Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Habenae Est Dominatus · 02-25-2012, 03:55 PM

I have been reading all the latest posts on this forum and I am confused about the religiosity arguments. I'm not even sure if I should post this here in General Discussion, in Hardcore Atheist Corner or in Rabbit Trails. And the arguing posts are on even more boards than that.

(02-24-2012 08:18 AM)Marc Stevens Wrote: No matter how many times I've said/written it, it's just ignored. Here it is again: It's not always a good idea to start a conversation with:

Dude you're retarded

That seems pretty clear to me, and it is very good advice.

That indicates to me that the issue is something about starting a conversation|nasty bickering argument regarding another's conviction, (A fixed or strong belief. See Synonyms at opinion), with that other person.

Why is that other person regarded as retarded?

Clicking the button to my American Heritage Electronic Dictionary, I look up retarded and then look up mental retardation.

Quote:mental retardation n. Subnormal intellectual development or functioning that is the result of congenital causes, brain injury, or disease and is characterized by any of various deficiencies, ranging from impaired learning ability to social and vocational inadequacy. Also called mental deficiency.

"Subnormal intellectual functioning"... Okay, that fits the bill. The listed causes for the impairment do not.

I submit that "cognitive dissonance" is the precursor to the affliction.

While there are many definitions and descriptions of cognitive dissonance on the internet, I prefer to use mine:

Quote:Cognitive Dissonance is that very uncomfortable feeling one gets when shown one's beliefs are not supported by fact. Cognitive dissonance is literally the disharmony between two conflicting thoughts. The more intensely held the belief and the more unassailable the conflicting fact presented, the greater the anxiety. Cognitive dissonance is also the illogical nonsense that follows from one trying to alleviate their discomfort and at the same time not give up their sacred belief.

So I conclude this portion of my inquiry thus:
mental retardation n. Subnormal intellectual functioning that is the result of cognitive dissonance.

So the question, Why is that other person regarded as retarded? morphs into the question Why does that other person "believe" as they do?

Defining my terms:

Quote:belief n. 1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another. 2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something. 3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

faith n. 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, an idea, or a thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust. 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4. Often Faith. Theology. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Moslem faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.

conclusion n. 2. The result or outcome of an act or process. 3. A judgment or decision reached after deliberation. 6. Logic. a. The proposition that must follow from the major and minor premises in a syllogism. b. The proposition concluded from one or more premises; a deduction.

truth n. 1. Conformity to fact or actuality. 2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true. 5. Reality; actuality.

Source: American Heritage Electronic Dictionary

Defining my terms further:

Quote:"Belief" is the acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

It is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence that makes myself, (and others it seems), conclude that theists and statists are intellectually, (dis)functionally the same. And these are not the only categories, because the defining factor is uncritically examined or unexamined beliefs.

Now the question Why does that other person "believe" as they do? can be examined...

In my youth, I was on my high school (American) football team. During training and conditioning, before school started for the year, in that hot August weather, we did "reaction drills". We ran in place. Coach held a football with two hands. Coach would swing that ball in one hand to the left or the right, raise it over his shoulder, or push it away from his chest towards us. We would move a pace or two in the direction indicated. When Coach chirped his whistle, we dropped to the ground.

The purpose of this drill, as suggested by its name, is to decrease reaction time - don't think, do! - React!! - Explode with motion!!!

In other words, we were being trained with a conditioned response, to charge after any loose ball (fumble) on the field, and to do so without conscious thought.

More definitions:

Quote:brain washing n. 1. Intensive, forcible indoctrination, usually political or religious, aimed at destroying a person's basic convictions and attitudes and replacing them with an alternative set of fixed beliefs. 2. The application of a concentrated means of persuasion, such as an advertising campaign or repeated suggestion, [physical or emotional punishment or torture,] in order to develop a specific belief or motivation.

propaganda n. 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those people advocating such a doctrine or cause. 2. Material disseminated by the advocates of a doctrine or cause: the selected truths, exaggerations, and lies of wartime propaganda. 3. Propaganda. Roman Catholic Church. A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy.

programming n. The designing, scheduling, or planning of a program.

program n. 6. A set of coded instructions for insertion into a machine, in accordance with which the machine performs a desired sequence of operations. 7. Computer Science. a. A procedure for solving a problem that involves collection of data, processing, and presentation of results. b. Such a procedure coded for a computer. 8. An instruction sequence in programmed instruction. [x. An instruction sequence to remove examination of beliefs from the command library.]
Source: American Heritage Electronic Dictionary

Red text, my addition.

