If by belief you mean thinking that something is true without sufficient evidence; then I do not believe in anything.
1) Being defensive about you're position in an argument and refusing to defend your point generally means you don't have anything to back up your view (otherwise, you'd say it).
2)I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was merely stating that just because something is possible does not mean that it is worth considering as infinitely many ridiculously unlikely things are possible.
3) I'm not picking a fight, I'm having a debate, it's what intellectuals do in stead. The scientific definition of theory (the one used when evolution is referred to as a theory is not debatable, it's a set definition. It's like trying to debate whether the + sign really means addition.
4) We did not say the same thing. You dismissed the OP's mothers insecurities as normal because everyone has insecurities. While agreed that everyone does indeed have insecurities, I emphasised that the OP's mother had abnormally severe insecurities.
5)You have to explain your beliefs if we're having a debate, that's how it works. If you won't defend a point of view, you probably can't defend it and thus you don't have a good reason to hold that point of view.
6) You stated that you didn't know if applying cannabis to skin would have an effect. I was clarifying that it would not.
7) The definition of psychopath from Google is "A person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior." Firstly there are many people who are not violent, furthermore the word "abnormal" destroys any notion of everyone being psychopathic. (You may, of course, contest this definition)
8) The bible is also not reliable, it is an ancient document whose writers had an agenda and limited knowledge. Hence it is very unlikely to be objective and comprehensive. A reliable source sites it's own sources, employs logical reasoning to draw it's conclusions and remains impartial. An inference from a cave painting is none of these things.
9) The relative position of bodies in space does change, this is true. However this doesn't have any supernatural effect on human life as is maintained by astrology.
I don't have any "beef" with you. I'm trying to debate points rationally. Remember that not all disagreement is conflict. Disagreement is healthy and leads one to refine one's views.
I liked this post better than your first one. This one was less... aggressive. xD
0) By belief, I mean... belief. xD I believe that you do not have to have evidence to believe in something to believe in it, you just do.
For example, someone can throw "evidence" at me all day trying to convince me that aliens to not exist, and I will continue to insist that they are still possibly out there "somewhere".
This is only because of the *logic* that space is too big for us to know everything about, therefore, there are still unknowns out there, including, possibly, aliens.
1) I'm not being defensive... I just don't like debating evolution for... whatever reason. I don't have any logic behind this besides the fact that I do not know enough about the *science* behind it to debate it... and the fact that most debates on evolution tend to devolve (teehee) into a religious debate.
...I don't do religious debates either. xD
So yes, you would be correct in saying I don't have anything to back up a belief in mermaids or evolution. ...but I don't really "believe" in either one. I simply accept the fact that I've never met a mermaid, and I accept the fact that I cannot prove or disprove evolution.
Do either of these things really matter to me? Nope, not really. xD
2) Every unlikely idea still has its own level of consideration. Tiny pink disappearing llama's... not so much as aliens. Aliens have more probability than flying hippos or tiny llama's because there's a LOT of unknown space for them to possibly exist in.
Again, unless I get to shake an alien's hand/paw/etc... I won't give them form or substance or a name... I'll just admit that we DON'T know. We can't know for sure.
3) I said I'm not debating the definition of "theory". I know the definition of "theory" both in a regular sense and the scientific sense.
This number can be marked out, since we've agreed from the start.
4) The severity of her insecurities is debate-able since we don't know enough about her. The OP's definition of her condition could be embellished. It's normal to have trust issues, everyone does. Now if the OP had said she locks herself up in her room and never comes out... that would be a different story.
5) But I don't need a good reason, that's the beautiful insanity of belief. Complete sanity is boring, it holds no imagination... but just a touch of insanity does. You just need to know where to draw the boundaries concerning the two. Insane murderers cannot "properly" draw these boundaries, but true artists and musicians can.
6) "I don't know about...", to me, means "I've never heard of that." That was a communication fail on my part.
7) Contrary to popular belief, Google does not know *everything*. However, Google is posting the "popular" and most widely accepted definition of "psychopath".
These are just examples of the direction this debate could go, we don't have to go here:
"A person suffering from..." So you have to "suffer" while being a psychopath? There cannot be individuals who enjoy their condition?
