Beliefs... everyone has them

[Will Due]

15 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Is 'belief' a valid path to truth, or xXxX?

I think we can all agree that 'beliefs' and 'facts' are two entirely different species of animal.

One is based on one's personal desires and wishful thinking; and the other is based in reality.

One doesn't have to 'believe' in gravity to know it is an actuality.  If anyone thinks otherwise, please take an elevator to the roof of the tallest building nearby, step off the edge, and report back to us.

One doesn't 'believe' in the theory of evolution, one either accepts the premise as valid, or one does not. And if one rejects the premise, then THEY have the burden of showing an alternative theory that works WITHOUT relying on magic or imaginary actors.

A belief may be comforting, but in and of itself, a belief cannot prove itself to be true merely by relying on a circular argument ( i.e. "I know the bible is true, because the bible tells me so" ).  OR by assertion ( i.e. "The sky is blue, because it is!" ), or because that was what was taught to you; or the admonition that "everyone knows...."

Some folk believe the Earth to be flat, or hollow, or both, and reject the science that proves them wrong, because "belief..."   Or that the level of melatonin in one's dermis can indicate who is the 'superior' human. Or that what genitalia rests between one's loins, determines who the 'better' gender is.

 

So, the ultimate question is.... Is 'belief' a valid path to truth, or not?

 

That will depend on what you find out about truth, based on the effort you yourself put into its discovery. 

 

 

Edited December 1, 2020 by Will Do

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, Will Do said:

Likewise, how does disproving what someone tells you they believe help you to find out what's true

Huh?  It seems obvious, if one has disproven a proposition then that means they're closer to finding out what is true since they've ruled something out, let alone the exercise of disproving propositions can make one aware of additional information or evidence that they were previously unaware of.

1 hour ago, Will Do said:

when the work of discovering what's true is no one's business but your own?

I have no idea what you are talking about.  Discovering what is true is no one's responsibility but their own, outside of being a pupil in the education system. Whether it's somebody's business is an entirely different question, a question that is irrelevant and moot I think to ask when people are voluntarily posting their thoughts on a board that is mainly for debate, like this one.

And again to my original point, why is it okay when you want to debate or counter what someone believes with your quotes from the UB?  Why doesn't your 'the work of discovering what's true is no business but your own' comment apply to yourself?

[+Hammerclaw]

truth

[tro͞oTH]

 

NOUN

truth (noun) · the truth (noun) · truths (plural noun)

1. the quality or state of being true.

   "he had to accept the truth of her accusation"

   synonyms:

   veracity · truthfulness · verity · sincerity · candor · honesty · genuineness · gospel · gospel truth · accuracy · correctness · rightness · validity · factualness · factuality · authenticity · dinkum oil

   antonyms:

   dishonesty · falsity

   • (the truth)
     that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
     "tell me the truth" · "she found out the truth about him"
     synonyms:

     the fact of the matter · what actually/really happened · the case · so · gospel · gospel truth · God's truth · the honest truth · fact(s) · reality · real life · actuality
     antonyms:

     lies · fiction
   • a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
     "the emergence of scientific truths"
     synonyms:

     fact · verity · certainty · certitude · law · principle
     antonyms:

     lie · falsehood · old wives' tale

 

ORIGIN

Old English trīewth, trēowth ‘faithfulness, constancy’ (see true, -th2).

Truth is an ambiguous term, hardly worthy of scientific notice. People tend to use the word when they are certain about anything.

Edited December 1, 2020 by Hammerclaw

[Will Due]

39 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Huh?  It seems obvious, if one has disproven a proposition then that means they're closer to finding out what is true since they've ruled something out, let alone the exercise of disproving propositions can make one aware of additional information or evidence that they were previously unaware of.

I have no idea what you are talking about.  Discovering what is true is no one's responsibility but their own, outside of being a pupil in the education system. Whether it's somebody's business is an entirely different question, a question that is irrelevant and moot I think to ask when people are voluntarily posting their thoughts on a board that is mainly for debate, like this one.

And again to my original point, why is it okay when you want to debate or counter what someone believes with your quotes from the UB?  Why doesn't your 'the work of discovering what's true is no business but your own' comment apply to yourself?

 

It does.

Which is why I share what I've discovered to be true, with those who are often expressing themselves as being completely skeptical about anything being true who apparently are also unyieldingly inclined to try to take all things faithful, away from those who believe otherwise.