Like the truism says, "Before you can solve a problem, you must first understand it."

I submit that "belief" is the result of "programming".

I suggest that examining the programming that results in "belief" in "authority", in "state", and in "government" would be useful.

And some knowledge of psychology would be helpful as well.

Even with this knowledge, some are unsavable.

I have a friend who was raised devout Catholic. Very authority bound, don't rock the boat, don't challenge the authority, and the law is the law.

I could not believe what I saw as I watched her mind do a Chernoble China Syndrome.

I've tweaked this since then to make it more useable... Have fun using it:

If you were a juror in a criminal case, and the prosecutor proved way beyond a shadow of a doubt that the accused was guilty of breaking the law that the accused was accused of breaking, and in fact the accused sat on the witness stand and said, "Yes, I broke that law", would you vote guilty?

To which my friend said, "Well yes. He broke the law."

You did not ask, and I deliberately forgot to tell you, what law the accused was accused of breaking. The law was against aiding and abetting fugitives like Anne Frank.

M-E-L-T-D-O-W-N-!

This friend is still authority cowed. And it really disturbs her that I no longer respect authority.

Alternate if your authority and law worshiping friend doesn't know who Anne Frank is: The law was against aiding and abetting fugitive slaves on the underground railroad.

Now how do we deprogram believers?

eye2i2hear · (This post was last modified: 02-25-2012 04:51 PM by eye2i2hear.)

(02-25-2012 03:55 PM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote: I have been reading all the latest posts on this forum and I am confused about the religiosity arguments. I'm not even sure if I should post this here in General Discussion, in Hardcore Atheist Corner or in Rabbit Trails. And the arguing posts are on even more boards than that.

That's actually quite understandable, I'd say. First, the "Hardcore Atheist Corner" was only created a couple of weeks back. Some posts Marc may not have spotted yet to relocate them.
Another factor is that there is an ongoing debate on how "religion" is being framed and used here. This also encompasses that "separation of Church" (religion) "and State" (religion), and as that very phrases popularity indicates, simply isn't easy to see --nor to overlook, how many don't necessarily see that there should be, or is, such a separation (religion just seems to work like that).

Quote:
(02-24-2012 08:18 AM)Marc Stevens Wrote: No matter how many times I've said/written it, it's just ignored. Here it is again: It's not always a good idea to start a conversation with:

Dude you're retarded

That seems pretty clear to me, and it is very good advice.

Agreed, I find it valuable general advice as well.

My argument with it is that there's zero evidence been given to date that any one on this forum of voluntaryists has even made such a broad brush statement, much less the overwhelming majority here would believe it about Marc's overall capability (context can be crucial). In other words frivolous or irrelevant here.

Marc might consider following his own advice, as I easily enough hear him saying, when this aspect of religion comes up for discussion, immediately to the poster:

Dude you're Atheist.

And Atheist for him apparently means "inherently divisive". End of discussion. It's not always a good way to start a conversation, indeed.

NonEntity · (This post was last modified: 02-25-2012 08:19 PM by NonEntity.)

(02-25-2012 03:55 PM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote: Defining my terms:

Quote:belief n. 1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another. 2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something. 3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

Defining my terms further:
[quote]"Belief" is the acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

It is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence that makes myself, (and others it seems), conclude that theists and statists are intellectually, (dis)functionally the same. And these are not the only categories, because the defining factor is uncritically examined or unexamined beliefs.

Est,

Great post.

I want to make a comment here but want to make clear that I am not arguing nor challenging what you have said. I am merely adding my perspective which differs slightly from yours. Okay? (And it really doesn't affect your argument, I don't think.)

belief: (ala NonE) An understanding based upon whatever it is based upon, which is not necessarily a "faith" ({something} taken with no evidence and not subject to question) but rather the current understanding, such that it, like all things, is subject to new information, new data, and/or new perspectives on the existing data. In other words I may have a current belief on a certain subject and use this belief in my day to day activities and my philosophical musings, however that in no way restricts me from examining and potentially modifying or rejecting outright this current belief should material of merit prove destructive to said belief.

