The nature of "Belief"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-09-2016, 06:56 AM
The nature of "Belief"
It's always disturbed me that this whole religion and indeed the vast array of social norms and forms are based on "belief". "Belief" is inherently an unsatisfactory position to ever have on any issue. Even when they are "certain" about their "belief" it's an even bigger problem and can cause a lot of dumb shit to happen or in a gentile scientific environment slow progress.

This scientist was "certain".. I repeat "certain" space was empty and he was wrong..





So this leads to the question: What makes "belief" flawed?

It's inherently prejudiced but often a necessary prejudice based on a choice they may or may not been need to be made.

I will give an analogy to demonstrate. You have two football teams playing a match. People will have varying beliefs on the outcome of the game. Both sides will cite evidence that will prove whether they are right or wrong. Many more won't really be too sure of the outcome and with the fanboys who are "certain" that just about covers the spectrum of believers.

Belief carries inherent "uncertainty". Far,, far less potent than "knowing" something or something that is self evident/observable. I can say based on a weather forecast that it will rain tomorrow and if it doesn't I am mildly surprised or visa versa. It don't mean shit.

What is sincerity of belief in the light of above? Sincerity of choice of belief?

This is why I urge respect and tolerance just for this reason alone. As an atheist I will respect other peoples beliefs because of this line of reasoning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2016, 07:52 AM
RE: The nature of "Belief"
Consider

um... no. I disagree with your post that Mister Krauss thought that space was 'Empty'.

Even with the given that the void between the stars still contains 'Space/time' from which quantum strangeness seems to have free reign. It is interesting that Hawking's radiation is also an accepted hypothesis turned theory.

The thought being that black hole 'evaporate' as the appearance of the quantum particles effectively removes 'mass'/'energy' from the singularity's essence.

I'm sure some one with a far better grounding in Mr Krauss' ideas will be along shortly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
15-09-2016, 08:03 AM
RE: The nature of "Belief"
[Image: a2d0561c470be6647a489a01be0dcfa3.jpg]

"If there's a single thing that life teaches us, it's that wishing doesn't make it so." - Lev Grossman
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Nurse's post
15-09-2016, 10:21 AM (This post was last modified: 15-09-2016 10:25 AM by TheInquisition.)
RE: The nature of "Belief"
(15-09-2016 06:56 AM)ScientificTruth321 Wrote:  I will give an analogy to demonstrate. You have two football teams playing a match. People will have varying beliefs on the outcome of the game. Both sides will cite evidence that will prove whether they are right or wrong. Many more won't really be too sure of the outcome and with the fanboys who are "certain" that just about covers the spectrum of believers.

Your analogy fails, we see adherents of certain beliefs come to this forum all of the time making ridiculous claims without evidence.

If you can't tell the difference between what constitutes evidence that is robust in a scientific sense as opposed to a wild-eyed zealot, then the problem is yours.

We do not owe respect to anyone's beliefs unless they have valid reasons for believing.

I certainly will not respect anyone that makes threats if we don't go along with their mythology.

How many hell threats do we get weekly on this forum? Too many, and everyone of those that make these threats is a clown undeserving of respect.

In another era, these same clowns would've been the ones knocking down your doors to haul you away for being a witch.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2016, 10:33 AM
RE: The nature of "Belief"
(15-09-2016 07:52 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Consider

um... no. I disagree with your post that Mister Krauss thought that space was 'Empty'.

Even with the given that the void between the stars still contains 'Space/time' from which quantum strangeness seems to have free reign. It is interesting that Hawking's radiation is also an accepted hypothesis turned theory.

The thought being that black hole 'evaporate' as the appearance of the quantum particles effectively removes 'mass'/'energy' from the singularity's essence.

I'm sure some one with a far better grounding in Mr Krauss' ideas will be along shortly.

I'll have to look for the interview video but he did say he WAS CERTAIN that space was empty and was proved wrong.

So no
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2016, 10:34 AM
RE: The nature of "Belief"
(15-09-2016 10:21 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(15-09-2016 06:56 AM)ScientificTruth321 Wrote:  I will give an analogy to demonstrate. You have two football teams playing a match. People will have varying beliefs on the outcome of the game. Both sides will cite evidence that will prove whether they are right or wrong. Many more won't really be too sure of the outcome and with the fanboys who are "certain" that just about covers the spectrum of believers.

