Personal beliefs are wrong and dangerous.

[BUDDY]

I think if you don't care about truth, you probably also don't care about consistency. I will say this to Buddy and other people who don't think truth is important: remind me never to buy a car from you.

The bad thing about on-line debate forums is that many times one cannot tell whether offense has been taken or not. Reading your post the first time makes me think that you are offended. IF so, then you need to not choose to be offended so easily.

I never said that truth was not important. Indeed it is very important and everyone should strive for it. I don't think that it supercedes personal liberty and choice though. That is more important to me than what the majority holds to be true, or even truth itself.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

It's often quite hard to learn the truth, especially with absolute certainty, but we can establish it to varying degrees of certainty, from 1% to 99%, and that makes an important difference, don't you think.

Maybe there's a failure of understanding here. Are people sincerely advocating that the truth is not important? If so, do they consider that statement to be true????

Well, yes you are right.

I never think that ther are people who seriously think that the truth is not important. People can never have a "wrong" truth. Because there is no theory which hasnt been excersised or believed...

Let me just say, im 13 and im nit that intelligent, i did not fully understand you statement, sorry about that

 

[Fluffy]

Yes, it matters, but what is more important to me is that I have the right to believe them regardless of how wrong they may be. You may not like it but everyone has a right to be stupid. I don't think I am stupid, and I don't think that others here are either, but to have that personal liberty I think is most important...even more important than the truth...if we find there to be one on a particular subject.

How did you interpret the quotation in the OP to mean that we should not have the liberty to be stupid?

However, I still disagree that such a right is more important than the truth. Personal liberty is only good if it is true that it is good. Its value is reliant on its truth. If it were in fact true that personal liberty was evil then if you perceived differently, you would be wrong.

 

[Autodidact]

Well two things I think can straighten out your perception of my comment:

1) The truth is not 100% known, only suppositions based on limited evidence, known of which can be tested for similar outcomes, i.e. the origination of the quote, evolution vs. creation debate.

There are other categories besides 100% certainty and having no idea. There is the entire realm of partial certainty, otherwise known as empiricism or science. For example, if you have TB, should you take anti-biotics? We don't know 100% that they work, or how, but we have a pretty confident level of security. Personally, I'd take them, because I think it's TRUE that they work, and it's important that's TRUE.

2) The term wrong used not in the sense of factual inaccuracy, but in the sense of morally or ethically wrong.

If so the OP is quite misleading:

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.

Terms like "evidence" and "interpretation" seem to be about factual accuracy, not morals.

 

[Autodidact]

Do you believe that truth superceeds liberty?

I don't even know what the question means. I guess I'd say that whatever it means, whatever your answer is, you probably think that it's true, and that it makes a difference whether you believe that it's true. You seem to be trying to convince people that it's true that it doesn't matter what's true. If so, it wouldn't matter, would it?

If the answer is yes, then that is much more dangerous. If you truly believe that, then you are basically saying that the moral thing to do would be to control the thoughts and beliefs of others in the name of truth.

Oh please. No one's trying to deny you the right to be wrong, where did you get that? The question is, why would you want to be?

It matter to me, but it doesn't have to matter to anyone else, and I expect that others would disagree with it, otherwise I would not have expected to debate.

I understand. The truth doesn't matter to you. Remind me to pay no attention to anything you say, since the truth doesn't matter to you.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, it matters, but what is more important to me is that I have the right to believe them regardless of how wrong they may be. You may not like it but everyone has a right to be stupid. I don't think I am stupid, and I don't think that others here are either, but to have that personal liberty I think is most important...even more important than the truth...if we find there to be one on a particular subject.

O.K., no problem. You have the right to be as big of a moron as you like.

 

[Autodidact]

The bad thing about on-line debate forums is that many times one cannot tell whether offense has been taken or not. Reading your post the first time makes me think that you are offended. IF so, then you need to not choose to be offended so easily.

No, I'm not offended, I just disagree. This is one of my humorous attempts to get people to see the absurdity of what they're saying, which in itself often manages to offend people.

I never said that truth was not important. Indeed it is very important and everyone should strive for it. I don't think that it supercedes personal liberty and choice though. That is more important to me than what the majority holds to be true, or even truth itself.

I honestly don't think anyone is arguing against your right to be wrong, if you so desire. I think everyone just assumes that you would prefer to be right, and that showing something to be false would be enough to persuade you to stop believing it. (Have I gone through the rabbit hole?)

So you think that the statement, "Liberty supercedes truth," is true then? Do you think that shoud cause people to believe it?

As I recall from undergraduate philosophy courses, it is thought that it is not possible to say and mean, "It's true but I don't believe it."

 

[BUDDY]

How did you interpret the quotation in the OP to mean that we should not have the liberty to be stupid?

