Personal beliefs are wrong and dangerous.

[BUDDY]

What's the point? Why can't you let people believe what they want to believe?

It's wrong and dangerous to believe what you want to believe. We should strive to believe what's true, weather we like it or not.

I came back from a long hiatus and checked out the latest in the evolution vs. creation debate, when I saw this little exchange. I wish to start a new debate thread because I believe that this is an incredibly relavant and important topic that I want to shead some light on.

I have a real big problem with the second statement. I disagree with the idea that personal beliefs are wrong. There is nothing wrong about having your own personal belief. It may be based on incorrect information or no information at all. It may an interpretation of evidence which you do not agree with. Either way, to deny someone their own belief is fascist and I have a big problem with it. I think it incredible how people on the left (and yes, Seynori is far left) can accuse others of so many things, and yet so easily get away with this. I challenge Synori to come and explain this statement. Are you saying that personal beliefs should be forbidden if they conflict with what you or someone else deem is right? Whose personal truth or belief should be followed if all others are wrong and dangerous?

Please explain yourself.

 

[tomspug]

That's like saying that someone is wrong for being themselves! How can you NOT have a personal belief, unless you just choose to follow sheep?

Although I do think that part of his argument could be better interpreted as: "It is wrong and dangerous to believe whatever you want to believe." Although I'm still not sure I agree.

 

[Fluffy]

Heya Buddy,
I guess the first thing that struck me about your post was your use of the word "fascist". It seems that we can advocate a particular moral belief without forcing it onto others. For example, as a vegetarian, I believe eating meat is wrong and advocate a vegetarian diet but I won't snatch meat from your mouth, ask you not to eat it around me or challenge you whenever we go to Burger King. Since our moral beliefs are about what is right, it seems inevitable that at least some of them will cause us to think about what is right for everybody and not just for ourselves. At what point does this become fascism? When we formulate such beliefs? When we express them? When we advocate them? When we force other people to comply with them? I would draw the line somewhere in between advocating and enforcing with many exceptions but I don't see why moral beliefs about the way we should think should be treated more harshly than moral beliefs about the way we should act.

Sure moral beliefs about thinking might be wrong or irrational, just like any other belief for that matter, but I don't see why we should reject them because of what they are rather than because of what they assert.

I also agree with Seyorni that it is wrong and dangerous to believe what you want to believe and that striving to find truth is morally right. I wouldn't want to deny somebody their belief but I wouldn't support or make excuses for it either. At the same time, I would advocate what I believe to be right.

As far as personal truth is concerned, there really isn't much difficulty. Yes, perception means that we will get it wrong a lot of the time. But we aren't saying that people are wrong for being wrong. Just that they are wrong for not being bothered that they are wrong. As long as people strive for the truth then we are on the same page, even if we disagree about what the truth is. As soon as people decide that the truth doesn't matter, then we run into difficulty.

 

[eudaimonia]

I have a real big problem with the second statement. I disagree with the idea that personal beliefs are wrong. There is nothing wrong about having your own personal belief. It may be based on incorrect information or no information at all. It may an interpretation of evidence which you do not agree with. Either way, to deny someone their own belief is fascist and I have a big problem with it.

Are you saying that it is good to have false beliefs, and that fascists value the pursuit of truth?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[frg001]

I think both posts are true. We should all be free to believe what we want.
However I do think we should strive to know the truth. And closing your eyes and saying 'not listening' and continuing in your belief of the tooth fairy, wont make it true.

We used to believe that the sun went around the earth, and that the earth is flat, and we now know that is simply not true.
Or a better example...we used to believe the earth was only 6000 years old. We now know that this simply isn't true. Only a few 'not listening' people still cling to that belief.

 

[farfignewton]

I think both posts are true. We should all be free to believe what we want.
However I do think we should strive to know the truth. And closing your eyes and saying 'not listening' and continuing in your belief of the tooth fairy, wont make it true.

