IS and OUGHT

[Age]

When will 'you', human beings, realize that 'evidence' is NOT 'proof'.

When people need to believe something, they can even find proof in the complete absence of any evidence at all.

There is only one time in Life where one 'needs' to believe (in) some thing. EVERY other time there is NO 'need' to.

The Church puts a much higher value on faith than on evidence.

As "uwot" and 'I' agree, so-called 'evidence' can be twisted around and used to back up and support the 'beliefs' that one is already holding onto, even when the 'beliefs' are in complete contradiction. The duck/rabbit example.

It makes a virtue out of necessity.

What is the 'necessity' exactly, which makes 'faith' a virtue?

[Age]

I am not going to read this whole forum searching for the exact words you have used.

So instead, if you do not agree with what I have written above here, then explain what you have said in regards to what 'rights' you think or believe you do have, in regards to if someone just touches 'your toothpick'.

Wait a minute: you can't back your claim against me with evidence, but you still expect to defend myself against the claim?



Dream on, Age.

*

But i do NOT expect you to defend "yourself". I KNOW, for a fact, that you can NOT.

And you NOT providing ANY thing here, is even MORE evidence and proof that you can NOT.

As my good friend, the absent lacewing, pointed out: I done went over all this about 5,000 times. Not seein' a reason to go over again, with you.

You do NOT see 'a reason' BECAUSE if you even 'tried to' you WOULD end up CONTRADICTING "yourself".

AND, out of ALL of the times you went over this with "lacewing" you ALWAYS FAILED anyway.

You can NOT defend a CONTRADICTORY claim.

Now, I posted sumthin' for Astro Cat, up-thread, that might very well lead she and me to discussn' self-defense. If we do, pay attention. Till then...

LOL

Talk about 'trying to' DEFLECT, ONCE AGAIN.

It is PLAIN OBVIOUS that it is a SELF-CONTRADICTION to claim that there one has a 'right' to life, liberty, and property. BUT, the ONLY WAY to 'enforce', or so-call 'defend' this 'right' is through depriving "another" of their 'right' to their own life, liberty, and/or property.

The CONTRADICTION here is too BLATANTLY OBVIOUS. It is just a pity your OWN 'assumptions' and 'beliefs' are preventing and stopping you from seeing this Fact.

But let us hope "astro cat" decides to discuss 'self-defence' with you, as you claim this will be the ONLY WAY you WILL 'try to' back up and support your assumptions and beliefs here.

[Age]

Read the article

What for, exactly?

It would be just another article, which would change when newer instruments are created and so further knowledge comes-to-light, right?

But, what is irrefutably True can be, and IS, ALREADY KNOWN, by the way.

[Age]

A couple of things to note about that article;

1. As has already been explained the exact same 'evidence' can be interpreted in many different ways. All depending on what one was already assuming or believing is true. So, what the 'interpretations', or so-called 'evidence', within these newer photos, taken with this newer camera, can just be twisted and turned around to 'try to' back up and support one's own already held beliefs and assumptions.

2. Would the "scientific community" even listen to, let alone follow and agree with an article made by the 'institute of art and ideas'?

[Age]

Read the article

If you found absolutely ANY thing in what I wrote that you find to be false, wrong, incorrect, inconsistent, unclear, contradictory, or even in conflict, then just bring 'that' to light for us all to look at 'it' and discuss 'it'.

Then, we might find out, for sure, if what I said was false, wrong, et cetera, or whether I have learnt enough already to be able to better explain my views in a way so that they become fully understood.

But if ANY thing in what I have written and said here, which is construed to be wrong in anyway, is NOT highlighted and exposed, then what is perceived to be wrong can neither be corrected, nor cleared up.

[attofishpi]

Read the article

If you found absolutely ANY thing in what I wrote that you find to be false, wrong, incorrect, inconsistent, unclear, contradictory, or even in conflict, then just bring 'that' to light for us all to look at 'it' and discuss 'it'.

Then, we might find out, for sure, if what I said was false, wrong, et cetera, or whether I have learnt enough already to be able to better explain my views in a way so that they become fully understood.

