Apology for Theists- Belief and Choice

[Tsukasa Buddha]

For this semester, I had signed up for Philosophy of Religion because it seemed the least offensive and I needed the credit. I dropped it as fast as I could before committing seppuku after one class.

Anyway, I was reading a chapter that was defending theists against "rational" attacks. Basically, the author claimed that belief in God need not be based on reason, but on hope. Yeah... I don't really get that.

The second argument I found more interesting. He was trying to show that theists should not be judged as irrational by atheists because beliefs are not chosen, and as such belief in God is not chosen. And since it is silly to judge people based on something they have no choice in, we should not judge theists.

I can agree that beliefs are not directly open to choice, but I don't think that means that people can't be judged for their beliefs. People still have choice in applying skepticism to ideas, and how they go about determining which arguments they give truth value to. And these things go on to change the core beliefs. So I think that beliefs are open to choice indirectly, and thus, we can call Christians morons.

Unfortunately, I just returned the book for the Drama book I am going to need now, so I can't provide any more detail.

So what do you think of the choice argument? And does anyone get the first argument about hope?

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

For this semester, I had signed up for Philosophy of Religion because it seemed the least offensive and I needed the credit. I dropped it as fast as I could before committing seppuku after one class.

Anyway, I was reading a chapter that was defending theists against "rational" attacks. Basically, the author claimed that belief in God need not be based on reason, but on hope. Yeah... I don't really get that.

The second argument I found more interesting. He was trying to show that theists should not be judged as irrational by atheists because beliefs are not chosen, and as such belief in God is not chosen. And since it is silly to judge people based on something they have no choice in, we should not judge theists.

I can agree that beliefs are not directly open to choice, but I don't think that means that people can't be judged for their beliefs. People still have choice in applying skepticism to ideas, and how they go about determining which arguments they give truth value to. And these things go on to change the core beliefs. So I think that beliefs are open to choice indirectly, and thus, we can call Christians morons.

Unfortunately, I just returned the book for the Drama book I am going to need now, so I can't provide any more detail.

So what do you think of the choice argument? And does anyone get the first argument about hope?

I think it's rare to hear theists arguing against free will. I thought they considered it to be God-given?

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

The second argument I found more interesting. He was trying to show that theists should not be judged as irrational by atheists because beliefs are not chosen, and as such belief in God is not chosen. And since it is silly to judge people based on something they have no choice in, we should not judge theists.

That's pretty much my approach, except that I'm holding the other end of that stick. As an atheist, continually surrounded by "believers" (scare-quoted to reflect my skepticism about the depth of their beliefs), I find that social interaction is less stressful if I don't go in judging everybody. Even the most rational person surely holds at least some irrational beliefs, and to say that the people I've developed the most fondness for have not always been the most "rational" -- would be a monumental understatement.

Originally Posted by Mashuna

I think it's rare to hear theists arguing against free will. I thought they considered it to be God-given?

Perhaps "God-imposed" is more apt.

[krazyKemist]

My first thought is that it's pretty much impossible to reconcile that approach with the Pascal's Wager stuff many of them (xians) use against non-believers (Why don't you choose to believe, you've got nothing to lose, and eternal hellfire if you're wrong).

If those particular xians have that attitude, that belief is not a choice, then it follows, if they apply their own logics, that they should also abstain from judging atheists, since we've not chosen our unbelief. I've got nothing against that. Whatever makes people more tolerant of other people's points of view is fine and dandy for me.

However, if one of them should use both arguments, I shall be merciless.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

I can agree that beliefs are not directly open to choice, but I don't think that means that people can't be judged for their beliefs.

Why do you need to judge anyone?

My choice--and yes, it is a choice--to believe in God neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg. I don't ask you to agree with it, I don't demand that my beliefs be taught as fact, and I certainly don't see my belief as "superceding" science or anything like that.

So why the need to judge? Why do you even need to care if I believe or not?

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by krazyKemist

My first thought is that it's pretty much impossible to reconcile that approach with the Pascal's Wager stuff many of them (xians) use against non-believers (Why don't you choose to believe, you've got nothing to lose, and eternal hellfire if you're wrong).

If those particular xians have that attitude, that belief is not a choice, then it follows, if they apply their own logics, that they should also abstain from judging atheists, since we've not chosen our unbelief. I've got nothing against that. Whatever makes people more tolerant of other people's points of view is fine and dandy for me.

However, if one of them should use both arguments, I shall be merciless.

You're speaking as if there are atheists and capital-C Christians, with no other options. The world is not divided into James Dobsons and Christopher Hitchens(es).

Those who believe (of whatever religion) who aren't of the fundamentalist ilk aren't usually interested in judging atheists, and don't spend a lot of time thinking about people going to Hell. Those of us of the Deist persuasion are, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from atheists in terms of outlook and opinions on public policy.

[krazyKemist]

Originally Posted by Cleon

You're speaking as if there are atheists and capital-C Christians, with no other options. The world is not divided into James Dobsons and Christopher Hitchens(es).

Those who believe (of whatever religion) who aren't of the fundamentalist ilk aren't usually interested in judging atheists, and don't spend a lot of time thinking about people going to Hell. Those of us of the Deist persuasion are, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from atheists in terms of outlook and opinions on public policy.

I think we misunderstand each other. I said nothing of the sort. The subject was why some atheists (those who may interested in judging christians and their beliefs - any christians) should not judge.