Your analogy fails, we see adherents of certain beliefs come to this forum all of the time making ridiculous claims without evidence.

If you can't tell the difference between what constitutes evidence that is robust in a scientific sense as opposed to a wild-eyed zealot, then the problem is yours.

We do not owe respect to anyone's beliefs unless they have valid reasons for believing.

I certainly will not respect anyone that makes threats if we don't go along with their mythology.

How many hell threats do we get weekly on this forum? Too many, and everyone of those that make these threats is a clown undeserving of respect.

In another era, these same clowns would've been the ones knocking down your doors to haul you away for being a witch.

I read the first sentence; you don't understand what I am saying. Try again , or not probably.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2016, 12:36 PM
RE: The nature of "Belief"
I think you are confusing the word "belief" with "faith", a belief based on facts is easy to understand. It may not sound right at first to someone who has never heard the information before, I often find myself discussing a new theory with someone who refuses to believe it, they will say "No! I can't believe that!" and I will say "Well I'm not the one asserting this, it's scientists who have concluded years of study and research, you can look it up yourself and then make up your mind."

This happened recently when I read about an Italian study that asserts homophobia is a mental disorder, the person I discussed this with argued it's not a "phobia" and I said we don't have to call it that, we can call it "homosexual anxiety disorder" or whatever, they just wanted to argue.

If your "belief" contradicts facts and evidence than you are relying on faith or just your own concept of reality which can't be demonstrated to exist outside of your own brain to another human being. I mean sure, there is nothing wrong with "believing" dragons exist, even if they are invisible friendly dragons, why should I care? I mean that's kind of strange but if you think these dragons will visit me in my sleep and burn me alive because I said they don't exist that's another issue entirely.

The problem is when people take their personal beliefs and go around shoving them into our laws and schools and casually threaten other people who don't share their beliefs with painful death and endless torture. Yes, it's ok to "believe" whatever the fuck you want, I can't stop you but if you're going to get all up in my face with your myths and fantasies and insist we teach it in schools and pay some kind of tribute to it on our shared government buildings we're gonna have a problem and no, I don't have to respect it anymore at that point.

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like SitaSky's post
15-09-2016, 12:57 PM
RE: The nature of "Belief"
(15-09-2016 12:36 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  I think you are confusing the word "belief" with "faith", a belief based on facts is easy to understand. It may not sound right at first to someone who has never heard the information before, I often find myself discussing a new theory with someone who refuses to believe it, they will say "No! I can't believe that!" and I will say "Well I'm not the one asserting this, it's scientists who have concluded years of study and research, you can look it up yourself and then make up your mind."

I don't think so. Faith is more related to trust and a decision made. More trust in the decision while belief is more trust in probability of outcome which can be based on just about anything including both facts and personal bias.

A scientific truth may nor may not be a belief. If something is based on knowledge it ceases to be a belief. You are correct based on probability that there is levels of belief based on the strength of the evidence and reason. However; if something is still classified as a belief there is room for uncertainty and it cannot be a universally accepted fact.

(15-09-2016 12:36 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  This happened recently when I read about an Italian study that asserts homophobia is a mental disorder, the person I discussed this with argued it's not a "phobia" and I said we don't have to call it that, we can call it "homosexual anxiety disorder" or whatever, they just wanted to argue.

This is being quite vague? Not sure what's it got to do with my post? A person who dislikes homosexuals inherently is commonly called homophobic? I need to see the study before I can comment. Not sure why you brought it up?

(15-09-2016 12:36 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  If your "belief" contradicts facts and evidence than you are relying on faith or just your own concept of reality which can't be demonstrated to exist outside of your own brain to another human being. I mean sure, there is nothing wrong with "believing" dragons exist, even if they are invisible friendly dragons, why should I care? I mean that's kind of strange but if you think these dragons will visit me in my sleep and burn me alive because I said they don't exist that's another issue entirely.

I am not sure what point you are making? It doesn't really address the problems of "belief" I identified other than you make an answer to an imaginary "theist" and use a strawman argument to discredit their belief?


