Sincere belief...does it make a difference if it's religious or not?

[The Sum of Awe]

I would say what we excuse for that reason is way beyond what it should be. Such as people accepting that people are able to deny their own children blood transfusions because of religious beliefs or even deny their own children very important vaccination shots because of their delusions.

I prefer the absolute most minimal government so it would contradict me saying that I think this stuff shouldn't be allowed by law. So I guess where I would have to draw the line would be where it directly leads to the death or injury of another person or the total destruction of their life.

 

[rational experiences]

That depends on what you believe in.



We don't decide, because there is no we in the end. Individually and in limited groups we believe differently.

I learnt.

We have learner learning learned and learnt.

All the same condition. Did not know.

As knowing is meant to be wise. Complete whole.

Knowing all you would not change all.

Because all would say diverse yet equal by being present.

So I can think. As I am one. A human. One self. My owned status.

I thought what wrong did my brother a satanist commit.

Thinking says. Thought upon history. Says his story. Brother not even there.
When he perused reactive reaction.

Cold everything existed.
Reaction reacted cold gone.
Cold what was left had to go back over the reaction to stop it. Then cold evolved into more cold as mass cooled.

Thinking said cooling and cold owned two conditions regarding reaction.

He said it was one.

Okay I said now I learnt why the origin of sin O mass consuming in space was caused. He thought it was cold.

He perused a vision that owned two statuses. How he was taught the reaction.

He learnt when the mass in evolution disappeared.

First law was cold.
Cold changed by bursting.

God O was first cold.
God O then erupted.
God cooled and became cold.

Before God cooling O mass was in origin of sin. And that status was never given to God.

The fallen origin was a Satan angel that sealed as a God angel.

We might believe differently but science stated historic reasoning about conditions in God stories.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would say what we excuse for that reason is way beyond what it should be. Such as people accepting that people are able to deny their own children blood transfusions because of religious beliefs or even deny their own children very important vaccination shots because of their delusions.

I prefer the absolute most minimal government so it would contradict me saying that I think this stuff shouldn't be allowed by law. So I guess where I would have to draw the line would be where it directly leads to the death or injury of another person or the total destruction of their life.

Okay, let us go down that rabbit hole of how this works in practice:
"So I guess where I would have to draw the line would be where it directly leads to the death or injury of another person or the total destruction of their life."

The problem is not that there are clear cut examples. It is at the edge of "directly" versus injury of another person or the total destruction of their life. Those 2 standards in a sense go against each other. How? I could on purpose physically harm someone through an injury, that wouldn't be the total destruction of their life. I could also psychologically harm someone, that wouldn't be the total destruction of their life.
E.g. I cut off the leg of a person and I could undermine their self-confidence to the point that their ability to act as individuals were diminished. In both cases I have limited their ability to act and changed them.

Now this one: "I could also psychologically harm someone" is where the fun is. We can debate it, but I haven't found any way to do it with only reason, logic and evidence. So far I have only found different subjective value systems, that in different ways evaluate what harm is and is not.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Okay, let us go down that rabbit hole of how this works in practice:
"So I guess where I would have to draw the line would be where it directly leads to the death or injury of another person or the total destruction of their life."

The problem is not that there are clear cut examples. It is at the edge of "directly" versus injury of another person or the total destruction of their life. Those 2 standards in a sense go against each other. How? I could on purpose physically harm someone through an injury, that wouldn't be the total destruction of their life. I could also psychologically harm someone, that wouldn't be the total destruction of their life.
E.g. I cut off the leg of a person and I could undermine their self-confidence to the point that their ability to act as individuals were diminished. In both cases I have limited their ability to act and changed them.

Now this one: "I could also psychologically harm someone" is where the fun is. We can debate it, but I haven't found any way to do it with only reason, logic and evidence. So far I have only found different subjective value systems, that in different ways evaluate what harm is and is not.

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not sure what you mean.

That what an injury is, is a subjective standard.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Have been watching the second(!) impeachment trial of one Donald J. Trump, ex-POTUS, and one thing has really come home to me. And not for the first time in my life, to be honest.

Many of the staunchest of Trump's supporters, at least those involved in the horrible events of January 6, sincerely believed that they had been commanded by their President, and CIC, to save the nation from being stolen from them. And acted accordingly.

Well, in my own country, there were good Christians who sincerely believed that the best thing to do with native children was to forcibly remove them from their families and "take the Indian out of the child," leading to so much misery that it's hard to fathom. And their are those in many countries who most sincerely believe that God wants them to kill people who happen to have a sexual orientation other than the one they think God prefers -- and do so. Iran has killed literally thousands, for example.

I post this in General Debates (rather than Religious or Political Debates) because I think this is an important question that goes beyond either of those. And the question is this:

How much, or what kinds of, human behaviours, can really be excused by the claim of "sincere belief?" And how can we decide?

A belief being sincere doesn't really excuse anything.

IMO, protection for religious beliefs is just one particular expression of freedom of conscience. It's not sincerity that gives a belief special status; it's that belief touches on a matter of conscience, so forcing someone to violate the belief would amount to forcing them to go against their conscience.

I think where the "sincerity" of Trump's followers comes in is more about motive, which will likely be a consideration in their criminal trials.

 

[Heyo]

How much, or what kinds of, human behaviours, can really be excused by the claim of "sincere belief?" And how can we decide?

A delusional person has "sincere beliefs". We either hold her responsible non-the-less if we think she could have known better or we separate her from society in a closed facility.
So, how do we know if someone is delusional or just wrong? That's usually a question for the experts and I think in most cases we deal with here there is no question if the persons are mentally impaired on a clinical level.
That leaves the question if those persons could have known better. Have they had education in civics? Could they have informed themselves through the media? Did they use critical thinking before following orders or insinuations?
If the answer is "yes" then they are responsible for forming their opinions on shaky grounds. They must have known that their actions might be seen as illegal by others (especially the courts) and that their insurrection, if it failed, would have the victors come down on them.