people  who  believed in it  made it so.

Gelzo

What becomes true by believing in it, ignoring things that pertain to self-confidence and placebos?

Vivi

This sentence is only true if you believe in it.

Beholderess

Not just by believing, but by  acting to make  it true. Justice. Gender equality. Democracy.

vandro

Those are unarchievable ideals, and going through with them doesn't make them any less useful. Not unlike imperfect logical reasonings.

Gelzo

The sentence is false, here's why.

It makes a claim that if you believe in it, it is true, and if you do not believe in it, it is false.

If I believe it is true, and it is true, there's not yet evidence that contradicts it.

If for some reason I believe it is false and it is false, the sentence is correct. There's a logical paradox there since the sentence can't be true and false at the same time, so the sentence has to be nonsense.

Ugh, dammit, I'm not sure I handled that right.

Gelzo

Now about the believing in justice and goodness makes it true, that's just silly. I can believe that it's wrong to murder, but that doesn't really cause murder to be wrong. What I can do is express my opinion that murder is wrong and motivate society to share that value.

Now, I think trust might be something more applicable here. Sometimes if you show that you expect someone to act immorally or morally, they will do what they know is expected. But there it isn't the belief that changes things, but what you've managed to communicate to them about it, consciously or no.

Bee

>There's a logical paradox there since the sentence can't be true and false at the same time, so the sentence has to be nonsense.

Only if you simultaneously believe said sentence to be true and false at the same time.

glennmagusharvey

> dogma

> Now let me teach you the laws of Chrithihaha.

I read that as "Now let me teach you the laws of Chihuahua."

Also, inb4 karma running over dogma

Bee

Aon!  What are you doing posting on Glenn's account?  :P

Beholderess

I can believe that it's wrong to murder, but that doesn't really cause
murder to be wrong. What I can do is express my opinion that murder is
wrong and motivate society to share that value.

Sure. And why would you do that if you did not believe  murder to be wrong? I'm not saying that belief is all that  necessary to  make such things true.

Gelzo

Okay, so is right and wrong determined? By majority opinion?

Bee

I don't think so, but people bothering to follow it definitely tends to be.

Gelzo

"Only if you simultaneously believe said sentence to be true and false at the same time."

Okay, that's... that's not how it works.

Let's look at it this way. Alice and Bob read a sentence. Alice's opinion makes the sentence claim A from her perspective, and Bob's makes it claim B. If A and B are mutually exclusive, the sentence can't be true.

Bee

Two people holding differing perspectives on a sentence that is by nature subjective are not mutually exclusive.

Technically neither is one person doing the same, but it might make you a bit of a schitzo.  Or at least indecisive.

Gelzo

The sentence made an objective claim, though. And it claims something to be true that can't be.

Okay, you know what? That last post didn't explain things clearly enough, my bad. I'm pretty sure know what my reasoning is, but I'm having a hard time finding the words for it.

Bee

Maybe it's because you're trying to read it as a constant boolean value, when it's more of a ternary operation.

Gelzo

"This sentence is only true if you believe in it."

There's the claim. Let's rephrase it.

"If you believe in the sentence, it is true. If you do not, it is false." 

Those are the two provisions that need to be true in order for the entire sentence to be true. If either is not true, the sentence is as a whole false. With that in mind, we test!

Let's say I believe the sentence is true. That would mean I agree that not believing in it would cause it to be false. But what if I noticed someone else did not believe it was true? Given that I took the sentence's claims to heart, I'd now believe that the other person's nonbelief made the sentence false.

Vivi

Tell me...if something isn't true is it automatically false?

Bee

To them.  Again, you're assuming that their truth value must be equivalent to your own.

Really, I thought you'd have more objection to the usual "if X, this sentence is false" fiasco.

Gelzo

Okay, it might be apparent by now that I'm getting tired and losing the mood to talk about this, but I was talking to some friends who have taken courses in logic and they've more or less reached the conclusion that the statement is a paradox.and is neither true nor false, but it was also mentioned that truth is objective, so the whole point of the thought experiment being brought up would be moot. I'm saving the chat logs so I can go into more detail alter if I feel like it.

Can we get some of those dudes that agree with me in here? It's pretty draining being the only one supporting a side.

The_Edge

Lately, I've decided that I rather worship Odin. He seems like a god I can relate to. Odin didn't create the universe and he never calmed to. He gave up an eye for wisdom and he is just a fallible as a human. Also, he set out to destroy the Ice Giants. Anyone see any Ice Giants lately? End of discussion.