"...chronic mental disorder..." Now you have to define what a mental disorder is... is it rebellious behavior? Anti-social behavior? Does it pertain to a certain set of "non-logical" beliefs like a certain religion (or lack thereof) or a political belief system? According to modern *practicing* medicine, it could be all of these things. (But my personal beef with modern medicine is another debate for another time... xD )
"...abnormal..." And now we have to define normal. Anyone who's been on this website for long knows how difficult this actually is. Who gets to decide, too? Is it the doctor? The psychopath? The family/spouse? The government?
But my original post on this section was really just a joke. I know not everyone can be defined as a "psychopath". The group of people that ARE defined though, now that is questionable.
8) A cave painting could be the recording of a true event or someone's imaginative drawing... or it could be where a tribe member claimed to have seen a "god" and tried to get the other members to follow his lead because he could communicate with that "god".
*draws a deep breath*
So yes, a cave painting is just as unreliable as the bible, we agree on this.
A reliable source though is almost like a unicorn sighting... very, very rare.
"Own sources." These could be anything, and then you have to dig through each individual source and find out of they are legit or not. This can be difficult to do. :/
"Logical reasoning." Here you have to depend on the logic of one person or a group. Each person thinks his or her logic is the best, when logic is also a malleable thing. There isn't only ONE string of logical ideas, there is not one perfect way of thinking.
Each of ten men thinks he has figured out the best and most logical way to raise a chicken flock and build it's coop. Each of the ten ways fails, for a multitude of reasons. The men then pair into twos, knowing that each of them can pair their successes and failures up to create a better way of raising flocks and building coops. Some fail and some succeed on multiple levels. This pattern of cooperation continues, but perfection can never be achieved. In the end, there are different methods that work and they all have their own pros and cons and the groups of men will always argue about which way is truly right and best.
9) Ah-ha. Communication fail. When I say astrology, I tend to mean ONLY the physical position of planets, not the "supernatural" meanings that astrology puts on them.
10) Your first post was just out of the blue and unexpected, so I'm sorry I appeared to be a little defensive. It felt like a sneak attack almost. xDD
Is it normal to have parents that believe these things?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
If by belief you mean thinking that something is true without sufficient evidence; then I do not believe in anything.
1) Being defensive about you're position in an argument and refusing to defend your point generally means you don't have anything to back up your view (otherwise, you'd say it).
2)I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was merely stating that just because something is possible does not mean that it is worth considering as infinitely many ridiculously unlikely things are possible.
3) I'm not picking a fight, I'm having a debate, it's what intellectuals do in stead. The scientific definition of theory (the one used when evolution is referred to as a theory is not debatable, it's a set definition. It's like trying to debate whether the + sign really means addition.
4) We did not say the same thing. You dismissed the OP's mothers insecurities as normal because everyone has insecurities. While agreed that everyone does indeed have insecurities, I emphasised that the OP's mother had abnormally severe insecurities.
5)You have to explain your beliefs if we're having a debate, that's how it works. If you won't defend a point of view, you probably can't defend it and thus you don't have a good reason to hold that point of view.
6) You stated that you didn't know if applying cannabis to skin would have an effect. I was clarifying that it would not.
7) The definition of psychopath from Google is "A person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior." Firstly there are many people who are not violent, furthermore the word "abnormal" destroys any notion of everyone being psychopathic. (You may, of course, contest this definition)
8) The bible is also not reliable, it is an ancient document whose writers had an agenda and limited knowledge. Hence it is very unlikely to be objective and comprehensive. A reliable source sites it's own sources, employs logical reasoning to draw it's conclusions and remains impartial. An inference from a cave painting is none of these things.
9) The relative position of bodies in space does change, this is true. However this doesn't have any supernatural effect on human life as is maintained by astrology.
I don't have any "beef" with you. I'm trying to debate points rationally. Remember that not all disagreement is conflict. Disagreement is healthy and leads one to refine one's views.
--
MissyLeyneous
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I liked this post better than your first one. This one was less... aggressive. xD
0) By belief, I mean... belief. xD I believe that you do not have to have evidence to believe in something to believe in it, you just do.
For example, someone can throw "evidence" at me all day trying to convince me that aliens to not exist, and I will continue to insist that they are still possibly out there "somewhere".