But if ANY thing in what I have written and said here, which is construed to be wrong in anyway, is NOT highlighted and exposed, then what is perceived to be wrong can neither be corrected, nor cleared up.

Ok. What was extremely interesting in the article was that light loses energy through distance. That the wavelength of light increases over the 'void' of great distance.

Thus, the doppler effect is not key in comprehending what is observed to the extent that of making an assumption that galaxys that are further away are also moving faster away.

I hope that clarifies.

[Harbal]

I suppose that is what I am saying, or at least that people act upon their beliefs as if they were knowledge.

And this is WHY I question those with 'beliefs', 'WHY have or hold 'beliefs' in the beginning?'

After all they only get in the way and prevent and stop thee ACTUAL Truth from being REVEALED.

I am speculating that a propensity for having beliefs that do not have a rational justification is part of our psychological makeup. I find it conceivable that natural selection established this characteristic in us because it reinforces group identity and gives us a reason to interact with each other in a way that benefits the group as a whole. Although this feature of human psychology might seem out of place today, it may have been a great advantage in early, much more primitive, societies.

What 'beliefs' do new born and younger human beings 'invest in'?

WHY would some, supposed, 'innate tendency' to invest in the belief-system, supposedly, 'facilitate social cohesion'?

Babies are a blank slate, and young children will believe just about anything they are told. Children probably don’t actually “invest” in a set of beliefs so much as behave in accordance with the discipline imposed on them by adults. If particular beliefs are constantly reinforced in a child up to a certain age they become very firmly rooted, and capable of holding a dominant position over rationality in adulthood.

We know that there have been man made religious and ritualistic structures since before Stonehenge right up to modern day churches. When people are required to congregate for a common purpose and all sing from the same hymn sheet -so to speak- I can see how that would be conducive to social cohesion. Religion also gives people something to defend and fight for when under threat of attack from outsiders.

I would say the EXACT OPPOSITE could be argued to be True. That is; the DIFFERENT 'beliefs' that adult human beings have and HOLD ONTO is a huge cause of what 'creates or facilitates social conflict, discord, and/or dissension.

But it is only in relatively modern times that people have been allowed to hold varying religious beliefs, and in many parts of the world they are still not at liberty to deviate from the state prescribed religion. The fact that a society that contains differing religious groups tends to have more internal conflict perhaps adds weight to the argument that having only one set of shared beliefs within a given society is socially beneficial.

In the very earliest stages of human beings would there really have been a necessity to believe ANY 'thing'?

And, in the stages of evolution where 'you', posters, here are, what are the 'thing/s', which are 'essential' for 'you' to 'believe'?

For example, what is the 'same thing', which all of the members of the human species, in the days when this is being written, 'believe'?

And, if it was NOT essential for the tribe or society, in the days when this was being written, then WHY was it 'in the past', and at what point did it NOT become essential? Also, if it is an 'innate' tendency to 'invest in' the 'belief-system', then the 'belief-system' would exist ALWAYS, and would ALWAYS be 'needed'.

I am only putting forward a basic proposition here, and it is only my personal view of what might possibly be the case. I can’t answer these questions with any authority whatsoever. I will just make one point, though: It is my understanding that modern human beings are the same animal now (evolutionarily) as they were a couple of hundred thousand years ago. We have come a long way since then in terms of social evolution and acquisition of knowledge, so there are bound to be things in human nature that once served us well but have now become more of a hindrance to us.

[Harbal]

It makes a virtue out of necessity.

What is the 'necessity' exactly, which makes 'faith' a virtue?

Well the church makes lots of claims that go against our everyday experince of reality, so it cannot appeal to logic and reasoning to get people on board. The necessity is to convince people of something that their reason might resist, so in order to persuade people to believe regardless of this, they present faith in the absence of reason as being a great virtue in the eyes of God.

To make a virtue out of necessity is just a saying. It just means to turn a disadvantage into a benefit.

[Dontaskme]

It is my understanding that modern human beings are the same animal now (evolutionarily) as they were a couple of hundred thousand years ago. We have come a long way since then in terms of social evolution and acquisition of knowledge, so there are bound to be things in human nature that once served us well but have now become more of a hindrance to us.

We are animals, and have no more significance than a flatworm within life itself.