I said I like the argument -- if it is applied according to its logical conclusion for those christians (I said many, maybe that was a wrong choice of word) who like to judge and generally bugger atheists using variations on Pascal's Wager.

But anyway, this argument in itself -- that belief is not a choice -- pretty much invalidates any reference to Pascal's Wager. I said I would not be very forgiving to any christian (the onle ones interested would presumably be of the judgmental variety; I don't see why a Deist would be interested in it) who commited that lapse in logic.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Anyway, I was reading a chapter that was defending theists against "rational" attacks. Basically, the author claimed that belief in God need not be based on reason, but on hope. Yeah... I don't really get that.

I see that as the author trying to move away from a belief based on faith. Faith is generally seen as unmovable, whereas hope implies that the holder of the belief understands that he or she may be wrong.

Quote:

can agree that beliefs are not directly open to choice, but I don't think that means that people can't be judged for their beliefs. People still have choice in applying skepticism to ideas, and how they go about determining which arguments they give truth value to. And these things go on to change the core beliefs. So I think that beliefs are open to choice indirectly, and thus, we can call Christians morons.

I disagree, as that is starting to push the boundaries of thought-crime. People should be judged on their actions. If those actions are informed by their beliefs, then that is reason to argue that their beliefs lead to immoral actions, but not that the beliefs in and of themselves are immoral.

[Roma]

Based on Hope? Sounds a little more like Agnostic than Christian.
Christianity as I understand it is not based on hope, it is based on faith.
As for belief in God not being chosen then what is it, thrust upon you at conception?

[LarianLeQuella]

Originally Posted by Cleon

My choice--and yes, it is a choice--to believe in God neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg. I don't ask you to agree with it, I don't demand that my beliefs be taught as fact, and I certainly don't see my belief as "superceding" science or anything like that.

Sadly, in the US, your position is not adhered to as often as it should be. Look at Mr. McLeroy of the Texas Board of Education for one fine example. Or Gov Jindhal (sp). The list goes on. And not only in that specific regard, but Jenny McCarthy seems to be doing a lot of arm twisting for her agenda. These type f people are the ones I have a big beef with. They are causing a lot of direct harm. http://whatstheharm.net/

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally Posted by Roma Hart

As for belief in God not being chosen then what is it, thrust upon you at conception?

No. It's the output of a truth-seeking algorithm in the brain. Evidence comes in, is weighed, and is found either sufficient or insufficient to warrant belief. Where does choice enter into the matter at all?

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by LarianLeQuella

Sadly, in the US, your position is not adhered to as often as it should be. Look at Mr. McLeroy of the Texas Board of Education for one fine example. Or Gov Jindhal (sp). The list goes on. And not only in that specific regard, but Jenny McCarthy seems to be doing a lot of arm twisting for her agenda. These type f people are the ones I have a big beef with. They are causing a lot of direct harm. http://whatstheharm.net/

Oh, I'm well aware of creationists and fundamentalists. I live in Georgia. (And, as it happens, I play trivia with every week with Tim Farley, aka krelnik, who runs WTH.)

But that's just it...Not everyone who believes in God is a fundamentalist. In fact, fundamentalists are a minority, even among people who consider themselves religious. In fact, two members of our trivia team are actively religious, regular churchgoing Christians, and apparently missed the memo on needing to "judge" everyone.

Atheists, agnostics, and other non-theists make up something along the lines of 10% of the US population. When born-again atheists tar any and all believers with the same brush, and take it upon themselves to "judge" anyone who dares harbor even the most inconsequential religious beliefs, it actively stifles the message of critical thinking and skepticism from moving beyond the "in" crowd.

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by Roma Hart

Based on Hope? Sounds a little more like Agnostic than Christian.

I didn't understand the OP to be quoting from a Christian source. Just from a believer source.

Tsukasa, was this a Christian source that you're taking the basis from?

Quote:

Christianity as I understand it is not based on hope, it is based on faith.

"And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." (1 Corinthians 13:13, NIV) [emphasis added]

I think St. Augustine offered hope as the greatest, but I can't find the quote right now. Either way, there ya go. Hope is still in the mix.

Quote:

As for belief in God not being chosen then what is it, thrust upon you at conception?

VMAT2: the God gene.

[DeusPhasmatis]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

I disagree, as that is starting to push the boundaries of thought-crime. People should be judged on their actions. If those actions are informed by their beliefs, then that is reason to argue that their beliefs lead to immoral actions, but not that the beliefs in and of themselves are immoral.

"Thought-crime" is when thought itself becomes a felony, not when people criticize ideas. And what, perchance, is so sacred about thoughts, that we may judge a man for what he does, but not what he thinks?

[krazyKemist]

Originally Posted by Cleon

My choice--and yes, it is a choice--to believe in God neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg. I don't ask you to agree with it, I don't demand that my beliefs be taught as fact, and I certainly don't see my belief as "superceding" science or anything like that.

I'm curious about that. You really feel that it's a defintite, clear choice ? By that I don't mean the specific choice of religion, of expressing belief, but the belief in god(s) itself.

You can go through the motions of faith (and I've done so, like probably a sizable proportion of atheists), call yourself a christian and even refuse to see yourself as an atheist while having totally lost all belief in god(s).

