I don't care about "proof."

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;105045 wrote:

Tolerance has limits also, and can be abused. People like retired hack science fiction writers can exploit the tolerance of liberal society to set up evil money-grubbing manipulative pseudo religions and bilk the psychologically insecure out of their money on the promise of spiritual freedom. This is an abuse of tolerance and should be challenged.

Well tolerance works both ways, while it allows people to be bombarded with poison, it also allows then to be bombarded with antidote =)

@weidersenmeier,

I suppose that is true. One of the prices we pay for liberty. (By the way, gravity is a myth: the earth sucks :bigsmile:)

On a more serious note, one of the foundation texts of the idea of pluralism is William James' A Pluralistic Universe.

Quote:

Going against the grain of entrenched philosophy, James argues in A Pluralistic Universe that the world is not a uni-verse but a multi-verse. He honors the human experience of manyness and disconnection (and various kinds of unity) in the world of flux and sensation, a world that is discounted scornfully by the monists. "Pluralistic empiricism," as James called it, permits intellectual freedom, while the artificial concepts of monism do not. It approaches the only reality that has any meaning, one that follows the pattern of daily experience.

@weidersenmeier,

That short piece you gave us suggests to me that book is just documenting something obvious, wich is that we cant trust this world the be the only one.

It also seems like something fantastically rethoric, with the traditional affirmation of that it is "rebel", that people seem to love, and the religions inclination of being the "only reality with any meaning"... =)

@weidersenmeier,

Many people use this site as grounds for conversion to atheism or Christianity. i have also done this also in my thread to the atheists. i apologize for this. this site is for philosophical conversation. not persuasion

:poke-eye:DIE SUKA!

@weidersenmeier,

Simply because certain religion focus on evangelizing. sorry if this may be redundant i didn't read much.

@weidersenmeier,

weidersenmeier;103437 wrote:

As I was browsing the forums, I noticed that just about every other post is about God-bashing God, upholding God, disproving the Atheist theories, proving Christian ideology, etc. Doesn't really matter when they're about, just the concept of everyone thinking they're right just because of their beliefs; just because they were taught something and believe it to be true.

I am agnostic, but I will never say there is absolutely no God. Why? I am a human with a progressing high school education, and on the grand scheme of things, know nothing.

If it is true that you know nothing, then, of course, you ought not say that there is or is not a god.

weidersenmeier;103437 wrote:

Even those older than I am essentially know nothing. You may be intelligent, researched, passionate, or talented, but it doesn't adequately equip you with the means to determine whether or not such a powerfully hypothetical entity such as God exists! Let alone an entire religion. We are only human. There is no way we can thoroughly prove that something like this exists or does not exist.

This does not fit with what you said previously. If you know nothing, then you could not possibly know whether or not it is possible to prove or disprove the existence of god.

Also, you seem confused about something being great requiring greatness to know of its existence. Why would that be the case? In fact, I think it is false, but I am willing to read an argument for your opinion on this.

weidersenmeier;103437 wrote:

Why can't everyone accept that multiple beliefs exist, except the fact that we are all merely human, and be tolerant of everyone? Why is everyone so set on proving what they believe in and disproving what others do?

Because some beliefs are stupid and silly and obnoxious. What people believe affects their actions, and their actions affect others. Consequently, what other people believe is of great significance to your life.

For a detailed discussion of this, and why it is not okay to believe just any thing, see:

The Ethics Of Belief

@Pyrrho,

Pyrrho;149623 wrote:

Because some beliefs are stupid and silly and obnoxious.

For a detailed discussion of this, and why it is not okay to believe just any thing, see:

The Ethics Of Belief

I don't think it is healthy to enter an argument or discussion with the implied motion that you are right and that they are wrong.

@Purplesawdust,

Purplesawdust;150045 wrote:

I don't think it is healthy to enter an argument or discussion with the implied motion that you are right and that they are wrong.

Whenever two people disagree, there is the implication that each thinks him or her self correct and the other person wrong. There is no escaping such facts. And it is silly to pretend otherwise.

In any case, my remarks were simply answering a question from the opening post. There is a good reason to not respect all opinions, because some opinions are better than others, some being so bad as to be worse than worthless. In point of fact, you must follow this idea in your own life, as otherwise you would never think it a better idea to get out of the way of a speeding car than to stand in its way, and any other basic survival idea that you can think of. In other words, NO ONE in the running of their own life really regards all ideas as being equal, or they could never choose to go with one idea rather than another. They would not decide to eat to avoid starvation, as they would not regard that as a better idea than not eating. And this is so obvious, that it would be silly to deny it. So let us not pretend something that everyone knows to be false.

@weidersenmeier,

weidersenmeier;103437 wrote:

As I was browsing the forums, I noticed that just about every other post is about God-bashing God, upholding God, disproving the Atheist theories, proving Christian ideology, etc. Doesn't really matter when they're about, just the concept of everyone thinking they're right just because of their beliefs; just because they were taught something and believe it to be true.

