Thus you can simply view belief in God as a way of maintaining a model of desired behavior.
That doesn't work. Prisons are full of religious people.
A Manual for Creating Atheists by Peter Boghossian
by cofty 188 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Night Owl
Why do you care that people believe in God?
It's actually a strange question on a forum for people who have had their families, friendships and careers destroyed by people who order their lives around superstitions.
It is not a strange question.
You just don't want to honestly answer it.
Look, you just want to be right, and you want to control those who you say are controlled.
You are not all knowing, so you don't really know whether God exists or not.
You might get lucky and live for 90 or 100 years, but what the hell does one person know in 100 years? Knowledge from the beginning of time, encompassing all things seen and unseen?
You, sir, and all who think like you, are to be pitied for your arrogance and your foolishness.
NightOwl
-
never a jw
You, sir, and all who think like you, are to be pitied for your arrogance and your foolishness.
Excuse me... Who is arrogant?
-
cofty
You, sir, and all who think like you, are to be pitied for your arrogance and your foolishness.
Insulted while I sleep hahaha
Encouraging people to embrace reason and evidence, to think rationaly and give up superstitions is not arrogant. It is the basis of all the progress we have have made in the past few centuries. It is a very long time since theism contributed anythin useful to the world; it has had it's day and its' time for it to become a private vice.
Nobody is forcing anybody to give up their faith. Most people will continue to value superstitious beliefs regardless of evidence to the contrary. There are many people who are unaware of the sort of issues we discuss here.
-
bohm
SBF:
I'm waiting for the manual for creating perspectivists to come out.
I can do that!
How to become a philosopher of perspectivist: A manual.
By David Bohm
Chapter 1:
Say you encounter an argument. It might be your kid who ask you "Daddy is there a monster under my bed?", on the way to the airport when your wife ask you: "Honey I just had the most awfull thought, did you remember to turn off the gas this morning?", if you are on jury duty and the judge ask you if you can find the criminal guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It can in fact be any situation, whethere big or small, in your job or in your private life, urgent or not where you encounter anything concrete whether as a question or a statement. To become a perspectivist you should simply reply:
"There are no facts only interpretations".
Say for instance you overhear a public debate on holocaust denialism, the most important thing to make clear to people is it is not a fact Hitler did anything bad or good, thats just an interpretation!
Or if as part of your job as a psychologist you encounter a patient recounting the horrors she went through as a victim of sexual abuse in her childhood and her constant feeling she might carry some guilt. Whats important to make clear in such a situation is there are different interpretations of the events, hers, the perpetrators and, say, that of a small furry rodent. In some she is a victim, in some she is not, and in others we are all big talking carrots. Repeating this point again and again is the important job taken up by perspectivism.
The beauty of perspectivism is it require no knowledge, no ability to aquire information about a given topic, no ability to think critically, no risk of ever being wrong and no pesky need to ever change your mind. Heck, if you can copy-paste it does not even require the ability to talk.
People who live under the tyrany of facts must accept there are people who know more and have a more informed oppinion than them on any topic. Not so for the perspectivist! Do you have an oppinion on quantum mechanics? on the perspectivist view, you are doing as well intellectually as Richard Feynmann, Edward Witten and the average pet turtle. Why clutter up the beautiful simplicity of simply accepting you are right with facts?
Some people might not understand right away the wisdom of saying the same thing again and again. Just tell them thats their interpretation and tell them they are living under a tyrany of facts; eventually they will shake their head in disbelief, call you an idiot and walk away --- keep in mind you are now entirely justified in your perspective of this event: they have accepted the cogency of the perspectivist philosophy and think you are a great guy!
END OF BOOK
-
2+2=5
That was beautiful bohm. Never stop questioning the nature of reality.
But that is only your perspective of perspectivists. It doesn't really count for anything. You need to look at it from a different perspective.
-
cofty
Bohm - If the forum had a like button...
-
bohm
2+2=5:
But that is only your perspective of perspectivists.
As SBF sayes, its a fact there is no facts only perspectives!
you are not allowed to apply perspectivism critically to the foundations of perspectivism!!! Accept or I will ask you how this conversation looks like to a pet turtle or someone who refuse to use words with their ordinary meaning. Be warned; if you cannot answer those questions it is INSTAWIN for perspectivism!
STFU and be happy you are being told you cannot have facts because learned men with serious philosophical titles has thought the issue over really hard from their offices and have arrived at that conclusion!!! Or thats at least what i took away from that youtube video I once saw on the topic..
-
cofty
As Sam Harris said, If somebody doesn't value evidence what evidence are you going to bring to convince them otherwise? The conversation is over.
Try telling the relativists that though.
-
bohm
Cofty: Exactly!
If I sat in my office and thought really hard about bumblebees and finally arrived at the conclusion bumblebees could not fly, people would emediately tell me there was something I didnt know about bumblebees or flying because its fairly obvious bumblebees do fly and my arguments, no matter how hard they would be to pick apart, would no convince anyone.
I see absolutely no reason why the arguments for why we can know nothing could should not be dismissed imediately upon observing we do know a whole lot of things. Its right back to the way people did philosophy back in the dark ages.