I don't see how I can will myself into belief, no more than I can will myself to fall in love with someone I'm clearly not attracted to. I could only maintain the pretense by lying to myself. Would you consider this lie a genuine belief ?

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by DeusPhasmatis

"Thought-crime" is when thought itself becomes a felony, not when people criticize ideas.

Which is why I said "push the boundaries" not "is".

Quote:

And what, perchance, is so sacred about thoughts, that we may judge a man for what he does, but not what he thinks?

Because thoughts alone cannot harm another.

[DeusPhasmatis]

Quote:

Because thoughts alone cannot harm another.

Except thought begets action; you cannot separate the two. You don't need to pull the trigger yourself to be guilty of murder: thought is the accomplice of action.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by DeusPhasmatis

Except thought begets action; you cannot separate the two. You don't need to pull the trigger yourself to be guilty of murder: thought is the accomplice of action.

Of course you can separate the two. If I simply think, "I am glad he is dead," am I guilty of murder? Once the action has been begetted^*, then you have something to judge.





* - Yes, I know. English is my chew toy.

[DeusPhasmatis]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

Of course you can separate the two. If I simply think, "I am glad he is dead," am I guilty of murder? Once the action has been begetted^*, then you have something to judge.

Straw-man. You're not guilty of murder, you're guilty of thinking "I am glad he is dead" (which may make you guilty of being a jerk, depending on your relations with the recently deceased). We have a whole vocabulary of nouns for people based on what they think.

Quote:

* - Yes, I know. English is my chew toy.

Begot, you fool! (Begat if you're feeling archaic)

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by DeusPhasmatis

Straw-man. You're not guilty of murder, you're guilty of thinking "I am glad he is dead" (which may make you guilty of being a jerk, depending on your relations with the recently deceased).

How can you distinguish between thoughts that make me a jerk, and those that make me a murderer? My argument all along has been that you cannot. You can only make that distinction based on what someone says or does.

Quote:

We have a whole vocabulary of nouns for people based on what they think.

Sure, but what guarantees those nouns are assigned to the various people correctly? Once again, how they action those thoughts. Unless you are a mind-reader, trying to label people based on what you think they believe can get pretty ugly pretty quickly (as can be seen in a good percentage of the threads in this sub-forum).

Personally, I prefer to wait for the evidence of their actions (including those posts they make).

Quote:

Begot, you fool! (Begat if you're feeling archaic)

Begotten.

[DeusPhasmatis]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

How can you distinguish between thoughts that make me a jerk, and those that make me a murderer? My argument all along has been that you cannot. You can only make that distinction based on what someone says or does.

Which is why I judge you for the thought, not a possible act. A thought does not make you a murderer (which is a title for someone who has performed a specific act). If a person is thinking "I want to kill that person", I will try to stop them. If a person is thinking "I want to kill myself", I will try to stop them.

Quote:

Sure, but what guarantees those nouns are assigned to the various people correctly? Once again, how they action those thoughts. Unless you are a mind-reader, trying to label people based on what you think they believe can get pretty ugly pretty quickly (as can be seen in a good percentage of the threads in this sub-forum).

We have this wonderful invention called language, where one person can communicate their thoughts to another. A person doesn't need to go out and shoot black people to be labeled a bigot; all they need to do is say "I think all black people should be shot".

Quote:

Personally, I prefer to wait for the evidence of their actions (including those posts they make).

So if I say "I am glad that man is dead" I am guilty of murder?

Quote:

Begotten.

Aye.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by krazyKemist

I'm curious about that. You really feel that it's a defintite, clear choice ? By that I don't mean the specific choice of religion, of expressing belief, but the belief in god(s) itself.

You can go through the motions of faith (and I've done so, like probably a sizable proportion of atheists), call yourself a christian and even refuse to see yourself as an atheist while having totally lost all belief in god(s).

Well, first, I'm not a Christian, I'm a heebie.

I know, full well, that on a scientific and logical basis, there's no evidence of a God or gods whatsoever.

At the same time, I don't want to think that "this is all there is." I don't want to think that, at some point, the entirety of my existence will be reduced to a rotting sack of fatty meat and bones.

So I choose to entertain a simple, silly belief for no other reason than personal comfort, and some pie-in-the-sky hope that after all those bacon cheeseburgers finally catch up with me, there will still be some aspect of "me" around.

Others see the beauty in a finite, godless existence, and I certainly don't begrudge them this or say that they're "wrong." I just take a different POV.

Quote:

I don't see how I can will myself into belief, no more than I can will myself to fall in love with someone I'm clearly not attracted to. I could only maintain the pretense by lying to myself. Would you consider this lie a genuine belief ?

I think the difference is one of different conceptions of "belief." When fundamentalists talk about "believing" in God, they see it as conviction--they are absolutely, 100% certain that God is a real being, who really listens to them when they pray, and occasionally pulls strings for them or whispers in their ear.

For me, "belief" is more low-key. I don't see "belief" and "conviction" as synonymous. I don't harbor the "certainty" that God exists, the way fundamentalists claim to. I don't obsess over the question, I don't pray or go to synagogue or anything like that. I just incorporate it as part of who I am, knowing full well that the entire belief could be completely and totally wrong. (Besides, if it is wrong, I'll never know it, so no harm done.)


I use the analogy of my pet rabbits, Spike and Chainsaw. They do all the normal pet stuff - they greet me when I come home, they beg for attention and treats, they give me bunny kisses when they're feeling affectionate. They're really great pets, and I do love the little fuzzballs. But do they love me?