I wanted to add this as it appeared to me that you were equating "faith" with "belief," and I find them, or at least consider them, to be two quite separate things. One needs beliefs in order to function: I believe the sun will "come up" tomorrow morning. If I didn't believe this I would never plant a seed, or install solar panels.

But I don't have faith the sun will do this thing. There are all kinds of reasons which might preclude this happening, a volcano blackening the sky to be perhaps the most simple and historically valid exception to the sun "coming up."

Another one of course is simply the reality that the sun does not "come up," it never has and it never will. We are dragged around on the surface of the earth to meet it's light, it's radiant energy.

I don't know if I've made my distinction clear for you or not, nor whether it may have any influence on your thinking in this matter. It's just an offering to the gods. Cool

- NonE

Dionysus · (This post was last modified: 02-25-2012 07:24 PM by Dionysus.)

Habenae Est Dominatus (what a moniker!):

Not bad... not bad. Here are some definitions that I personally find quite useful:

Belief: A mental-emotional mind-set containing a mixture of Unknowns and Knowns in various percentiles.

Belief System: A Belief that is prevalent in more than one human. The greater the number holding to a Belief, the more powerful the system.

Known: What has become an absolute fact to an individual, but not necessarily to the culture. Generally speaking, it should take at least three or more verifications to produce a Known. When this testing is complete, the Known can be added to Overview thinking.

Unknown: That of which nothing is really known, the ultimate being a phenomenon that has no historical data, and is not repeated or repeatable. All fear is generated by Unknowns.

Overview: The gathering of knowledge minus the glitter of Beliefs and "animal commands."

Baseline: The operating level of the mind at any point of growth according to active Unknowns, Knowns, and Beliefs contained therein.

So, for example, "voluntaryism" being the best way to live together with others is a Known to me, having been forged over numerous personal experiences involving the deleterious consequences of living in a nonvoluntary society.

boyntonstu · 02-25-2012, 07:18 PM

Great posts! Bravo!

We are developing a thread that will often quoted in the future.

Grey beard · 02-25-2012, 10:15 PM

(02-25-2012 03:55 PM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote: Defining my terms further:

Quote:"Belief" is the acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Now how do we deprogram believers?

Are you sure that definition of belief is logical? Not all beliefs are lacking proof or evidence basis, are they? Some beliefs are " blind ", but not all, are they?

To your question about deprogramming believers: Why? I thought this forum was about learning to defend against attacks. That seems a much more manageable task than reversing the programming of billions of people.

I was trying to find a vid I had watched a few months ago. I will keep trying. I believe you all will like it. The speaker was talking about how our brains are software driven, and most of the info that forms our map of reality was installed by the time we were 12 years old. The example she uses involves knowledge of street signs. She asks the color of a " yield " sign ( I know what color comes to mind and it is incorrect ), and talks about why we answer a certain way. We are all very confident that we know the answer, but we don't " believe " in yield signs as people are thought to believe in supernatural beings.

My point is that the real issue may be more programming than belief. I know some intelligent people that are atheists that " question everything ", but they still haven't noticed the color of yield signs that they pass daily, is not yellow.

eye2i2hear · 02-26-2012, 01:08 AM

[sidebar]

That one may be a bit tricky for us old farts (particularly noting that 12 years old factor) --but also, dependent upon locale?

TrafficSign.us Wrote:Were YIELD signs ever yellow?
Yes - in fact, yellow was the standard color for YIELD signs for nearly 20 years.
The YIELD sign was added to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices in 1954 to assign right of way at intersections where a stop was not normally required. The sign was established as a point-down equilateral triangle with black legend and border on a yellow background. Some agencies also used a "keystone"-shaped YIELD sign, and others added the text "RIGHT OF WAY" in the space below the YIELD legend.

In 1971, the YIELD sign was changed to use the red background you see today, along with the white region in the center of the sign.