 

 

Edited December 1, 2020 by Will Do

[XenoFish]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

Definition of belief

 

1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thingher belief in Goda belief in democracyI bought the table in the belief that it was an antique.contrary to popular belief

2: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believedan individual's religious or political beliefsespecially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a groupthe beliefs of the Catholic Church

3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidencebelief in the validity of scientific statements.

[XenoFish]

Belief appears to be seen as a negative around here.

[+Liquid Gardens]

4 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Belief appears to be seen as a negative around here.

Not sure why, it's all anybody's got ultimately.  

[Will Due]

9 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Not sure why, it's all anybody's got ultimately.  

 

Which is of course, your negative belief.

 

 

Edited December 1, 2020 by Will Do

[+Liquid Gardens]

2 minutes ago, Will Do said:

Which is of course, your negative belief.

What's negative about it?

[Will Due]

4 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

What's negative about it?

 

That it's all anybody's got. As if there isn't more to it than just mere belief.

 

 

[XenoFish]

29 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Not sure why, it's all anybody's got ultimately.  

True, it just seems that entertaining an "unapproved" belief around here is almost a blasphemy. 

[+Liquid Gardens]

15 minutes ago, Will Do said:

That it's all anybody's got. As if there isn't more to it than just mere belief

You should be careful about adding 'as if' to posts, and keep in mind that 'anybody' includes me.

[+Desertrat56]

7 hours ago, the13bats said:

For some people belief is enough, they dont need to or care about proving their belief to themselves or others they are comfortable in that their belief is truth in and of itself to them,

I imagine that is far more blissful.

I always see it less blissful for those people who won't let go of a belief when all things around them prove it to be incomplete or just plain wrong, instead they suffer because of the cognitive dissonance that they insist on ignoring.   If they have a belief that is never challenged, maybe it is blissful to hang to that belief.  

And most people don't even try to prove a belief, those that do are not attached to the belief, or find that they have betrayed themselves by the attempt at proof.  In that case it either becomes knowing or they give up that belief.  I think that is why  most don't want to bother proving anything, because most of their beliefs are too nebulous and only supported in their minds and they know it.

[+Liquid Gardens]

5 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

True, it just seems that entertaining an "unapproved" belief around here is almost a blasphemy. 

Based on what though?  That people disagree and are better at stating the specifics why they disagree than the proponent is for why they believe?  Why is it okay to entertain a belief but not entertain other beliefs that counter it?  Who gets to approve which beliefs must be treated with these special rules?  Let's face it, 'believers' are no more kind and delicate 'around here' when criticizing science and the 'scientism' they think they see and the narrowness of 'materialism', etc.  What is different is that people who do champion something like science here don't act like it's been blasphemed when criticized and questioned.  

Why the double standards?  In my view because people on average have stronger emotional attachments to their spiritual beliefs than people on average do for scientific findings.  Nothing really wrong with that, not even sure it's voluntary, but what is totally voluntary is posting their beliefs on a forum with 'vs' in the title; they probably shouldn't do that if they can't take criticism or the idea that their claims won't be treated any differently than any other claim.

[XenoFish]

5 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Based on what though?  That people disagree and are better at stating the specifics why they disagree than the proponent is for why they believe?  Why is it okay to entertain a belief but not entertain other beliefs that counter it?  Who gets to approve which beliefs must be treated with these special rules?  Let's face it, 'believers' are no more kind and delicate 'around here' when criticizing science and the 'scientism' they think they see and the narrowness of 'materialism', etc.  What is different is that people who do champion something like science here don't act like it's been blasphemed when criticized and questioned.  

Why the double standards?  In my view because people on average have stronger emotional attachments to their spiritual beliefs than people on average do for scientific findings.  Nothing really wrong with that, not even sure it's voluntary, but what is totally voluntary is posting their beliefs on a forum with 'vs' in the title; they probably shouldn't do that if they can't take criticism or the idea that their claims won't be treated any differently than any other claim.

All ideas should face criticism. At what point should a belief of any kind be seen as harmless/harmful? When does discussion become preaching? 

 

[the13bats]

2 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

I always see it less blissful for those people who won't let go of a belief when all things around them prove it to be incomplete or just plain wrong, instead they suffer because of the cognitive dissonance that they insist on ignoring.   If they have a belief that is never challenged, maybe it is blissful to hang to that belief.  

And most people don't even try to prove a belief, those that do are not attached to the belief, or find that they have betrayed themselves by the attempt at proof.  In that case it either becomes knowing or they give up that belief.  I think that is why  most don't want to bother proving anything, because most of their beliefs are too nebulous and only supported in their minds and they know it.