I don't know. I have no way of knowing. It's entirely possible that they merely see me as Procurator of Bunny Food, and their behavior is nothing more than conditioned response to the weird giant food dispenser that rambles around the house.

In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter one way or the other. The universe doesn't really change in any meaningful way whether they love me or simply react to my presence.

So again, I opt for a simple, harmless, silly belief that the bunnies really mean it when they show me affection or act like they're happy to see me. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not. Either way, it seems to work for me, and it certainly works for the furrballs when they want petting or treats.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by DeusPhasmatis

Which is why I judge you for the thought, not a possible act. A thought does not make you a murderer (which is a title for someone who has performed a specific act).

OK, good, so we do agree on this. Now I am puzzled why you brought up the murder example in the first place.

Quote:

If a person is thinking "I want to kill that person", I will try to stop them. If a person is thinking "I want to kill myself", I will try to stop them.

Eh, I state that I want to strangle my husband on a fairly regular basis. That doesn't mean he should take to wearing steel cravats.

Quote:

We have this wonderful invention called language, where one person can communicate their thoughts to another. A person doesn't need to go out and shoot black people to be labeled a bigot; all they need to do is say "I think all black people should be shot".

As in my previously example with my husband, language can be used to communicate, but it isn't any where close to being perfect. Hell, just go try and use language to get through to yrreg. People are prone to hyperbole, lying, and plain old contrary crankiness. I am certainly willing to give them the benefit of the doubt when something stupid comes out of their mouth (or keyboard). A pattern of such communication may be grounds for labeling, and certainly if their other behavior matched what they were saying.

Don't get me wrong, I love language and what it can do, but it is an imperfect tool incompetently wielded all too often. If it is relied on as being accurate in all cases, it can lead to tragic consequences.

Quote:

So if I say "I am glad that man is dead" I am guilty of murder?

Depending on the context of your statement, you may very well be guilty of murder. I strongly doubt your words alone would convict you.


Let me try another example to see if it helps make my point clearer. In the OP, Tsukasa Buddha is asking about judging people based on their beliefs. Two people can believe in the same concept, yet act upon that belief quite differently. Should they be judged equally?

[krazyKemist]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Well, first, I'm not a Christian, I'm a heebie.

I know, full well, that on a scientific and logical basis, there's no evidence of a God or gods whatsoever.

At the same time, I don't want to think that "this is all there is." I don't want to think that, at some point, the entirety of my existence will be reduced to a rotting sack of fatty meat and bones.

So I choose to entertain a simple, silly belief for no other reason than personal comfort, and some pie-in-the-sky hope that after all those bacon cheeseburgers finally catch up with me, there will still be some aspect of "me" around.

Others see the beauty in a finite, godless existence, and I certainly don't begrudge them this or say that they're "wrong." I just take a different POV.

That's cool with me. I'm not a consistency maniac (there are such people on both sides of this blurry "fence"). I think people who are too consistent end up a little less human and fanatically crazy. And I'm fine (and actually interested) in other people's point of view.

Quote:

I think the difference is one of different conceptions of "belief." When fundamentalists talk about "believing" in God, they see it as conviction--they are absolutely, 100% certain that God is a real being, who really listens to them when they pray, and occasionally pulls strings for them or whispers in their ear.

For me, "belief" is more low-key. I don't see "belief" and "conviction" as synonymous. I don't harbor the "certainty" that God exists, the way fundamentalists claim to. I don't obsess over the question, I don't pray or go to synagogue or anything like that. I just incorporate it as part of who I am, knowing full well that the entire belief could be completely and totally wrong. (Besides, if it is wrong, I'll never know it, so no harm done.)

I am an ex-catholic. It has been told to me, perhaps not explicitely, that any doubt about the existence of god(s) meant I was insincere about my belief (remember the outrage catholics showed when Mother Theresa's letters expressed her doubts ?). Maybe it explains why have this conception of belief. It would be interesting to see if other ex-catholics (and ex-fundies) have the same conception.

Quote:

I use the analogy of my pet rabbits, Spike and Chainsaw. They do all the normal pet stuff - they greet me when I come home, they beg for attention and treats, they give me bunny kisses when they're feeling affectionate. They're really great pets, and I do love the little fuzzballs. But do they love me?

I don't know. I have no way of knowing. It's entirely possible that they merely see me as Procurator of Bunny Food, and their behavior is nothing more than conditioned response to the weird giant food dispenser that rambles around the house.

In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter one way or the other. The universe doesn't really change in any meaningful way whether they love me or simply react to my presence.

So again, I opt for a simple, harmless, silly belief that the bunnies really mean it when they show me affection or act like they're happy to see me. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not. Either way, it seems to work for me, and it certainly works for the furrballs when they want petting or treats.

Same with my cats. Except you don't adopt cats. They adopt you.

And to anybody who thinks cats are lofty and independant, you need to see how mine (especially my oriental, Nikita) behaved after we went away on vacation. She doesn't let me out of her sight, and she's very worried when I have to go out now (she waits for me sitting beside the door). The person who came to give them food during vacation said that Nikita wouldn't even let herself be petted by her.

[quarky]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Oh, I'm well aware of creationists and fundamentalists. I live in Georgia. (And, as it happens, I play trivia with every week with Tim Farley, aka krelnik, who runs WTH.)

