i need more than that if you want further clarification.

I think you are entitled to that belief. I might try to dissuade you, but that is only because I don't want my family to die in a fiery explosion.

How magnanimous of you. Ok, my "huh?" was not of the confusion variety but more of the "saaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyy whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaattttt?" variety. I think I get what you're saying: bad beliefs lead to bad behaviour, which are public, not private, and I guess society therefore has an interest is shaping belief systems and enforce them too? There are obvious dangers there that are well traveled. But maybe I'll let you clarify and see if you were making some more subtle point than that before responding further. I'm open to the fact that you didn't really mean we should live in a totalitarian state.

heh, and you call me magnanimous

First: Magnanimous: showing or suggesting nobility of feeling and generosity of mind.

I was really just sarcastically saying how generous you were being, not talking about hyperbole. And I was actually sincere in saying that I'm sure you were not meaning that you thought we should live in a totalitarian state. Because if I read your post properly, that's where that type of thinking leads. We can't control people's thoughts. And people have a right to whatever belief they want, no matter how destructive. It's the acting on certain beliefs that is what needs to be curtailed.

But I'm assuming you meant something other than that, hence my post...

what on earth?

i know what the word means. and i used it the same way. eeesh

i never mentioned anything about controlling peoples thoughts. only that its a fallacy to think your thoughts are completely private, and that that somehow ends the conversation. a lot of people will say "whatever, i can believe what i want." and they think that suffices.

but it doesnt. beliefs are public in the sense that they are open to scrutiny from others. if you believe the holocaust never happened, you are opening yourself up to ridicule from me. and there are much more severe consequences, as there should be. this is the only sense i meant when i said beliefs are public.

yeah, you're right! read it too fast!

You have every right to believe that the holocaust never happened. However if you start drumming up people to go kill Jews - that's a problem.

You said that people aren't entitled to certain beliefs. This I disagree with. You have a right to whatever beliefs you want in a free society - no matter how distasteful. What you don't necessarily have is the right to ACT however you want.

the confusion lies here. its not that people aren't entitled to their beliefs. perhaps i spoke loosely. but if you deny the holocaust, or think obama is not a citizen, or any belief, ranging from uncontroversial to insane...you do not have the right to hold the belief as private, completely removed from public discourse.

this isn't a belief issue, or a control issue, its a conversational one. as i said in my last post. people will say "i have a right to my beliefs." and they think that is that, and it ends any and all discussion about the merits of their belief. that is the problem.

Maybe this is all a semantic problem. You have the right to believe that Obama is an alien from the sun. I also have the right to tell you that you are wrong, and a lunatic. Again, the reason that I went to totalitarianism a few posts up is because "right" is basically a political term. You're not using it in the context of "You don have no right to call me a liar, bitch, you don know me, you don know me! Talk to the hand!" When we say you don't have a right to something it means that the state can come in and enforce it.

What I'm thinking that you really mean is; if I see someone that has really noxious beliefs - and they may act on them and it may affect me, or the public, then I have a moral duty to try and change their mind. I would just keep "rights" out of it - leads to confusion.


(Fun edit: 2+2 spell check suggested "ABM" for Obama - message from God?)

correct. i didnt meant it in any political ways.

people don't usually bring it up in reference to politics. its usually in arguments or dialogues where one person feels like their beliefs are being attacked.

there's 2 possible freedoms you could have in regards to beliefs, and the difference is subtle. there's the freedom to believe whatever you want...by fiat. or the freedom to believe whatever you want while still being accountable for those beliefs to other human beings.

conversationally, people tend to equivocate back and forth between the two, thinking that since they have a right to believe something, that they are not obligated to defend such beliefs. this is fallacious though.

to help illustrate the fallacy, think of another right we all assume people have, the right to life. you may have the right to life, but that doesn't then mean you have the right to live however you want. people are accountable to one another. rights are sort of a brute fact that you begin an argument with, but its not an end point. and it certainly doesnt end the conversation.

::

the second bolded part i don't believe however. i dont think its a moral imperative to dissuade people from their false beliefs. you can choose to enter the conversation or not.

hahaha, can i post itt just to say i love this post?

Damn dude, the hypothetical isn't asking you to rethink the creation of the universe and the laws of science.

Do you understand what athiests mean when they say that they don't believe in the existence of god? Yes? Ok great, then you should be able to answer the question?


wow holy ****, these replies are awesome

So what about empathy? Do you have any right now? Do you associate it with god? Do you think you would lose empathy if god did not exist? Do you care whether people suffer? How about if said people were "sinners"?

Loss Tee: Are you implying that your religion is holding you back from doing whatever you please with your life? If so, why would you let religion have this effect on you?

I doubt that i can give an answer that would ever satisfy you - I'm 38 years old - have been a Christian for less than 10 years - In my solo days (as someone not interested in religion either way - but leaning towards agnosticism) - I had empathy - but it was often drowned out by my own selfish nature.

Christianity is the anchor of my life. My foundation / my cornerstone - choose any analogy you like. Having my foundation in Christ makes me a better person - more able to choose empathy for others over my own selfish needs. So - without God - it's not that 'empathy' would disappear - but I believe my ability to choose it / listen to it would be lessened significantly (as I experienced for most of my life).

Yes - I care when people suffer - looking back to my agnostic days - I cared then too - but pretty much hid my head in the sand when faced with people suffering.

If they are sinners or not doesn't have any kind of an effect on me at all (nor does whether they are christians or not) - it's not that I believed people who suffered 'deserved' it somehow




On the contrary - I'm saying that comparing my life as an agnostic - to my life as a Christian - I'm a much happier person now. I like myself much more. I'm much more proud of the person I am - and the decisions I make (most of the time at least - I'm far from perfect).

everyone is a sinner

yes, of course -

I don't know why - but I just took the fact that his sinners was in quotes that it meant something more specific