How does one "choose" a Belief System?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
BetteTheRed said:
Oh, absolutely good idea for a thread. For me, values over beliefs, I think every time...
Click to expand...
Could be another very worthwhile discussion. I can't pick one over the other because they are so intertwined.

Would I have the same values if I identified as a secular humanist instead of a Christian? I rather think so but never having been a secular humanist, I can't be certain.
 
chansen said:
That idiots need to be coddled and protected because they are a danger to themselves and everyone around them?
Click to expand...
Back to your usual posting style, I see. :devil:

How does denying the existence of time pose a danger to anyone?
 
paradox3 said:
Back to your usual posting style, I see. :devil:

How does denying the existence of time pose a danger to anyone?
Click to expand...

Simple. It furthers the idea that what is true is what you want to be true. It legitimizes the cries of "Fake News!" and other conspiracy theories not based on evidence but on what people suspect is true because they fit their preferred narrative.

And I like my posting style. I don't think it has ever changed, nor do I want to change it. I would say the same things in person, so I see no reason to change my words because of the medium. I do not hide behind anonymity, nor flowery language. If I say something nice to you, it's because I mean it, not because I'm trying to say something nice. I think there is value in that approach.
 
Last edited:
Pavlos Maros said:
Einstein never said time was an illusion. What he actually said was "The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. a huge difference.

And anyways I'm not actually writing this right now and you are not actually reading it. No one is invoking time whatsoever, we are all actually unmoving even our thoughts are. Have you thought how ludicrous that sounds. No wait you can't you're unmoving in thoughts and deeds.

As Chansen said "Time is the most observed thing in the world."
And as said "Time is the label we give to matter in motion." if there is no motion in thought or deed then nothing happens. But some how it does, I wonder why? (sarcasm)
Click to expand...
You seem to be fixated on one quote of Einsteins that he made in a letter to his friend.
He did not believe there was a past, present or future. The dividing line between them is the illusion.
 
Waterfall said:
You seem to be fixated on one quote of Einsteins that he made in a letter to his friend.
He did not believe there was a past, present or future. The dividing line between them is the illusion.
Click to expand...

Just a big slice of time ... that few know much about because of the huge bed of lies that our present control systems are based on ... once believed to be flat with a spherical cover ... vacuum bell curve?

Alas we got sucked into it and know nothing ... and nothing is like love .... mind blown!
 
Pavlos Maros said:
Yet I called no one an idiot here. did I.
Waterfall stated that "some would say, time doesn't exist either." my reaction to that was. "Then they would be idiots." As the old saying goes "if the cap fits, wear it." that is all I was saying. Whomever believes time doesn't exist is an idiot.
Click to expand...

maybe its time to change your attitude or wear that hat yourself,

that is all im saying
 
Not that there would be any idiocy in the social psyche of mankind ...

Now have the people discussing this situation looked about at the spirits of humanity whether positive of negative ... based on the utopian or dystopian nature of that state of mind from particular position of mind ... and elusive ethereal device of nature that some would relate to ad hominem ...

"Personal attack" redirects here. For the policy on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement lists ad hominem as the second lowest type of argument in a disagreement.
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[​

Can one attack a state of mind if such thing is non existent and on the other side of a grand barrier sometimes referred to as a Wahl and other times as a dark veil ... thus homing the Shadow of darker essences ... more of lower nature than psyche ... probably the heart and thus myopic ...

To me it appears like utopia against dystopia ... or one chaos against another uproar or alternate racket!
 
I do believe it is best to propose a whole wack of curios statements than statements of mind ... which obviously we don't know because of the non-existential nature of psyche as it appears such attribute of energy has been driven into negative territory ... lesser domains of abstract?

Yet so many people will state facts directly from a book of legends as identified by some ancient personality of more enlightened character ... related to flying angels and ballistic nature ... folly of psyche or right out of the state of heaven?

Papal sea or warty waters ... non-the-less bumpy ...like the Moiré, or Myra with plenty of Niches and folds ... old lady of Oh's EAN?

Hard statements can disturb because of flat out Eire about them ...

And AD is like overhead ... while hominem is like real people and thus this if way over our capacity to know truth based on observation of the past and heavy dark roués already impressed as Lei NG about ide ... we just don't know! Not even the ancient words ...
 
Last edited:
chansen said:
Simple. It furthers the idea that what is true is what you want to be true. It legitimizes the cries of "Fake News!" and other conspiracy theories not based on evidence but on what people suspect is true because they fit their preferred narrative.
Click to expand...
Someone once told me the easiest way to prove a conspiracy theory is to allege that a conspiracy exists. This comment might have come from @revjohn.

So you are making the slippery slope argument?
 
chansen said:
And I like my posting style. I don't think it has ever changed, nor do I want to change it. I would say the same things in person, so I see no reason to change my words because of the medium. I do not hide behind anonymity, nor flowery language. If I say something nice to you, it's because I mean it, not because I'm trying to say something nice. I think there is value in that approach.
Click to expand...
Agreed that authenticity is something to strive for in a place like this.
 
paradox3 said:
Oh no? The idea that relatively innocuous statements can lead to more outrageous and dangerous ones.
Click to expand...
Well that I understand.

I'm not saying that one leads to the other, because we're already there. They are all the same thing. An argument from a place you want to be true is not an argument at all.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

If anything lead us there, I think the worship of religion is the biggest contributor. The valuation of personal faith above all is very tribal and has contributed to making tribalism a supposed virtue.

Note that I am not saying that personal faith is not valuable. It's the placing of personal faith above that for which we have evidence that is the problem. We know that faith-based anti-gay positions are damaging to LGBTQ youth because we have evidence that it is, but some will still place the faith above the people it harms.

If you like your faith, good for you. If your faith is incompatible with reality, reconsidering reality and maintaining the faith is ridiculous.
 
We're almost back to the original question. I remain puzzled by how you can 'choose' a BS. Either you get some sort of supernatural evidence that convinces only you, or you don't. But even then, how do you ignore reality? The reality that, except anecdotally, and experientially, for some people, not all (there's probably a genetic code for a "god" gene or not, LOL), that there is NO credible evidence for a BS that relies on the existence of a supernatural being, to start with.
 
blackbelt1961 said:
you just nailed it :) born again
Click to expand...

Wasn't Jesus nailed ... by orthodox authority ... that didn't really know a great deal of observations beyond the dark enclosure of the temple ...

Then is the frontal lobe much the same way as well as the occipital, medial and parietal lobes ... as buried parallels of a lesser soul?

Without the psyche would we know any different? Some say all that is needed are the emotional clues ... which however don't pass well as emotions appear to be flighty too ...
 
However the nous is said to be logical fallacy ... even by leaders of nations under so great a stress about their love life ... they can't think ...

Bad Nous bearers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top