We are animals with a difference though, that difference is that we have a benevolent nature because we evolved a consciousness that is present in every living organism but more sophisticated in the human animal which was able to conceptualise the environment in which it has it's being.


Nature is not sacred, that is simply a man-made human concept, it's an artificial idea that's all.

The overall condition of wildlife including our human animal nature is clear evidence that nature is totally unforgiving, merciless, and comprised of all kinds of negative elements. Animals literally have to thrive in life by tearing, ripping, and brutally torturing others just to survive. Something that literally revolves around death, misery, suffering, and pain shouldn't be viewed as some kind of "sacred blessing" .

Life is a BLIND indifferent process happening all by itself, WE ourselves directly, are the only source of anything benevolent that exists in nature and in man-made environments.

Ultimately, this human animal has no more control over it's life as any other living sentient organism has...everything that lives..will ultimately die..because life is impossible unless death happens.

The Religious folks do not seem to be able to accept they are an animal that has a limited life span here on earth...so they invented an immortal self, but that invention was just a BELIEF.....immortality is an illusion.

The Christians try to surpress their animal nature, because it repulses them..it's all about control for them...they are deluded.

[Harbal]

The Religious folks do not seem to be able to accept they are an animal that has a limited life span here on earth...so they invented an immortal self, but that invention was just a BELIEF.....immortality is an illusion.

The Christians try to surpress their animal nature, because it repulses them..it's all about control for them...they are deluded.

Yes, but that in itself is not a reason to condemn them. It is when they tell others what they should believe that condemnation becomes appropriate.

[Belinda]

Harbal wrote:

I am speculating that a propensity for having beliefs that do not have a rational justification is part of our psychological makeup. I find it conceivable that natural selection established this characteristic in us because it reinforces group identity and gives us a reason to interact with each other in a way that benefits the group as a whole. Although this feature of human psychology might seem out of place today, it may have been a great advantage in early, much more primitive, societies.

Rational beliefs are high status beliefs in Europe where the scientific enlightenment happened.

I just been watching on BBC i-Player an interview with Salman Rushdie in which he explained how, as the son of a rich Indian, having been educated at Rugby and originally born and brought up in the largely cosmopolitan and secular society of Bombay, he was rational. However his father told him bedtime stories from the old Indian fantasy tradition, and he feels both Indian and European. (My paraphrase, sorry).

[Harbal]

Rational beliefs are high status beliefs in Europe where the scientific enlightenment happened.

I just been watching on BBC i-Player an interview with Salman Rushdie in which he explained how, as the son of a rich Indian, having been educated at Rugby and originally born and brought up in the largely cosmopolitan and secular society of Bombay, he was rational. However his father told him bedtime stories from the old Indian fantasy tradition, and he feels both Indian and European. (My paraphrase, sorry).

I don't have a TV, but I do have access to Netflix on my computer. The prevalence of films to do with magic and supernatural fantasy is a clear indicator of how attracted people are to this sort of thing.

[Dontaskme]

The Religious folks do not seem to be able to accept they are an animal that has a limited life span here on earth...so they invented an immortal self, but that invention was just a BELIEF.....immortality is an illusion.

The Christians try to surpress their animal nature, because it repulses them..it's all about control for them...they are deluded.

Yes, but that in itself is not a reason to condemn them. It is when they tell others what they should believe that condemnation becomes appropriate.

Condemnation is a belief.


And yes, if we all just drop our beliefs, then the world will be exactly how it is, not how we would like it to be.

[Belinda]

Age wrote:

As "uwot" and 'I' agree, so-called 'evidence' can be twisted around and used to back up and support the 'beliefs' that one is already holding onto, even when the 'beliefs' are in complete contradiction. The duck/rabbit example.

Proper interpretations of evidence take confirmation bias into account.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/confirmation-bias.html

[Harbal]

And yes, if we all just drop our beliefs, then the world will be exactly how it is, not how we would like it to be.

Other than trying to get people to stop hurting each other, I don't see why we need to do anything, or change anything. Reality and illusion can coexist quite happily most of the time. We can rationalise a sunset right down to every partical and photon, but that doesn't prevent us from appreciating how magnificent it looks.