However, I still disagree that such a right is more important than the truth. Personal liberty is only good if it is true that it is good. Its value is reliant on its truth. If it were in fact true that personal liberty was evil then if you perceived differently, you would be wrong.

That is certainly your right. We should strive for knowledge of the truth. We are going to disagree on wha is true though and our personal truth will dictate our personal beliefs. IF we both look at the same piece of evidence, and we interpret it into two different things, that does not make us both right. There is still onyl one truth, coorect? So, since there is only one truth, and personal beliefs are dangerous, one of us is dangerous, correct? I mean, that was the quote.

There is only one answer though. There is only one truth. If any other belief besides the one that is true, is dangerous, then you are saying anyone who believes differently than what has been established as the truth, is dangerous. This happens all the time, especially within certain extremists sects of Christianity and a certain Middle Eastern based religion that shall go unnamed because I don't want to get banned. IT is not just within the scientific community that I am trying to point this out.

 

[BUDDY]

There are other categories besides 100% certainty and having no idea. There is the entire realm of partial certainty, otherwise known as empiricism or science. For example, if you have TB, should you take anti-biotics? We don't know 100% that they work, or how, but we have a pretty confident level of security. Personally, I'd take them, because I think it's TRUE that they work, and it's important that's TRUE.

Well no **** Sherlock. If you are sick, you should take medicine. There are some who don't for religious reasons, though. They may be wrong, but they truly believe that they shouldn't. PErsonally, I think they are wrong, but just because I believe that "you should take medicine if you are sick" is a truth, doesn't mean I will take away their right to their belief and their action according to that belief.

 

[BUDDY]

I don't even know what the question means. I guess I'd say that whatever it means, whatever your answer is, you probably think that it's true, and that it makes a difference whether you believe that it's true. You seem to be trying to convince people that it's true that it doesn't matter what's true. If so, it wouldn't matter, would it?

Oh please. No one's trying to deny you the right to be wrong, where did you get that? The question is, why would you want to be?

I understand. The truth doesn't matter to you. Remind me to pay no attention to anything you say, since the truth doesn't matter to you.

Okay, let me put it to you this way.

I can see that you are a lesbian. Very recently the majority of Americans believed that homosexuality was a psychological disease. It was even listed as such in the American Journal of Psychology. It was perceived by most academics to be true. Does that make beliefs to the contrary at that time wrong? What I am saying is that thanks to personal liberty, people had the right to believe what they wanted, and now (as compared to 100 years ago) homosexuality is looked upon in a totally different manner. Why? Because people had a right to continue to investigate on their own, believe on their own, and act upon those believe, regardless of what the mainstream told them was truth.

 

[BUDDY]

O.K., no problem. You have the right to be as big of a moron as you like.

5'11" 193 lbs. I'm kind of big, but there are bigger ones out there.

 

[BUDDY]

No, I'm not offended, I just disagree. This is one of my humorous attempts to get people to see the absurdity of what they're saying, which in itself often manages to offend people.

I honestly don't think anyone is arguing against your right to be wrong, if you so desire. I think everyone just assumes that you would prefer to be right, and that showing something to be false would be enough to persuade you to stop believing it. (Have I gone through the rabbit hole?)

So you think that the statement, "Liberty supercedes truth," is true then? Do you think that shoud cause people to believe it?

As I recall from undergraduate philosophy courses, it is thought that it is not possible to say and mean, "It's true but I don't believe it."

It's not about my right to be right or wrong. It's about my right to have my personal belief based upon whatever I choose to base it on. It is also about your right to disagree because of your differing belief. Not everyone has to be ont he same page, but everyone has the right to be free.

 

[yossarian22]

I don't even know what the question means.

Do you have the right to believe whatever you want, regardless of evidence?

To me, yes, you have the right to be a complete moron.

Anyhow, back to the OP. It is extremely idiotic and dangerous to have a belief which is in direct contradiction to the evidence. Moreso when you begin pushing these beliefs onto others.

 

[Autodidact]

Okay, let me put it to you this way.

I can see that you are a lesbian. Very recently the majority of Americans believed that homosexuality was a psychological disease. It was even listed as such in the American Journal of Psychology. It was perceived by most academics to be true. Does that make beliefs to the contrary at that time wrong? What I am saying is that thanks to personal liberty, people had the right to believe what they wanted, and now (as compared to 100 years ago) homosexuality is looked upon in a totally different manner. Why? Because people had a right to continue to investigate on their own, believe on their own, and act upon those believe, regardless of what the mainstream told them was truth.

I understand what you're getting at, and see that you are sincere. (Actually I consider "sickness" to be kind of a tough example, because the word is ambiguous and abused, but setting that aside.) I would see the whole thing differently. I would say that they were wrong, that is, they were saying things that are not true, and that the truth of the matter is important.