This is only because of the *logic* that space is too big for us to know everything about, therefore, there are still unknowns out there, including, possibly, aliens.
1) I'm not being defensive... I just don't like debating evolution for... whatever reason. I don't have any logic behind this besides the fact that I do not know enough about the *science* behind it to debate it... and the fact that most debates on evolution tend to devolve (teehee) into a religious debate.
...I don't do religious debates either. xD
So yes, you would be correct in saying I don't have anything to back up a belief in mermaids or evolution. ...but I don't really "believe" in either one. I simply accept the fact that I've never met a mermaid, and I accept the fact that I cannot prove or disprove evolution.
Do either of these things really matter to me? Nope, not really. xD
2) Every unlikely idea still has its own level of consideration. Tiny pink disappearing llama's... not so much as aliens. Aliens have more probability than flying hippos or tiny llama's because there's a LOT of unknown space for them to possibly exist in.
Again, unless I get to shake an alien's hand/paw/etc... I won't give them form or substance or a name... I'll just admit that we DON'T know. We can't know for sure.
3) I said I'm not debating the definition of "theory". I know the definition of "theory" both in a regular sense and the scientific sense.
This number can be marked out, since we've agreed from the start.
4) The severity of her insecurities is debate-able since we don't know enough about her. The OP's definition of her condition could be embellished. It's normal to have trust issues, everyone does. Now if the OP had said she locks herself up in her room and never comes out... that would be a different story.
5) But I don't need a good reason, that's the beautiful insanity of belief. Complete sanity is boring, it holds no imagination... but just a touch of insanity does. You just need to know where to draw the boundaries concerning the two. Insane murderers cannot "properly" draw these boundaries, but true artists and musicians can.
6) "I don't know about...", to me, means "I've never heard of that." That was a communication fail on my part.
7) Contrary to popular belief, Google does not know *everything*. However, Google is posting the "popular" and most widely accepted definition of "psychopath".
These are just examples of the direction this debate could go, we don't have to go here:
"A person suffering from..." So you have to "suffer" while being a psychopath? There cannot be individuals who enjoy their condition?
"...chronic mental disorder..." Now you have to define what a mental disorder is... is it rebellious behavior? Anti-social behavior? Does it pertain to a certain set of "non-logical" beliefs like a certain religion (or lack thereof) or a political belief system? According to modern *practicing* medicine, it could be all of these things. (But my personal beef with modern medicine is another debate for another time... xD )
"...abnormal..." And now we have to define normal. Anyone who's been on this website for long knows how difficult this actually is. Who gets to decide, too? Is it the doctor? The psychopath? The family/spouse? The government?
But my original post on this section was really just a joke. I know not everyone can be defined as a "psychopath". The group of people that ARE defined though, now that is questionable.
8) A cave painting could be the recording of a true event or someone's imaginative drawing... or it could be where a tribe member claimed to have seen a "god" and tried to get the other members to follow his lead because he could communicate with that "god".
*draws a deep breath*
So yes, a cave painting is just as unreliable as the bible, we agree on this.
A reliable source though is almost like a unicorn sighting... very, very rare.
"Own sources." These could be anything, and then you have to dig through each individual source and find out of they are legit or not. This can be difficult to do. :/
"Logical reasoning." Here you have to depend on the logic of one person or a group. Each person thinks his or her logic is the best, when logic is also a malleable thing. There isn't only ONE string of logical ideas, there is not one perfect way of thinking.
Each of ten men thinks he has figured out the best and most logical way to raise a chicken flock and build it's coop. Each of the ten ways fails, for a multitude of reasons. The men then pair into twos, knowing that each of them can pair their successes and failures up to create a better way of raising flocks and building coops. Some fail and some succeed on multiple levels. This pattern of cooperation continues, but perfection can never be achieved. In the end, there are different methods that work and they all have their own pros and cons and the groups of men will always argue about which way is truly right and best.
9) Ah-ha. Communication fail. When I say astrology, I tend to mean ONLY the physical position of planets, not the "supernatural" meanings that astrology puts on them.
10) Your first post was just out of the blue and unexpected, so I'm sorry I appeared to be a little defensive. It felt like a sneak attack almost. xDD
But yes, I agree. Disagreement is healthy. ^_~