When i said "blissful" it was how i tend to see dear true believers on here, no matter what is presented nothing sways their belief when all they have is  belief,

i ask for proof and its almost a blasphemy, they have their proof its their belief and they dont need to prove that belief to anyone, which is true however if its being discussed in an open forum then a person asking for proof isnt kicking your dog, excuses are fine but dont try to blame the person asking for proof because you dont have any,

So then going on what you said they should accept at the very least their belief is only supported in their own mind, i see nothing wrong with that.

I can respect a person believes something but if they want me to believe it too they need to show me some proof.

 

[XenoFish]

6 minutes ago, the13bats said:

When i said "blissful" it was how i tend to see dear true believers on here, no matter what is presented nothing sways their belief when all they have is  belief,

i ask for proof and its almost a blasphemy, they have their proof its their belief and they dont need to prove that belief to anyone, which is true however if its being discussed in an open forum then a person asking for proof isnt kicking your dog, excuses are fine but dont try to blame the person asking for proof because you dont have any,

So then going on what you said they should accept at the very least their belief is only supported in their own mind, i see nothing wrong with that.

I can respect a person believes something but if they want me to believe it too they need to show me some proof.

 

Isn't that a problem though, you know full well that no amount of proof will change your mind. You're just as adamant about your non-belief as they their belief. So asking for proof simply doesn't work. 

[+Desertrat56]

14 minutes ago, the13bats said:

When i said "blissful" it was how i tend to see dear true believers on here, no matter what is presented nothing sways their belief when all they have is  belief,

i ask for proof and its almost a blasphemy, they have their proof its their belief and they dont need to prove that belief to anyone, which is true however if its being discussed in an open forum then a person asking for proof isnt kicking your dog, excuses are fine but dont try to blame the person asking for proof because you dont have any,

So then going on what you said they should accept at the very least their belief is only supported in their own mind, i see nothing wrong with that.

I can respect a person believes something but if they want me to believe it too they need to show me some proof.

 

When the response is emotional I think that is based on cognitive dissonance, not bliss.   If they were blissful there would not be an emotional reaction to someone who expresses a different belief.

[the13bats]

4 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Belief appears to be seen as a negative around here.

 

4 hours ago, XenoFish said:

True, it just seems that entertaining an "unapproved" belief around here is almost a blasphemy. 

I sure have seen you take that stance when a person is posting about their beliefs, ive seen you shread people on here.

3 hours ago, XenoFish said:

All ideas should face criticism. At what point should a belief of any kind be seen as harmless/harmful? When does discussion become preaching? 

 

The answers to those question can and do vary person to person. For me its not to hard to determine if a persons belief is harmful to themselves or others, if a person believes  and tells Jim he needs a phychic over an M.D. for what could be a serious medical symptom, yeah, thats harmful.

Is "preaching" bad or all that different to discussing? As far as when does open discussion on a free forum become "preaching?" Ive seen some pretty die hard folks try to make their case on here seems for the most part things run their course and die out,

 

31 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Isn't that a problem though, you know full well that no amount of proof will change your mind. You're just as adamant about your non-belief as they their belief. So asking for proof simply doesn't work. 

You seem to have stepped back from where you used to come from have your magic powers returned?

No, you are mistaken in your judgement of me what i ask of a person that very much could prove many unproven things to me the fact that hasnt happened yet isnt some flaw in me,  its not about "amount" of proof but no, stories and claims will never prove anything to me.

 The problem isnt believers present mountains of proof only to be scoffed at that its not enough they present basically nothing ( past stories and claims )

 

[XenoFish]

Just now, the13bats said:

 

I sure have seen you take that stance when a person is posting about their beliefs, ive seen you shread people on here.

Thing change and sometimes people do as well. 

The answers to those question can and do vary person to person. For me its not to hard to determine if a persons belief is harmful to themselves or others, if a person believes  and tells Jim he needs a phychic over an M.D. for what could be a serious medical symptom, yeah, thats harmful.

Any debate needs to be weighed from "does this produce a negative outcome" position. 

Is "preaching" bad or all that different to discussing? As far as when does open discussion on a free forum become "preaching?" Ive seen some pretty die hard folks try to make their case on here seems for the most part things run their course and die out,

It depends on the person and what they're preaching. You have on one side the adamant dis-believer and on the other side the adamant believer, in the middle are those who can discuss. The other two just argue. 

You seem to have stepped back from where you used to come from have your magic powers returned?