No one is advocating against liberty here, I hope that 's clear. We must have liberty to explore, research and express ourselves, in order to have any hope of finding the truth.

What is bothering me is sliding over to the concept that, even though they're wrong, they can believe it anyway, because everyone can believe whatever they like regardless of truth.

 

[BUDDY]

Do you have the right to believe whatever you want, regardless of evidence?

To me, yes, you have the right to be a complete moron.

Anyhow, back to the OP. It is extremely idiotic and dangerous to have a belief which is in direct contradiction to the evidence. Moreso when you begin pushing these beliefs onto others.

Idiotic = yes, I believe so.

Dangerous = To whom? Who does it endanger if someone chooses not to believe the evidence as you do? If it is so dangerous, what do you propose should be done about it. Certainly we should eliminate danger, should we not? So tell me.

Pushing them onto others? = Who said anything like that?

I hope that when you say idiot, you are saying it in a general sense and not specificalyl saying it to me. I have done nothing but argue a point rationally.

 

[Autodidact]

Idiotic = yes, I believe so.

Dangerous = To whom? Who does it endanger if someone chooses not to believe the evidence as you do? If it is so dangerous, what do you propose should be done about it. Certainly we should eliminate danger, should we not? So tell me.

Pushing them onto others? = Who said anything like that?

I hope that when you say idiot, you are saying it in a general sense and not specificalyl saying it to me. I have done nothing but argue a point rationally.

Examples are easy. You have the right to disbelieve that anti-biotics can cure TB. After all, it's empirical, so we're not 100% certain. That belief would lead to action--not taking them--which would be dangerous to yourself and others.

You can disbelieve in the theory of gravity if you so desire, but if you step off the cliff, you're still in serious trouble. That's what I mean when I say that I do think there's something out there called reality, and it behooves us to learn the truth about it.

You have advocated for your right to be stupid. I'm supporting that right.

 

[BUDDY]

I understand what you're getting at, and see that you are sincere. (Actually I consider "sickness" to be kind of a tough example, because the word is ambiguous and abused, but setting that aside.) I would see the whole thing differently. I would say that they were wrong, that is, they were saying things that are not true, and that the truth of the matter is important.

No one is advocating against liberty here, I hope that 's clear. We must have liberty to explore, research and express ourselves, in order to have any hope of finding the truth.

What is bothering me is sliding over to the concept that, even though they're wrong, they can believe it anyway, because everyone can believe whatever they like regardless of truth.

It is certainly very frustrating when you have the proof right in front of you and someone still refuses to change their incorrect position. No doubt. However, you can not account for stupidity and pig headedness in the homo sapien, can you? Regardless, I still believe that when we start to say things like personal beliefs are dangerous if they conflict with ______, we start down a slippery and more dangerous slope. That is all. You post is very reasonable and I agree with most of it. Good day.

 

[Smoke]

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?

Why do Christians always feel so threatened by anyone who disagrees with them? Seyorni didn't say a word about forbidding anything; yet just by expressing the opinion that we ought to have some good reason for believing the things we believe, he gets branded a fascist and Christians start worrying about their beliefs being forbidden.

I can understand why caring about what's true would be incompatible with many religions, including Christianity, but where does the persecution complex come from?

 

[yossarian22]

Dangerous = To whom? Who does it endanger if someone chooses not to believe the evidence as you do?

Evidence exists that antibiotics are highly effective against bacterial infection. Person X refuses to take antibiotics because he refuses to believe that they work, ignoring a literal ton of papers showing otherwise. That is dangerous to his health. And perhaps to other people

If it is so dangerous, what do you propose should be done about it. Certainly we should eliminate danger, should we not? So tell me.

Who said we should do anything about it? Some risks are acceptable.

Pushing them onto others? = Who said anything like that?

People who disagree with certain established facts (facts in the only meaningful sense of the word) tend to be much more vocal about what they believe. Especially in the realm of medicine.

I hope that when you say idiot, you are saying it in a general sense and not specificalyl saying it to me. I have done nothing but argue a point rationally.

In general of course.

 

[BUDDY]

Why do Christians always feel so threatened by anyone who disagrees with them? Seyorni didn't say a word about forbidding anything; yet just by expressing the opinion that we ought to have some good reason for believing the things we believe, he gets branded a fascist and Christians start worrying about their beliefs being forbidden.

I can understand why caring about what's true would be incompatible with many religions, including Christianity, but where does the persecution complex come from?

If you read earlier posts you will see clarification. I was not calling him fascist, I was calling the idea that beliefs are dangerous and nee to be controlled fascist. I do not believe that I am being persecuted or threatened at all. I find the idea of truth before liberty threatening, and that is what I perceived from his post.