I am agnostic, but I will never say there is absolutely no God. Why? I am a human with a progressing high school education, and on the grand scheme of things, know nothing. Even those older than I am essentially know nothing. You may be intelligent, researched, passionate, or talented, but it doesn't adequately equip you with the means to determine whether or not such a powerfully hypothetical entity such as God exists! Let alone an entire religion. We are only human. There is no way we can thoroughly prove that something like this exists or does not exist.

Quote:

Why can't everyone accept that multiple beliefs exist, except the fact that we are all merely human, and be tolerant of everyone? Why is everyone so set on proving what they believe in and disproving what others do?

TRUTH , TRUTH , TRUTH

@weidersenmeier,

weidersenmeier;103437 wrote:

Why can't everyone accept that multiple beliefs exist, except the fact that we are all merely human, and be tolerant of everyone? Why is everyone so set on proving what they believe in and disproving what others do?

So, if I believe that people who believe the world is flat are wrong, then I am being intolerant of people who believe the world is flat? How could someone who believes that the world is round not believe that those who believe the world is flat are wrong?

I am afraid I am intolerant of the Nazi's who murdered many people. I just cannot help it. I am an intolerant person. But I think that people like you, who are intolerant of people like me, who are intolerant, should, well, stop being intolerant. Don't you? (And, by the way, I think that all those people who thanked you for your post are very intolerant people. They are intolerant of people like me who are intolerant of people like them. What is wrong with them?)

@weidersenmeier,

well their true answers may just a part of a bigger true answer to one question.

@kennethamy,

The absence of proof doesn't equate the absence of existence.
Certain issues are beyond human comprehension, one of which, is the Existence of God.

@Missy B,

Missy B;156147 wrote:

The absence of proof doesn't equate the absence of existence.
Certain issues are beyond human comprehension, one of which, is the Existence of God.

If there should be evidence for X, and there is none, then that is a good reason to believe X does not exist. The question is, how you know that the existence of God is beyond human comprehension. People say that all the time, but I always wonder how they can know such a thing.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;156149 wrote:

If there should be evidence for X, and there is none, then that is a good reason to believe X does not exist.

Lack of evidence might make You believe X doesn't exist but it doesn't confirm that X actually doesn't exist. This is where belief and Knowledge collide again. You cannot prove to me that God doesn't Exist neither can I prove to You [The way You want it] that God Exists. I think I Know He Exists, You think You Know He doesn't, until there's a tangile Proof, convincing beyond all doubts that one of both assumptions is right, we're both dwelling on belief and to me, it's Okay.:cool:

kennethamy;156149 wrote:

The question is, how you know that the existence of God is beyond human comprehension.

It's not rocket science. The Existence of God has been a subject of debate for so long and man is Yet to come to an agreeable conclusion on it. I cannot prove to You that the wind exists but one can only feel its effects. If I feel the effect of the wind, it will be difficult for me to convince You, who haven't felt the effect, that there's something called wind and it's only understandable if You decide to assume there's nothing like wind because You are yet to see a proof.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;104500 wrote:

Yes. I have never understood why I should respect stupid or uninformed opinions. What would the justification for that be?

Agreed. It is very difficult to respect a point of view that dictates you will live in eternal pain (hell) if you do not believe their point of view.
There are many religious points of view that are absurd and torturous, that should not get any respect from anyone including the so-called believers.

@Owen phil,

Now for something completely different: If you where sitting down besides a tree and an apple fell, you would see it fall downwards. But, if you where upside down, the apple would appear to be falling upwards.

All i am saying is that opinions are based on someones perspective on the world they exist. If you lived your entire life on your head, you wouldn't be wrong to say that an apple falls upwards.

How do you know your opinion isn't one of the people who's head is upside down looking as the apple fall? I think this applies to religion in some way...

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;156149 wrote:

If there should be evidence for X, and there is none, then that is a good reason to believe X does not exist. The question is, how you know that the existence of God is beyond human comprehension. People say that all the time, but I always wonder how they can know such a thing.

But god isnt something that would leave evidence, least he wanted.

The existence of god is nothing beyond human comprehension. What there is to comprehend? Either he exists or not. But if he does his mind may be much more advanced to ours, making us unable to understand him.

@Missy B,

Missy B;156380 wrote:

You that the wind exists but one can only feel its effects. If I feel the effect of the wind, it will be difficult for me to convince You, who haven't felt the effect, that there's something called wind and it's only understandable if You decide to assume there's nothing like wind because You are yet to see a proof.

And argument need not convince someone in order to be a sound argument. People may remain unconvinced by an argument that ought to convince them, and that may be for a number of different reasons. It is not the business of an argument to convince anyone. It is the business of an argument to establish its conclusion. It someone is not convinced by a sound argument that is his fault, not the argument's fault. As Samuel Johnson said to someone, "Sir, I can give you an argument, but I cannot give you understanding".

@kennethamy,

Prove to me that you dont care about proof and I'll stop caring about proof aswell.

Philosophy Forum

I don't care about "proof."

Quick Links

My Account

able2know