New reality tunnel. One that I enjoy and the results of which leave me free from depression. You got a problem with that? I weigh things out a lot more recently and make a choice to either partake or not. Most of the discussion on here are really not worth my time effort and energy. 

No, you are mistaken in your judgement of me what i ask of a person that very much could prove many unproven things to me the fact that hasnt happened yet isnt some flaw in me,  its not about "amount" of proof but no, stories and claims will never prove anything to me.

You know full well that you'll never get satisfactory proof. Same goes for me, so why ask for something that never happens. When it does it's often half *****.

 The problem isnt believers present mountains of proof only to be scoffed at that its not enough they present basically nothing ( past stories and claims )

So nothing has changed. 

 

 

[the13bats]

34 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

When the response is emotional I think that is based on cognitive dissonance, not bliss.   If they were blissful there would not be an emotional reaction to someone who expresses a different belief.

Likely so, i sure do not have any personal or emotional involvement in forum discussions but i sure have seen some people get cross to the point of making threats of harm to a person who wouldnt believe their stories and claims with no proof so yes, you are right it is very emotional to them, however, in my way of thinking if they were confidant in their beliefs then others opinions wouldnt matter to them,

I will rethink my use of "bliss"

[XenoFish]

How often do we get a claim of "I saw a ghost", then almost instantly see someone demand a video. If a video is proved then that is easier to discuss. When someone states they believe in ghost, do we really ask them why? Why they believe? Seems the normal thing around here is to basically stomp that belief into the ground. I know, I was very good at it. Look, I'll be very clear. Bad advice is bad advice, feeding people's delusion is bad advice. 

I have my own collection of paranormal experiences and events that I will never talk about opening. Very few know of them. I have my own beliefs too, some of which are not "approved" by the forum and 13bats, it's due to the same mocking tone you used is why myself and I suspect others quit talking. 

 

[Grim Reaper 6]

12 hours ago, XenoFish said:

I think it comes down to fear or self-doubt. Where they can't discuss a particular belief, but instead attack it. Wanting their own reality tunnel to be the dominate one. That's the problem with dominate beliefs, they're almost always never good. You get a pack mentality of collective idiots who think the same, say the same, do the same, and it all goes to hell. Damn you if you're one who has a different opinion. 

Yes when I was teaching during my Military Career, I use to make certain that my students under stood one simple fact. If everyone, and I mean everyone agrees on any subject and they start giving the affirmative head nods signaling their agreement they are not really agreeing with anything at all. At that point they have actually stopped thinking about the subject at hand, and their so called agreement is detrimental to the discussion at hand. There is nothing worst that can happen when you are brain storming any situation, when those involved always agree on everything.  It fact disagreement on these type of subjects will only make the final solution and out come more favorable. Simply because you have examined the problem from all sides, which can only give you a very clear view of how to tackle and solve the problem by the most effective and expedient  methods possible!!

JIMO

[Grim Reaper 6]

48 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

How often do we get a claim of "I saw a ghost", then almost instantly see someone demand a video. If a video is proved then that is easier to discuss. When someone states they believe in ghost, do we really ask them why? Why they believe? Seems the normal thing around here is to basically stomp that belief into the ground. I know, I was very good at it. Look, I'll be very clear. Bad advice is bad advice, feeding people's delusion is bad advice. 

I have my own collection of paranormal experiences and events that I will never talk about opening. Very few know of them. I have my own beliefs too, some of which are not "approved" by the forum and 13bats, it's due to the same mocking tone you used is why myself and I suspect others quit talking. 

 

[Jodie.Lynne]

22 hours ago, DebDandelion said:

Very interesting, question for me would be how the person came to their belief. For it is the path to the belief that could be altered, not the belief itself. If one could alter the path that lead to that belief (and if they are willing to accept said alteration) one can change the belief. 

I cannot state with 100% assurance that the majority of people are taught their beliefs, but I think that is the general evolution of belief.

Parents indoctrinate their children in their own faith ( regarding religion ), and the children who accept these beliefs then pass it on to their children, so on down the line. And people of like minded beliefs tend to cluster, so that an echo chamber is created, where everyone shares the same beliefs/values & opinions, to the point where those beliefs/values & opinions become the "normal & correct" ones to have.

In other areas of "belief" the same effect is observed. Whether it is political, racial, cultural, or gender/sexuality, one's thoughts on these matters is most often formed from those around one.   And it is a strong individual who can examine the beliefs they have been taught and reject them if they feel that those beliefs are incorrect, or do not fit their own needs, or do not match their own observations of the world around them.