I wonder if the change in '71 took long to swap out, too? And is it only Federal as to that year?

aaroads.com Wrote:Left photo: A relic yellow yield side resided at the Howell Street intersection with Viaduct Road just east of the viaduct. Photo taken 07/17/07 (Alabama).
Right photo: Make the right-hand turn from Parker Lane onto Sutherland Drive east, and one saw this relic of a yield sign. This sign was replaced by 2008.
Original highway stop and yield signs were in this black on yellow format. However, it was thought that those signs needed to garner more attention, so the MUTCD changed the color scheme to the current standards. Note also the use of the phrase "RIGHT OF WAY". This command is often see as "GIVE WAY" in Europe or Australia, but in the U.S. it is largely omitted from highway signage. Sutherland Drive directly connects with U.S. 43 a few short blocks to the east. Photo taken 04/17/02.

http://www.aaroads.com/guide.php?page=chickasawal
[Image: howell_st_nb_at_viaduct_rd_02.jpg]

[Image: parker_ln_nb_at_sutherland_dr_02.jpg]

Habenae Est Dominatus · 02-26-2012, 05:20 AM

(02-26-2012 01:08 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote: [sidebar]

That one may be a bit tricky for us old farts (particularly noting that 12 years old factor) --but also, dependent upon locale?

I think your first statement was Greybeard's point. I'm a gray beard also.

I couldn't remember, I couldn't see in my mind's eye, a red yield sign until I did an image search. Then, Duh!, I remembered seeing red yield signs.

I hadn't finished my other reply, so I'll be doing that shortly.

Habenae Est Dominatus · 02-26-2012, 07:43 AM

(02-25-2012 04:48 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote: Another factor is that there is an ongoing debate on how "religion" is being framed and used here. This also encompasses that "separation of Church" (religion) "and State" (religion), and as that very phrases popularity indicates, simply isn't easy to see --nor to overlook, how many don't necessarily see that there should be, or is, such a separation (religion just seems to work like that).

The framing of "religion", as with the framing of anything, depends upon your position. What is framed by my window depends upon if I am standing to the left, the right, or in the middle of my living room.

My view of religion is the same as my view of any other hierarchy: Just another line of asses demanding to be kissed. As Robert A. Heinlein has stated in the notebooks of Lazarus Long, "A man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle." For me, religion and dogma are interchangeable.

Quote:dogma n. 1. Theology. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church. 2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine. 3. A principle or belief or a group of them: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present”

religion n. 1.a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4. A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Source: American Heritage Electronic Dictionary

I actually find dogma to be interchangeable with science and government as well.

Dogma to me means: Think how and what we tell you to think - which means DON'T think, just regurgitate what we feed you.

In my original post, I gave the dictionary definitions for brain washing and propaganda. I invoke them now.

(02-25-2012 04:48 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:
Marc Stevens Wrote:No matter how many times I've said/written it, it's just ignored. Here it is again: It's not always a good idea to start a conversation with:

Dude you're retarded
My argument with it is that there's zero evidence been given to date that any one on this forum of voluntaryists has even made such a broad brush statement, much less the overwhelming majority here would believe it about Marc's overall capability (context can be crucial). In other words frivolous or irrelevant here.

Please rephrase.

I think Mr. Stevens has made his point with a parable, with a metaphor, and right now, I think you may have missed his point. I'm pretty sure I'm missing your point so I could very well be wrong in thinking you've missed his point. I'll give it another go after you rephrase what you are trying to get across to me.

(02-25-2012 04:48 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote: Marc might consider following his own advice, as I easily enough hear him saying, when this aspect of religion comes up for discussion, immediately to the poster:
Dude you're Atheist.
And Atheist for him apparently means "inherently divisive". End of discussion. It's not always a good way to start a conversation, indeed.

Again, please rephrase.

What is "this aspect of religion" to which you refer?

I have this other thought: You only need to get a believer to examine and critically think about one belief. Other beliefs will be examined in due course once a person realizes maybe they don't have all the answers and truths of the universe.

(02-25-2012 05:14 PM)NonEntity Wrote:
(02-25-2012 03:55 PM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote: Defining my terms:

Quote:belief n. 1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another. 2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something. 3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

Defining my terms further:
"Belief" is the acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

It is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence that makes myself, (and others it seems), conclude that theists and statists are intellectually, (dis)functionally the same. And these are not the only categories, because the defining factor is uncritically examined or unexamined beliefs.

Est,

Great post.

(02-25-2012 05:14 PM)NonEntity Wrote: I want to make a comment here but want to make clear that I am not arguing nor challenging what you have said. I am merely adding my perspective which differs slightly from yours. Okay? (And it really doesn't affect your argument, I don't think.)

belief: (ala NonE) An understanding based upon whatever it is based upon, which is not necessarily a "faith" ({something} taken with no evidence and not subject to question) but rather the current understanding, such that it, like all things, is subject to new information, new data, and/or new perspectives on the existing data. In other words I may have a current belief on a certain subject and use this belief in my day to day activities and my philosophical musings, however that in no way restricts me from examining and potentially modifying or rejecting outright this current belief should material of merit prove destructive to said belief.

It appears to me that you are sticking to conventional definitions. I'm the one re-defining the definitions to make my point. So in order to make the point about why I'm redefining the definitions, I re-present your words with my parsing (removing re-defined term):

Quote:conclusion: (ala NonE) An understanding based upon whatever it is based upon, which is not ~~necessarily a~~ "faith" [...] but rather the current understanding, such that it, like all things, is subject to new information, new data, and/or new perspectives on the existing data. In other words I may have a current conclusion on a certain subject and use this conclusion in my day to day activities and my philosophical musings, however that in no way restricts me from examining and potentially modifying or rejecting outright this current conclusion should material of merit prove destructive to said conclusion.

Based upon life experience that I don't wish to share, as well as the liberty concepts discussed in places like this forum, my world view cleaves my definition thus:

Conclusion - positions and understandings based on material evidence and logical proof.

Belief - positions and understandings NOT based on material evidence and NOT based on logical proof but instead based on imaginings, delusions, fantasies, and outright disconnects from reality.

(02-25-2012 05:14 PM)NonEntity Wrote: I wanted to add this as it appeared to me that you were equating "faith" with "belief," and I find them, or at least consider them, to be two quite separate things. One needs beliefs in order to function: I believe the sun will "come up" tomorrow morning. If I didn't believe this I would never plant a seed, or install solar panels.

Yes, exactly, I am equating faith and belief... For the purpose of cleaving illustrated above. I can't do this for everything, so, you have no argument from me... ~~Some~~ most times. Illustration:

I have concluded that there is no law making me liable for paying a tax on my domestic compensation for labor. I've laid out the material evidence and logical proof on my website.

I believe that the Great Wall of China exists. I can never properly conclude that the GWOC exists until I go to China and touch the wall. I must take it on faith that the pictures of the GWOC that I have observed are not some artist's photoshop creation meant to deceive me.

(02-25-2012 05:14 PM)NonEntity Wrote: <snip>

I don't know if I've made my distinction clear for you or not, nor whether it may have any influence on your thinking in this matter. It's just an offering to the gods.

- NonE

I'm actually hoping that I've made my re-defining clearer in response to your challenge (my word). I'm trying to build a foundation for future concepts. I'm trying to set the stage to influence everybody else's thinking on certain matters. (Build my case, so to speak.)

(02-25-2012 06:24 PM)Dionysus Wrote: Habenae Est Dominatus (what a moniker!):

The result of playing on an English to Latin translation page. It was meant to translate to: "I own myself", "I control myself", or something along that theme.

(02-25-2012 06:24 PM)Dionysus Wrote: Not bad... not bad. Here are some definitions that I personally find quite useful:

Belief: A mental-emotional mind-set containing a mixture of Unknowns and Knowns in various percentiles.

Belief System: A Belief that is prevalent in more than one human. The greater the number holding to a Belief, the more powerful the system.

Known: What has become an absolute fact to an individual, but not necessarily to the culture. Generally speaking, it should take at least three or more verifications to produce a Known. When this testing is complete, the Known can be added to Overview thinking.

Unknown: That of which nothing is really known, the ultimate being a phenomenon that has no historical data, and is not repeated or repeatable. All fear is generated by Unknowns.

Overview: The gathering of knowledge minus the glitter of Beliefs and "animal commands."

Baseline: The operating level of the mind at any point of growth according to active Unknowns, Knowns, and Beliefs contained therein.

So, for example, "voluntaryism" being the best way to live together with others is a Known to me, having been forged over numerous personal experiences involving the deleterious consequences of living in a nonvoluntary society.

I think you have presented some excellent definitions and concepts. I also think the wrong labels are applied to represent and symbolize those concepts.

"A mental-emotional mind-set" is an excellent descriptor. Perhaps this concept/descriptor could and should be labelled by its acronym - MEMS. It is a particular MEMS that I am trying to target. It is the MEMS of an inherently and provably incorrect belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Example: My mother in law believed that there was a social security account somewhere holding all the SS money she ever paid to the federal state. She got downright pissed because I challenged that patently incorrect "belief". I've read the law that states IIRC "In addition to other income taxes, there is hereby imposed..." I've also read the supreme court case where the court said the SS tax funds go into the general fund and that they are not earmarked in any way. Later she must of learned from somebody else that I am right. She won't admit it to me and the only reason I know she got a clue is because she half-admitted to my wife that the SS account didn't exist. How is a person like this going to deal with the irrefutable truth that taxation is theft? How is a person like this going to deal with the irrefutable truth that "government" is a scam. She is just another authority worshiper.

Hey! A new catch phrase label for statists, legal plunderers, and other such - JAFAW.

What you present as a "Belief System" as described, I would call "Consensus Reality" and its complementary twin "Consensus Pseudo-Reality". I'd call it consensus non-reality but consensus reality could be a consensus that something that is not true is, in more than one mind, taken as true. This segues easily to the next item.

"Known: What has become an absolute fact to an individual, but not necessarily to the culture." Like my mother in law's absolute (and provably incorrect) fact regarding SS tax? Said "known" to have "at least three or more verifications" wherein the verifiers all hold the same absolute (and provably incorrect) fact regarding SS tax in their MEMS.

Remember, I am trying to get the MEMS of positions and understandings NOT based on material evidence and NOT based on logical proof but instead based on imaginings, delusions, fantasies, and outright disconnects from reality, touted as Truth, centered in the crosshairs (As the irony of using military/hunting idioms on a forum pushing the NAP sinks in) of examination and exposure.

I do have a problem with "baseline". Baseline is the starting values. Baseline is where my mother in law was with her provably incorrect absolute known, before she arrived at a conclusion that countered her belief (my definition of belief).

I don't think "overview" is a fitting label. I do think the definition given meshes with the "conclusions" I've described.

I wholeheartedly agree with your "unknown". "That of which nothing is really known, the ultimate being a phenomenon that has no historical data, and is not repeated or repeatable."

This meshes with my definition: Belief is the acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence but instead rests upon that of which nothing is really known, that has no historical data, and is not repeated or repeatable.

(02-25-2012 10:15 PM)Grey beard Wrote:
(02-25-2012 03:55 PM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote: Defining my terms further:

Quote:"Belief" is the acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Now how do we deprogram believers?

Are you sure that definition of belief is logical? Not all beliefs are lacking proof or evidence basis, are they? Some beliefs are " blind ", but not all, are they?

Logical? Yes. In accordance with convention? No. If a belief is not lacking proof or lacking evidential basis, then it is a conclusion.

It is the "blind" belief that I am trying to cut out of the herd.

(02-25-2012 10:15 PM)Grey beard Wrote: To your question about deprogramming believers: Why? I thought this forum was about learning to defend against attacks. That seems a much more manageable task than reversing the programming of billions of people.

Who is doing the attacks? Is it not the programmed believers?

Would they be doing attacks if they were not programmed believers?

Joe Bannister was a programmed believer until an intellectual challenge led him to a conclusion counter to his belief regarding income tax law.

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened." - Churchill.

(02-25-2012 10:15 PM)Grey beard Wrote: The speaker was talking about how our brains are software driven, and most of the info that forms our map of reality was installed by the time we were 12 years old. The example she uses involves knowledge of street signs. She asks the color of a " yield " sign ( I know what color comes to mind and it is incorrect ), and talks about why we answer a certain way. We are all very confident that we know the answer, but we don't " believe " in yield signs as people are thought to believe in supernatural beings.

My point is that the real issue may be more programming than belief. I know some intelligent people that are atheists that " question everything ", but they still haven't noticed the color of yield signs that they pass daily, is not yellow.

I would say that you and I are in agreement regarding the programming. Very, very astute.

In regard to brain programming. It's not just software, it's also wetware that physically makes and breaks wiring connections. We can spend some time on this issue if you like. I've given this topic a lot of thought and even started to draft a post based on those thoughts before deciding to approach from a different angle.

Geez, this is a long post. It's all youse guys fault. Why'd you have to post such intelligent comments?

Grey beard · 02-26-2012, 08:37 AM

Found this while looking for the vid I mentioned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTIw7FEg85E

NonEntity · 02-26-2012, 09:05 AM

To Est.

I don't know where to start. You're doing this thread proud, dude.

Question: What is MEMS? You inserted it with no references. You don't mean "MEME" do you? Please explain so that I can better understand your thinking and post.

Regarding "Belief" vs. "Conclusion:" You make a good argument for your definition. I like the substitution of "conclusion" for "belief" in my description, for the most part. Well done. Yet there is still a disturbance in my thinkolator. I will attempt to paint a picture here so that specific words do not impede the flow of ideas.

(An aside - I don't disagree so much with what you are saying so much as I see another form of thought which is not included in your list, and it is this other form of thought that I want to add into the discussion. I think the concepts we are discussing are richer than the present discussion acknowledges.)

I tend to be a rational person, I think. Simultaneously I am spiritual (totally a separate idea from "religious," which took me a long time to understand.) Several years ago I decided to partake in a course of study of the art of shiatsu, which is a relatively recent Japanese adaptation of the ancient Chinese study of and manipulation of "energy" meridians in the body.

The more I attended the initial classes, the more my rational mind said "this is utter and complete CRAP!" On some other level however I had a sense that there was something here that I didn't understand, and that it warranted study. So I had to tell one part of my brain, "chill, Baby! let's just let it go and play with the idea and allow it to reveal itself for whatever it may be, Crap or Value."

So I studied and practiced and slowly and tentatively began to have a sense, something I could not put into words or equations, but a sense, that there actually was some form of energy that was in these "meridians" and that it was something over which I could assert some control, or some assistance to change, or something or other which WAS beneficial to the recipient of my ministrations.

Simultaneously I was aware that there is a lot of discussion and study on the idea of these energy flows, "Qi" or chee, as the Chinese refer to it, supporting the efficacy of the field. Now many will claim that I'm just fooling myself and it is a case of "placebo effect." This is a possibility. (I note to myself here that "placebo effect" here tends to correlate with and support my above reference to "spiritual," in that it is applicable to the the "spirit" in which we approach this thing we call "life." Further note that the word "spirited" indicates an energetic and positive approach to life, nothing whatsoever to do with gods or other supernatural beings or powers.)

So, to get back on track, my studies lead me more and more to "believe" that there was indeed something tangible in this "Qi" idea of energy meridian work. I still have no idea what it may be, I simply believe that there is something going on which is beyond my current ability to quantify or dissect. Just because we can't explain something does not mean that it doesn't exist.

To clarify my position, I do not have "faith" in energy work, but I believe in it. In other words I am fully curious and open to new data and explanations regarding whateverthehell this stuff may or may not be, and open to altering my thinking in accordance to this new data. A "person of Faith" is not so open, in fact as I understand it, a "person of Faith" basically vows NOT to allow any thinking to dissuade them from their "beliefs."

So I do believe in something for which I cannot provide proof, something which I think is true, but also something which I would love to have more information on which might expand or change my current "belief."

Est Wrote:Conclusion - positions and understandings based on material evidence and logical proof.

Belief - positions and understandings NOT based on material evidence and NOT based on logical proof but instead based on imaginings, delusions, fantasies, and outright disconnects from reality.

...

Yes, exactly, I am equating faith and belief... For the purpose of cleaving illustrated above. I can't do this for everything, so, you have no argument from me... Some most times.

(emphasis mine)

"Most Times" - I acknowledge your equivocation here and appreciate what I think you are saying. But I reject your assertion that a belief is necessarily "based on imaginings, delusions, fantasies, and outright disconnects from reality."

That last is what separates "belief" from "faith," in my mind, as I define these words currently.

I don't know if what I've said adds anything to the conversation or perhaps distracts from it instead. But I think it may add a bit more richness to the soup.

And before I close, let me again commend you for your thinking and exposition.

The story of your mother and the SS (speaking of seeing and naziing!) is, in my mind an example of the difference between belief and faith - and cognitive dissonance. And an example of this human trait to be willing to do or accept ANYTHING rather than to accept that we are ignorant. I love Mark Twain's (reputed) quote, "We are all ignorant, just in different areas." (I'm not sure that is the exact wording.)

- NonE

eye2i2hear · 02-26-2012, 09:10 AM

(02-26-2012 07:43 AM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote: My view of religion is the same as my view of any other hierarchy: Just another line of asses demanding to be kissed. As Robert A. Heinlein has stated in the notebooks of Lazarus Long, "A man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle."

How had I not heard this Heinlein quote?! Very 'catchy'! Wink

Though a little initial reflection prompts another take on it:
A man without religion is like a fish without a rod & reel (or hook & line).
(because unfortunately, the religious are always trying to catch & eat another fish --or closer to reality, are shooting at fish in their 'barrel')

Meanwhile, quite tasty post(s) you've made! I've still got a re-read or two to do but am looking forward to digesting it further and replying (and rephrasing). Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts --& conclusions etal. Idea

--OutOfDominatus2i Cool

ps: it might be good to post some of these (re)definitions in the "Definitions" thread...? (Est'D, you might also enjoy this short post?)

pss: value-potential quote...

Quote:If you wish to communicate with me, first define your terms.

--generally attributed to Voltaire, but who may have been paraphrasing Locke

NonEntity · 02-26-2012, 09:22 AM

(02-26-2012 09:05 AM)NonEntity Wrote: The story of your mother and the SS (speaking of seeing and naziing!) is, in my mind an example of the difference between belief and faith - and cognitive dissonance. And an example of this human trait to be willing to do or accept ANYTHING rather than to accept that we are ignorant. I love Mark Twain's (reputed) quote, "We are all ignorant, just in different areas." (I'm not sure that is the exact wording.)

- NonE

In reviewing my writing here I was struck by something. Note what I have bolded above. Perhaps the best word to end that sentence is not ignorant, but rather the phrase "not in control." At any rate I find it interesting that those who seem paralyzed by fear of not knowing are reassured and put at peace by granting that someone ELSE (a god or something similar) is in control. WTF??? How does this at all change the fact that THEY are totally "ignorant" or "not in control?"

So what it is is that Obama is a god figure. It doesn't matter how evil he might be, what dastardly things he might do, the fact that he (regardless of reality) is "in control" seems to mollify some people.

Wassup wit DAT????? <-- THE issue (maybe?)

- NonE

Habenae Est Dominatus · 02-26-2012, 09:38 AM

(02-26-2012 08:37 AM)Grey beard Wrote: Found this while looking for the vid I mentioned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTIw7FEg85E

Great clip!

I too, am intuitive, and I simply can NOT watch most main stream news without shouting at the television.

I'm describing my frothing at the mouth, spittle flying, anger at these F****** LIARS! < Wipes spittle from chin. > :@

NonEntity · 02-26-2012, 10:00 AM

(02-26-2012 09:38 AM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote: ...and I simply can NOT watch most main stream news without shouting at the television.

Dude! I'm so sorry you've had to go through this. Let me help.

If you look closely at the zapper (TV remote control device), in most cases you will find a button on the upper left or right corner of the device which is labeled "Power" or something similar.

PUSH THAT BUTTON!

I've not watched MSN (! <pointer to i2 about acronyms) for years now. Let me tell you that the improvement in the quality of my life as a direct result of the POWER OF THE BUTTON is beyond description. I've DISCOVERED SUNSETS!!! Have you seen these displays of the lord our god's love for mankind? Awesome!

Repeat after me: I have the POWER! I have the POWER! I have the POWER!

You can do it. I have faith in you. You only need to BELIEVE.

- NonEvangelistista