(15-09-2016 12:36 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  The problem is when people take their personal beliefs and go around shoving them into our laws and schools and casually threaten other people who don't share their beliefs with painful death and endless torture. Yes, it's ok to "believe" whatever the fuck you want, I can't stop you but if you're going to get all up in my face with your myths and fantasies and insist we teach it in schools and pay some kind of tribute to it on our shared government buildings we're gonna have a problem and no, I don't have to respect it anymore at that point.

What are our laws and schools beliefs that currently exist based on exactly? What scientific knowledge proves they are correct?

Secondly who are you talking about? You are not addressing what I have said in the OP other than address an imaginary theist position that you are refuting with logical fallacy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2016, 01:27 PM
RE: The nature of "Belief"
(15-09-2016 12:57 PM)ScientificTruth321 Wrote:  I don't think so. Faith is more related to trust and a decision made. More trust in the decision while belief is more trust in probability of outcome which can be based on just about anything including both facts and personal bias.

A belief can be based on faith alone which doesn't require any facts or evidence, it's literally a position based on emotion or values rather than reality. Trust is a strange word to use in this case, it is a decision made on a particular subject which can be influenced by emotions rather than facts, in that case it's still faith based. I can "trust" the sun will come out tomorrow but it's never not come out my whole life so that is a "belief" based on facts while the belief that a God will make the sun come out tomorrow is based on faith.

(15-09-2016 12:57 PM)ScientificTruth321 Wrote:  This is being quite vague? Not sure what's it got to do with my post? A person who dislikes homosexuals inherently is commonly called homophobic? I need to see the study before I can comment. Not sure why you brought it up?

I brought it up because it's an example of a person rejecting a theory based on facts because they "believe" the word "phobia" can only be used to describe a fear based reaction to something, not necessarily a mental disorder like anti-social personality disorder. So the study shows homophobia or the hate towards gay people is a mental disease and they disagreed stating that a "phobia" can only be a fear of gay people, they were disagreeing based on semantics.

(15-09-2016 12:57 PM)ScientificTruth321 Wrote:  I am not sure what point you are making? It doesn't really address the problems of "belief" I identified other than you make an answer to an imaginary "theist" and use a strawman argument to discredit their belief?

You made the point that we should still respect beliefs based on choice, we all have a choice to believe if dragons are real. If someone believes they are real I can respect that but if that belief also requires them to believe I will be punished somehow for not believing then I don't have to respect it anymore, does that make sense? I hope so.

(15-09-2016 12:57 PM)ScientificTruth321 Wrote:  What are our laws and schools beliefs that currently exist based on exactly? What scientific knowledge proves they are correct?

Secondly who are you talking about? You are not addressing what I have said in the OP other than address an imaginary theist position that you are refuting with logical fallacy.

Social science and philosophy is the foundation of our moral law system, they are based on observed realities. Do you think a law against murder is based on facts or faith? Clearly it's a fact murder is wrong, if you can't see that you need get off this forum and go study morality, evolution of social contracts and maybe go get some therapy.

Let me answer your OP:
(15-09-2016 12:57 PM)ScientificTruth321 Wrote:  What makes "belief" flawed? What is sincerity of belief in the light of above? Sincerity of choice of belief?

The word belief isn't flawed by itself, it's a perfectly sensible word. A "belief" can mean many things but it mostly means an opinion on something not always based on facts or reason. I can believe I will have a good day today, nothing wrong with that. Someone can believe I will have a bad day because they prayed to God to smite me. These are both valid beliefs but one is a bit more likely than the other, neither are necessarily flawed if we are only comparing it to the definition of the word "belief".

I also don't mind a sincere belief, until those beliefs start influencing the laws of the land or the land I live in at the moment. I can't accept anything being asserted that is based on a faith belief, I don't "believe" in evolution as a scientific theory, I accept it as a scientific fact that should be taught in schools. I "believe" our society will be better off without religious based laws, do you see the difference here? I think you are confusing basic word usage here.

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SitaSky's post
15-09-2016, 01:28 PM
RE: The nature of "Belief"
(15-09-2016 12:57 PM)ScientificTruth321 Wrote:  Secondly who are you talking about? You are not addressing what I have said in the OP other than address an imaginary theist position that you are refuting with logical fallacy.

Oh the irony... she burns.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Dark Wanderer's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: