A Belief

[sun rise]

Color needs light. And that wasn't what was proposed.

I am not constrained to only respond to the literal question which proposed only two of many alternatives.

 

[LuisDantas]

Would you be willing to give up your current beliefs for "a belief" that would satisfy everyone?

In the terms you put it, probably not. The OP's conception of "beliefs" does not convince me, nor do I think the exception proposed is properly explained either.

I suspect you are extrapolating from a specific, particularly problematic set.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

It is written somewhere that we are born with inaleinable rights, life, liberity and the pusuit of happiness.

And yet it's funny because lots of people don't have rights until it gets confirmed in the legislative/judicial branches. You'd think if it were so obvious, we wouldn't have to go through this all the time.

Since I believe that "life is a rainbow", to propose that one color would satisfy everyone does not make sense to me.

Exactly, though I would call it an ecosystem. Diversity strengthens the population.

The problem with democracy at the moment is that the majority rules and the minority just has to eat it. A real democracy world find a solution that satisfies the whole.

I don't know if satisfying everyone will ever be a thing, but I'll go with maximizing benefit for the maximum number of beings.

We only need put away that which separates us because that's the immediate problem. Its a lot easier for me to think ugly thoughts about you if I don't think of you as family.

Yes. I'm an admirer of schools that use webcams to speak to non US students, or those "magic door" things that let you interact with others.

This kind of technology should be everywhere. Harder to bomb a place if you can see their faces (I hope).

 

[RedDragon94]

Are you more wrong than you are right?

Maybe, I don't know.

Could we get rid of the wrong and right and just learn from each other instead?

I guess you think truth doesn't matter.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Maybe, I don't know.

I guess you think truth doesn't matter.

It's a question based on your last reply.

Can we learn from each other instead of focusing on who is wrong and who is right?

And on that note.... whose or what criteria are you going to use to decide what truth is?

I'm not an "One Truth" person. Not mono-minded so you have to engage in conversation rather than indirect questions.

 

[RedDragon94]

It's a question based on your last reply.

Can we learn from each other instead of focusing on who is wrong and who is right?

You don't care if you learn some B.S.?

And on that note.... whose or what criteria are you going to use to decide what truth is?

I go with what my experience and perception tells me. And on that note... Who are you to tell me I'm wrong?

I'm not an "One Truth" person. Not mono-minded so you have to engage in conversation rather than indirect questions.

Funny. It's almost like I'm trying to give you straight answers and you don't like em, so you say I misdirect questions as a way to deflect from the fact that you're just giving me a scripted answer that I've heard a blu-million times before. Does it get old?

 

[Deeje]

Would you be willing to give up your current beliefs for "a belief" that would satisfy everyone?

No. For the simple reason that the "one belief" that might unite us would be implemented at the expense of any dearly held beliefs that individuals might have that are in opposition to the establishment. To give up your freedom to express your beliefs, is to live under a dictatorship. Do we want to sacrifice everything we are for the sake of an enforced and unhappy unity. The absence of war does not guarantee peace....so the absence of freedom will not guarantee it either IMO. "You can please some of the people some of the time....."

I think your question is a little similar to the proposal that the world could unite under one government. Would the laws of that government secure the freedoms we now see disappearing in the face of some wanting to dictate their "rights" to others under the legal system? Would it mean being carted off to jail for daring to express dissatisfaction with the laws of that government, silencing all opposition? Do we want to live in another Nth Korea?

Looking at the direction that law enforcement is now heading and the escalating state of lawlessness evident in this world.....I see a recipe for disaster looming. Do you?

 

[RedDragon94]

It's a question based on your last reply.

Can we learn from each other instead of focusing on who is wrong and who is right?

And on that note.... whose or what criteria are you going to use to decide what truth is?

I'm not an "One Truth" person. Not mono-minded so you have to engage in conversation rather than indirect questions.

When I say "I don't know" I mean it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Here we go I really should get off this, um, site. Can't have a decent convo.

You don't care if you learn some B.S.?

What? I'm where I'm at today because I decided to learn from others in order to better myself. Now I'm learning that right and wrong views divides me from people who differ. I don't like seeing people as wrong morally. It's not mentally healthy for me so any religion, philosophy, thought pattern, and opinion that advocates One Truth is something I do not touch unless I want to learn from it superficially.

I go with what my experience and perception tells me. And on that note... Who are you to tell me I'm wrong?

I had to look back on if I told you, you were wrong or not. No. I asked a question. I'll rephrase. Can an individual learn from others without focusing on whose right and whose wrong?

The word You in English can also be used as a pronoun for people-in-general not you specifically.

Funny. It's almost like I'm trying to give you straight answers and you don't like em, so you say I misdirect questions as a way to deflect from the fact that you're just giving me a scripted answer that I've heard a blu-million times before. Does it get old?

The conversation didn't go that far, Red. Just tell me directly what you're saying. It sounds like you're getting defensive over nothing.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

When I say "I don't know" I mean it.

You said you didn't know to the first question not the second one. I asked are you more wrong than you are right. You said you don't know. I didn't keep going with it because you said you didn't know.

So, is there another place I'm missing in the past three or four some odd posts you been defensive on?

 

[RedDragon94]

Can an individual learn from others without focusing on whose right and whose wrong?

Yes.

The word You in English can also be used as a pronoun for people-in-general not you specifically.

Oh.

The conversation didn't go that far, Red. Just tell me directly what you're saying. It sounds like you're getting defensive over nothing.

... *Takes a deep breath* *Smiles*... I hate not being able to hear people's voices on here.

What am I saying? I'm saying that what I think the OP is trying to say is that we should just not care and be complacent about the things we believe. Basically, just change your view in order to ultimately blend in. Even more than that, commit to a view that is not in line with your convictions.

 

[RedDragon94]

So, is there another place I'm missing in the past three or four some odd posts you been defensive on?

No, I just reacted like I always do with people... I'm sorry. The debate seemed to be taking a personal turn.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

... *Takes a deep breath* *Smiles*... I hate not being able to hear people's voices on here.

Yeah. You should see my (edit) contorted facial expressions when people in general jump to conclusions because we can't hear each other's voices, as if my computer screen did something wrong. Plus, I'm a bit slow.

What am I saying? I'm saying that what I think the OP is trying to say is that we should just not care and be complacent about the things we believe. Basically, just change your view in order to ultimately blend in. Even more than that, commit to a view that is not in line with your convictions.

Oooohhh. Yeah, that's basically a universalist position. I'd see it more giving up our individuality to believe as a whole. It's not something I'd do; but, if that's what the OP means, I can see why it makes sense to some people.

 

[sayak83]

Please reread, there is no mention of anything pre-existing.

For a person to assess the good and bad of a belief, it has to exist as a set of propositions and claims in the first place.. with which one can compare with one's current belief. So the question is simple... does every person find this new belief more satisfactory to them personally than their previous beliefs or not?

 

[sayak83]

I don't think so. Let me see.



It's a universalist question.

Would a person be satisfied with his own belief or would each person give up their individual belief in order for us to have one belief we are all satisfied with?

Would we give up our individuality to be satisfied with one belief that satisfies the whole?

The OP is basically asking about individual sacrifice for the benefit of the whole. Not many people will compromise their beliefs for the whole because they think they are "giving in" to other people rather than keeping their individuality. Others, like myself, feel we don't need one belief that we are all satisfied with but keep our own beliefs that that individual person or community benefits from regardless if others agree or disagree.

If all people agree, I don't see anything wrong with having one belief. Since human nature doesn't work by unity and one-belief view, it makes no sense to expect that but the question makes sense if one is willing to come from their comfort zone to think about compromising their individuality for the benefit of universalism.

It's a "out of one's comfort zone" question. You see on this thread people already got defensive. Not many people can think outside the box and still stay in it at the same time.

Unless the OP corrects me, that's what I got out of it.

It's in that sense that I said No initially as well. I can appreciate another person's belief without believing it myself. Diversity of beliefs and individual uniqueness is a good thing in my opinion. It's the intolerance to such diversity that's the problem.

 

[Pudding]

It is written somewhere that we are born with inaleinable rights, life, liberity and the pusuit of happiness. Of course, where you are born makes it either harder or easier to be aware of these rights and to exercise them.

Okay.

Now as long as you have those that have and those that don't (ying/yang),

Do you mean to say: "Now as long as there is those people who have inalienable rights and those people who don't have"?

there will be actions and reactions as a result of interactions

There will be what actions and what reactions as a result of what interactions?

some of which will effect some poeple who have and are aware of their rights so they naturally will look for solutions to prevent these actions from reaching them.

Please elaborate the actions which you say will effect some people who have and are aware of their rights.

First solution and the current one, arm yourself. War machines and soldiers, and for the local front police. Now if you are intelligent you can see that this solution can only lead to a line being drawn in the sand.

Now the point for this preamble; it appears all these beliefs, essentially divids us, (thus making each responsible for enforcing the current solution) and are the core of the problem (uniqueness can't live next to uniqueness, unlike the eagle, uniqueness needs its space).

What beliefs are you referring to when you say it essentially divide us?

Eagle don't need its space?

Would you be willing to give up your current beliefs for "a belief" that would satisfy everyone?

I have many beliefs, which one of my current beliefs are you referring to in your question?

Please elaborate the belief which you say would satisfy everyone otherwise it's too vague.

 

[Geoff-Allen]

Would you be willing to give up your current beliefs for "a belief" that would satisfy everyone?

People are just too diverse to all be simultaneously satisfied - no mater what the belief.

Even better to evolve beyond the need for any "belief"

 

[Tmac]

Of course not,it wouldn't suit individuals but at least you can have a voice.

A voice that isn't heard, no thanks.

 

[Tmac]

Okay.


Do you mean to say: "Now as long as there is those people who have inalienable rights and those people who don't have"?


There will be what actions and what reactions as a result of what interactions?


Please elaborate the actions which you say will effect some people who have and are aware of their rights.




What beliefs are you referring to when you say it essentially divide us?

Eagle don't need its space?


I have many beliefs, which one of my current beliefs are you referring to in your question?

Please elaborate the belief which you say would satisfy everyone otherwise it's too vague.

Well pudding, it seems to me that you really understood my whole post so lets do this piece by piece. You got the first sentence, I think, by your response "okay", the second one kind of gave you a little problem but it appears as though you figured it out. Now the third sentence seems to be confusing and its probably because there is no specific answer, it was a take your pick from all the problems in the world that you could relate with, maybe there are none in your life. Enough for now, questions

 

[Tmac]

People are just too diverse to all be simultaneously satisfied - no mater what the belief.

Even better to evolve beyond the need for any "belief"

I'm surprise by your answer, basically a no with trimmings.