But that's just it...Not everyone who believes in God is a fundamentalist. In fact, fundamentalists are a minority, even among people who consider themselves religious. In fact, two members of our trivia team are actively religious, regular churchgoing Christians, and apparently missed the memo on needing to "judge" everyone.

Atheists, agnostics, and other non-theists make up something along the lines of 10% of the US population. When born-again atheists tar any and all believers with the same brush, and take it upon themselves to "judge" anyone who dares harbor even the most inconsequential religious beliefs, it actively stifles the message of critical thinking and skepticism from moving beyond the "in" crowd.

Good point.

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by krazyKemist

If those particular xians have that attitude, that belief is not a choice, then it follows, if they apply their own logics, that they should also abstain from judging atheists, since we've not chosen our unbelief. I've got nothing against that. Whatever makes people more tolerant of other people's points of view is fine and dandy for me.

However, if one of them should use both arguments, I shall be merciless.

Strict double predestination Calvinists have always explicitly taught this. The Elect are saved because of God's Grace, by the will of God, and everyone else is damned. I don't think Free Will gets much of an airing in this form of Calvinism. Dunno - wikipedia would help - try Foreordination, Predestination and the contrary doctrine Arminianism if interested. IF I was not working and ill I would check for you.

cj x

[DeusPhasmatis]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

OK, good, so we do agree on this. Now I am puzzled why you brought up the murder example in the first place.

Precedence. The getaway driver is culpable for all the actions of the robber proper. If the robber commits no crime (i.e. is not a robber), then the getaway driver is only culpable as a getaway driver (which is technically nothing). Premeditated murder is a more serious offence then heat-of-the-moment murder: do we live in a culture that persecutes thought crime?

Quote:

Eh, I state that I want to strangle my husband on a fairly regular basis. That doesn't mean he should take to wearing steel cravats.

There are allowances for metaphor and exaggeration, as well as the context in which these things occur. Oversimplifying my positon is a straw-man too.

Quote:

As in my previously example with my husband, language can be used to communicate, but it isn't any where close to being perfect. Hell, just go try and use language to get through to yrreg. People are prone to hyperbole, lying, and plain old contrary crankiness. I am certainly willing to give them the benefit of the doubt when something stupid comes out of their mouth (or keyboard). A pattern of such communication may be grounds for labeling, and certainly if their other behavior matched what they were saying.

Yes, there needs to be a certain amount of rigor.

Quote:

Don't get me wrong, I love language and what it can do, but it is an imperfect tool incompetently wielded all too often. If it is relied on as being accurate in all cases, it can lead to tragic consequences.

Reacting after the fact allows for a lot more tragedy to occur than acting to prevent it in the first place.

Quote:

Depending on the context of your statement, you may very well be guilty of murder. I strongly doubt your words alone would convict you.

Under what "context" (aside from unlawfully killing a person) would the phrase "I am glad that man is dead" make me a murder?

Quote:

Let me try another example to see if it helps make my point clearer. In the OP, Tsukasa Buddha is asking about judging people based on their beliefs. Two people can believe in the same concept, yet act upon that belief quite differently. Should they be judged equally?

Regarding their belief, yes. Regarding their action, no.

Thought precedes action. This means responding to people's thoughts is preventative rather than retributive. I am not out to punish people for thinking bad thoughts; I am out to get people to stop thinking bad thoughts (one would find parallels at "educate" or "enlighten").

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by DeusPhasmatis

Regarding their belief, yes. Regarding their action, no.

Thought precedes action. This means responding to people's thoughts is preventative rather than retributive. I am not out to punish people for thinking bad thoughts; I am out to get people to stop thinking bad thoughts (one would find parallels at "educate" or "enlighten").

In which case we will have to agree to disagree. I personally could not care less what someone else thinks, as long as they have the decency to keep it to themselves. Once someone starts labeling thoughts as "bad" and trying to get people to stop thinking them, I am no longer interested in supporting their efforts. Thoughts should be allowed and examined, not eliminated.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

Once someone starts labeling thoughts as "bad" and trying to get people to stop thinking them, I am no longer interested in supporting their efforts. Thoughts should be allowed and examined, not eliminated.

Enthusiastically, vociferously, and earnestly seconded. All- as in every single instance, ever- fundamentalism starts with "get people to stop thinking bad thoughts"- and tyranny is never far behind.

The very notion is the polar opposite of skepicism and critical thinking.

Further, DeusPhasmatis- how exactly do you propose to tell the difference between a person's actions and what they think?

[DeusPhasmatis]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

Enthusiastically, vociferously, and earnestly seconded. All- as in every single instance, ever- fundamentalism starts with "get people to stop thinking bad thoughts"- and tyranny is never far behind.

So you're against the public education system?

Quote:

The very notion is the polar opposite of skepicism and critical thinking.

Unless the goal is to get everyone thinking critically and being skeptical. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to criticize me for supposedly not "thinking critically"?

Quote:

Further, DeusPhasmatis- how exactly do you propose to tell the difference between a person's actions and what they think?

I intend to use a person's actions to determine what they think. I think the name for this field is called psychology.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by DeusPhasmatis

So you're against the public education system?

The public education system for which I'm paying and in which my children are participating is engaged in expanding the scope and content of their thoughts, not stifling and limiting them according to the arbitrary subjective values of a few. Were it otherwise I'd be raising quite the stink, I can assure you. With that understanding can you please explain whatever it is to which you are trying to imply?

Quote:

Unless the goal is to get everyone thinking critically and being skeptical.

Critical thinking and skepticism involves consideration and analysis of different ideas, using a basic method. It does not have a doctrine or creed of which ideas are by definition "skeptical". It does not pretend to encompass the full, final and complete "truth" of anything. Further, a key element of critical thinking is intellectual integrity- which requires the critical thinker to leave bias out of his arguments and judge ideas fairly on their own merits without regard for personal preference, desire, or prejudice.

With that understanding can you please explain how one promotes thinking critically by stifling certain veiwpoints according to the arbitrary subjective values of a few?

Quote:

Isn't it a bit hypocritical to criticize me for supposedly not "thinking critically"?

I didn't say you could or should not think of, contemplate, ponder, hold, endorse, promote, or discuss the idea. I did not express a wish to purge you of it, or otherwise prevent you from 'thinking" it. I didn't even call it "bad". I said it was not consistant with my understanding of critical thinking, and as it demonstrably leads to anti-skeptical behaviours suggested it is not one I endorse.

Quote:

I intend to use a person's actions to determine what they think. I think the name for this field is called psychology.

And if they do not act? How are you to know who is thinking the "bad thoughts"- because you very cleary implied it is possible to tell the difference before they do so:

Originally Posted by DeusPhasmatis

Reacting after the fact allows for a lot more tragedy to occur than acting to prevent it in the first place.

Originally Posted by DeusPhasmatis

This means responding to people's thoughts is preventative rather than retributive. I am not out to punish people for thinking bad thoughts; I am out to get people to stop thinking bad thoughts.

How are you intending to stop people from thinking "bad thoughts" if you don't know what they are thinking, only what they do?

[DeusPhasmatis]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

The public education system for which I'm paying and in which my children are participating is engaged in expanding the scope and content of their thoughts, not stifling and limiting them according to the arbitrary subjective values of a few. Were it otherwise I'd be raising quite the stink, I can assure you. With that understanding can you please explain whatever it is to which you are trying to imply?

Because the public education system still tells you what to think. "Expanding the scope and contents of their thoughts" is still invading the sanctity of one's mind. You're equating all thought-control to tyranny, but "thought-expanding" education is an example of the opposite.

Do you consider it unjust that premeditated murder is a punished more harshly than heat-of-the-moment murder?

Quote:

With that understanding can you please explain how one promotes thinking critically by stifling certain veiwpoints according to the arbitrary subjective values of a few?

By stifling all uncritical viewpoints, of course. It's part of what the peer review process in science does.

Quote:

I didn't say you could or should not think of, contemplate, ponder, hold, endorse, promote, or discuss the idea. I did not express a wish to purge you of it, or otherwise prevent you from 'thinking" it. I didn't even call it "bad". I said it was not consistant with my understanding of critical thinking, and as it demonstrably leads to anti-skeptical behaviours suggested it is not one I endorse.

People inherently understand that being incorrect is bad. Any time you voice disagreement with someone else's spoken thoughts, there is an implicit message that they are wrong (and, by extension, that the idea is bad). This communication occurs whether or not you explicitly mean it to.

As much as behavior is caused by thought, thought too is caused by behavior.

Quote:

And if they do not act? How are you to know who is thinking the "bad thoughts"- because you very cleary implied it is possible to tell the difference before they do so:

I don't particularly care about catatonic people, in regards to this issue. I'm only interested in changing how people think insofar as how it effects behavior.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by DeusPhasmatis

Because the public education system still tells you what to think.

...and if the student has been taught to think critically, these things they are "told to think" will be questioned, examined, evaluated. Which is what happens. This process cannot happen if these ideas are supressed- and thus no critical thinking about them is possible.

Quote:

"Expanding the scope and contents of their thoughts" is still invading the sanctity of one's mind.

"Invading the sanctity of one's mind"? Really? That almost sounds like you value ignorance. Of what exactly does this "sanctity consist? Is this "sanctity" only violated when someone else offers new information, or does any idea contrary to what was there before "invade" this "sanctity"?

Quote:

You're equating all thought-control to tyranny, but "thought-expanding" education is an example of the opposite.

Yes, that's my point. Being able to have and to share ideas regardless of their value to someone else is not thought control. Supressing ideas is thought control (by definition*, actually). Freedom to have and express ideas- even those considered "bad" by someone else- inevitably leads to more freedom. Supressing ideas leads to tyranny.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wiki

Thought Control [list][*]Need to internalize the group’s doctrine as "Truth" [*]Use of "loaded" language (for example, “thought terminating clichés"). Words are the tools we use to think with. These "special" words constrict rather than expand understanding, and can even stop thoughts altogether. They function to reduce complexities of experience into trite, platitudinous "buzz words." [*]Only "good" and "proper" thoughts are encouraged. [*]Use of hypnotic techniques to induce altered mental states [*]Manipulation of memories and implantation of false memories [*]Use of thought stopping techniques, which shut down "reality testing" by stopping "negative" thoughts and allowing only "good" thoughts [*]Rejection of rational analysis, critical thinking, constructive criticism. No critical questions about leader, doctrine, or policy seen as legitimate. [*]No alternative belief systems viewed as legitimate, good, or useful

Quote:

Do you consider it unjust that premeditated murder is a punished more harshly than heat-of-the-moment murder?

Is it, in every case? You state this as a fact, but where is your evidence, or even a citation? Assertion is not fact.

I seem to recall there being valid and legitimate defenses for which a "murder" that may be seen as "premeditated" might not be seen as murder at all. I would appeal to any lawyers present to correct me if this is not the case.

Quote:

By stifling all uncritical viewpoints, of course.

And how does one determine who's viewpoint is "uncritical"? Who makes these judgements, and who enforces them? Do you know what "stifling" means?

Quote:

It's part of what the peer review process in science does.

Does it now? And you can back this statement up as well, I presume. Keep in mind that disregarding a viewpoint that may be "uncritical" is not "stifling" it- just as not listening to a street prophet is not the same thing as imprisoning him so he may not be heard.

Quote:

People inherently understand that being incorrect is bad.

Really? Evidence?

What happens when what one person thinks is "incorrect" is not the same as what another person thinks is "incorrect"- keeping in mind that critical thinking and skepticism does not have a doctrine or creed of which ideas are by definition "skeptical", and therefor "correct"?

We disagree here- obviously you think you are correct, therefore I must be "incorrect". Do you consider my thoughts "bad"? Should my thinking be forcibly modified until they are no longer "bad"? If people inherently understand that being incorrect is bad, why don't I consider my own thinking "bad"?

Quote:

Any time you voice disagreement with someone else's spoken thoughts, there is an implicit message that they are wrong (and, by extension, that the idea is bad).

I'll ask you to explicate in which sense you are using the word "bad" here, because I do belive you may be slipping into an equivocation.

In any case, the assertion is not true. In matters wholly related to subjective judgement, such as artistic or culinary taste, disagreement has no such connotations.

Quote:

As much as behavior is caused by thought, thought too is caused by behavior.

How do you know? How are you able to access another's thoughts to compare their thoughts to their behaviour, let alone determine which is causative of which?

Quote:

I don't particularly care about catatonic people, in regards to this issue. I'm only interested in changing how people think insofar as how it effects behavior.

Which again brings up the unanswered question of how you know how people think to change it, if all you can see is what people do?

You explicitly said you want to modify people's thought to preempt their undesirable behaviour- how do you plan to do this, if you cannot know their thoughts unless you observe their behaviour?

[krazyKemist]

Originally Posted by cj.23

Strict double predestination Calvinists have always explicitly taught this. The Elect are saved because of God's Grace, by the will of God, and everyone else is damned. I don't think Free Will gets much of an airing in this form of Calvinism. Dunno - wikipedia would help - try Foreordination, Predestination and the contrary doctrine Arminianism if interested. IF I was not working and ill I would check for you.

cj x

Originally Posted by Foreordination

In this view, God is the ultimate causal agent, whereas man is always and only an effect.[...] Furthermore, since God knows "all things, for all things are present before [his] eyes" (D&C 38:1-2), he anticipates our choices. However, he does not make the choices for us. Knowing our potential, he foreordains those who will help to bring about his purposes.

Oh dear. You really have to twist logic into a pretzel to accept this without thinking that it's ultimately god's fault you aren't saved. And that of the poor schlobs he sends to "help" you. This stuff is geared to generate maximum guilt and misery in its followers. And I thought catholicism was bad.

So the proper response to these people is "Your god made me that way." Or, if you feel particularly mean, "Actually, it's your fault I'm going to hell, since your pathetic attempts to "help" me obviously failed."

Originally Posted by Arminianism

* Humans are naturally unable to make any effort towards salvation (see also prevenient grace).
* Salvation is possible only by God's grace, which cannot be merited.
* No works of human effort can cause or contribute to salvation.
* God's election is conditional on faith in the sacrifice and Lordship of Jesus Christ.
* Christ's atonement was made on behalf of all people.
* God allows his grace to be resisted by those who freely reject Christ.
* Salvation can be lost, as continued salvation is conditional upon continued faith.

Ah, "faith not works", the lazy doctrine that makes it okay to be a selfish prick or even a serial killer as long as you say the right prayers. I recognize that one from the authors of the Left Behind series. What's weird is one of the series author's comments on the hypothetical "state of grace" of a man who would die while flirting with a woman who is not his wife, that this man would go to hell.

Apparently, he'd forgotten about the "faith not works" bit of his theology, by which the man could have died while participating in an orgy with men and women and a couple goats and still gone to paradise if he had faith in the correct version of religion. Funny that he'd give a get out of jail free card to the murderer while forgetting his own doctrine over mere flirtation. Logic, or even a sense of perspective, is not their strong suit.

P.S. Get some rest and get well

[DeusPhasmatis]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

"Invading the sanctity of one's mind"? Really? That almost sounds like you value ignorance. Of what exactly does this "sanctity consist? Is this "sanctity" only violated when someone else offers new information, or does any idea contrary to what was there before "invade" this "sanctity"?

Any change to the way a person thinks, by an external factor, is an invasion of the sanctity of their mind. Whether it be expansive or stifling.

Quote:

Yes, that's my point. Being able to have and to share ideas regardless of their value to someone else is not thought control. Supressing ideas is thought control (by definition*, actually). Freedom to have and express ideas- even those considered "bad" by someone else- inevitably leads to more freedom. Supressing ideas leads to tyranny.