We used to believe that the sun went around the earth, and that the earth is flat, and we now know that is simply not true.
Or a better example...we used to believe the earth was only 6000 years old. We now know that this simply isn't true. Only a few 'not listening' people still cling to that belief.

The assumption that what you belive to be true will always be the default people fall back on. Example: you say that it simply isnt true that the earth is less than around 4 billion years old. Well, I say there still isnt simply enough proof to say one way or the other. Yes, there is evidence, speculation, and realy smart people providing convinsing arguments towards that fact, but there is also a written history and linage that would contridict that.

I belive the main point of this entire site would surround truth. Truth is what makes all people do what they do, wether it be percived truth or actual we will never know. How do you prove truth? Even in the sceintific world, there is no such thing as truth. there is speculation towards a theory, based on perspective. There are complicated tests that date things to being billions of years old, but we have no way of knowing how accurate those are until we find something we know with out a doubt is ancient, and has a traceable age already assigned to it. Even then, we would be trusting the people that traced it. People are flawed. Everyone of us.

For anyone to say that a personal belief is wrong, is instantly a hypocrite. That is there Belief. The only thing we have is our beliefs. The belief that the sun will rize in the morning. THe belief that our wifes love us. The belief that gravity will always work the way it has. The beleif that there is something higher than us, wether it be nature or god or whatever. So, to the person who says beliefs are wrong, I ask you to prove any single truth beyond a doubt, with out using perspective to mesure it. If you can do that, you might be smarter than even einstine.

 

[Valjean]

I've got no problem with BUDDY's use of "fascist." It's a real political philosophy, and a real historical fact -- however much we'd like to sweep its fruits under the carpet.

In 1930s Germany this political movement depicted Judaism as the malevolent religion of an inferior human subspecies. This view took root and grew because people wanted to believe it. It was a simple and comfortable explanation for Germany's Weimar ills. Critical analysis of the facts underlying it was not encouraged.

I am not advocating imposing any particular view on anybody. I might be be pleased if more people's beliefs conformed to the weight of the evidence, but if someone chooses to believe fable over fact that's their business.

 

[tomspug]

The fact is that some beliefs ARE dangerous. 9/11, for example. I think most people can agree that what they did was wrong, even though in their warped perspective, it was righteous.

 

[lunamoth]

The fact is that some beliefs ARE dangerous. 9/11, for example. I think most people can agree that what they did was wrong, even though in their warped perspective, it was righteous.

This is part what I was getting at in my other thread.

 

[Random]

No, they're not. That's bulls**t.

So, you don't encourage people to think critically for themselves? Then join the fascists running the world right now.

You don't believe people can decide their own fate? Join the fascists running the world right now.

You think people should only believe what's on the 6 o' clock news, or any other mainstream media? Join the fascists running the world right now.

You want that people should only parrot what their "culture" hands them down? Join the fascists running the world right now.

What's next? Microchips in our bodies and CCTV Big Brother? Join the fascists running the world right now.

Individuation is our only hope. Sounds to me like you've decided against your own...

 

[tomspug]

You're jumping to a conclusion, Random. No one is arguing those things.

Are you saying that there are no beliefs that are dangerous? What about my example of 9/11? Hundreds of thousands of people's lives were decided by a handful of people because of their beliefs. The Nazis (fascists, by the way) are another example of dangerous beliefs.

 

[Random]

You're jumping to a conclusion, Random. No one is arguing those things.

OK.

Are you saying that there are no beliefs that are dangerous?

A belief that the world needs to be destroyed and all life extinguished is a dangerous belief, to people who want life.

What about my example of 9/11? Hundreds of thousands of people's lives were decided by a handful of people because of their beliefs. The Nazis (fascists, by the way) are another example of dangerous beliefs.

Belief is a seed, a potentate. Actions, upon the basis of beliefs, are the fruits. "Ye shall know them by their fruits...", meaning if it has a positive and empowering outcome for as many sentient beings as possible, we can call it good, a good belief. If the opposite, bad.

No?

 

[blackout]

The fact is that some beliefs ARE dangerous. 9/11, for example. I think most people can agree that what they did was wrong, even though in their warped perspective, it was righteous.

Yet some people personally believe they can trust the official stories of their governments/media...
and others of us don't.

 

[Random]

Yet some people personally believe they can trust the official stories of their governments/media...
and others of us don't.

True. I wouldn't call "believing" the official story of 9/11 a consciously aware belief thuogh, more like a subliminal program of the mind. I mean, could anyone take seriously the bulls**t on Fox and CNN about 9/11, in their right mind? Yet there are many who do. I would say that's a dangerous belief; that those who withhold truthful information from you don't see themselves your Masters in their hearts. Know what I mean?

 

[tomspug]

Uh...

No comment on that one, sorry. I'm not touching that.

 

[Random]

Uh...

No comment on that one, sorry. I'm not touching that.

Very wise. :yes:

 

[BUDDY]

I've got no problem with BUDDY's use of "fascist." It's a real political philosophy, and a real historical fact -- however much we'd like to sweep its fruits under the carpet.

In 1930s Germany this political movement depicted Judaism as the malevolent religion of an inferior human subspecies. This view took root and grew because people wanted to believe it. It was a simple and comfortable explanation for Germany's Weimar ills. Critical analysis of the facts underlying it was not encouraged.

I am not advocating imposing any particular view on anybody. I might be be pleased if more people's beliefs conformed to the weight of the evidence, but if someone chooses to believe fable over fact that's their business.

Well, first I wan tto say that I am glad that you are not offended because it was not meant to be offensive. I was simply trying to point out the similatity between your statement and philosophical fascist belief that some ideas, thoughts, books, etc., should be controlled otherside they become dangerous. I probably should have expounded on my use of the term, or not used it at all in order to cut down on any confusion.

Second, I agree that people should strive for truth. However, there will never be consensus on truth in all matters. Especially when it some to the comparison of religion vs. ________ . I mean fill in the blank and religion just isn't going to agree with it in all instances. Heck, most religions don't agree with each other. However, the idea that having contrary beliefs is wrong is still dangerous. In the end this line of thought only leads to having control. If thoughts are dangerous, then they must be controlled. Then you are right back to the idea of philosophical fascism.

So, you still haven;t answered the questions. If beliefs are wrong and dangerous to you, do you believe that they should be controlled. And if so, who should control them and whose beliefs should be followed.

BTW, to the 9/11 conspiracy loonies: Islamic terrorists controlled and coordinated by Al Quaida hijacked airplanes and crashed them into the two towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. I wouldn't say that your beliefs are dangerous or wrong (in the moral sense), but I would say they are dumb and ignorant. I would never say that you don;t have the right to say or believe these things though. I would laugh at you though.

 

[blackout]

Are you saying that there are no beliefs that are dangerous? What about my example of 9/11? Hundreds of thousands of people's lives were decided by a handful of people because of their beliefs. The Nazis (fascists, by the way) are another example of dangerous beliefs.

And the German people believed their state building was burned down by "the enemy".
Look at where blind trust of/belief in their Govt. got the German people...
and the world at large.

 

[Autodidact]

The quote that some are objecting to was:

It's wrong and dangerous to believe what you want to believe. We should strive to believe what's true, weather we like it or not.
There's nothing in it about telling other people what to believe.

What the post says is that we should believe what is true, not what we would like to be true. That seems obvious and uncontroversial to me. Are people here advocating believing whatever we like, whether it's true or not?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

What the post says is that we should believe what is true, not what we would like to be true. That seems obvious and uncontroversial to me. Are people here advocating believing whatever we like, whether it's true or not?

Sometimes.

Belief is a tool that can be useful in navigating this existence we find ourselves in.