You're suppressing suppressed viewpoints. Stifling the stifled. Tyrannizing tyranny. Is the act of changing a person's thoughts, in and of itself, wrong? Is it the intent? Is it the result?

Quote:

Is it, in every case? You state this as a fact, but where is your evidence, or even a citation? Assertion is not fact.

Premeditated Murder.

Quote:

And how does one determine who's viewpoint is "uncritical"?

By applying the process of critical thought to the evidence presented.

Quote:

Who makes these judgements, and who enforces them?

Usually, the experts in the field at hand (laywers for law, doctors for medicine, etc...), sometimes with the specific aid of an arbitrator (a Judge, for example, settles many disputes). Enforcement is usually carried out by an agency of force on behalf of the other parties (the police, for example).

Quote:

Do you know what "stifling" means?

Literally the trait of making it difficult to breath. The metaphorical use you are putting it to likens it to "quash", "subdue", "suppress", or "eliminate". You're playing up the tyranny angle pretty hard here; I would appreciate it if you desisted in this straw-man.

Quote:

Does it now? And you can back this statement up as well, I presume. Keep in mind that disregarding a viewpoint that may be "uncritical" is not "stifling" it- just as not listening to a street prophet is not the same thing as imprisoning him so he may not be heard.

And where did I say people should be locked up? Putting words in my mouth, perchance?

Quote:

Really? Evidence?

It's not a coincidence that "right" has synonyms at both "good" and "correct" and "wrong" has synonyms at both "bad" and "incorrect". Even small arguments can get pretty heated, because of the implicit "incorrect is bad" understanding.

Quote:

What happens when what one person thinks is "incorrect" is not the same as what another person thinks is "incorrect"- keeping in mind that critical thinking and skepticism does not have a doctrine or creed of which ideas are by definition "skeptical", and therefor "correct"?

You get less accurate communication between the two people.

Quote:

We disagree here- obviously you think you are correct, therefore I must be "incorrect". Do you consider my thoughts "bad"?

Yes and no. There's a difference between my conscious understanding and my unconscious feelings.

Quote:

Should my thinking be forcibly modified until they are no longer "bad"?

Does talking with you count as "forcibly modified"?

Quote:

If people inherently understand that being incorrect is bad, why don't I consider my own thinking "bad"?

Because you consider your own thinking to be correct, of course. You are moved to pour more energy into responding to me (and I to you) than other posters in this thread because of the implicit message of "badness" carried by our disagreement.

Quote:

I'll ask you to explicate in which sense you are using the word "bad" here, because I do belive you may be slipping into an equivocation.

A decrease in the sense of one's self-worth.

Quote:

In any case, the assertion is not true. In matters wholly related to subjective judgement, such as artistic or culinary taste, disagreement has no such connotations.

But they do carry such connotations. They shouldn't, but they do.

Quote:

How do you know? How are you able to access another's thoughts to compare their thoughts to their behaviour, let alone determine which is causative of which?

Personal experience. Observation of those around me. Discussion with trained experts. Also, thought-to-action isn't straight causative: there is plenty of feedback going on.

Quote:

Which again brings up the unanswered question of how you know how people think to change it, if all you can see is what people do?

You explicitly said you want to modify people's thought to preempt their undesirable behaviour- how do you plan to do this, if you cannot know their thoughts unless you observe their behaviour?

By observing their behavior.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Anyway, I was reading a chapter that was defending theists against "rational" attacks. Basically, the author claimed that belief in God need not be based on reason, but on hope. Yeah... I don't really get that.

Based on? If the man is saying that hoping makes what is hoped for a fact or provides reasons for thinking that it is a fact, then he has taken his eye off the ball.

Quote:

The second argument I found more interesting. He was trying to show that theists should not be judged as irrational by atheists because beliefs are not chosen, and as such belief in God is not chosen. And since it is silly to judge people based on something they have no choice in, we should not judge theists.

Well, let's give him his premiss: they can't help their beliefs.

That is no defence against a charge of irrationality. What makes believers and beliefs irrational is not that the beliefs are or are not chosen but that the supporting reasons are bad or nonexistent.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by DeusPhasmatis

Any change to the way a person thinks, by an external factor, is an invasion of the sanctity of their mind. Whether it be expansive or stifling.

And what exactly do you mean by "sanctity of mind"? "Sanctity" is the condition of being sacred, so what you seem to be saying then is that the initial state of someone's mind is sacred and any acquisition of knowledge that thereafter "invades" it is counter to the sacredness of that state. In otherwords, ignorance is to be valued over learning?

I cannot accept that value system, given that I endorse critical thinking.

Quote:

You're suppressing suppressed viewpoints. Stifling the stifled. Tyrannizing tyranny.

Nope. I'm not trying to silence those who endorse this viewpoint; I am merely disagreeing with it. I enthusiastically support the frequent and widespread airing and discussion of this particular mode of thinking, that its flaws may be better seen and recognised.

Quote:

Is the act of changing a person's thoughts, in and of itself, wrong?

No.

Quote:

Is it the intent?

Insomuch as I doubt even the ability of anyone to change a person's thoughts according to their intent, I think it is most likely irrelevant.

Granting the possiblity exists, the "wrongness" of the intent would depend on what the intent actually was, and the moral values of the one making the judgement, and thereby be entirely subjective.

Quote:

Is it the result?

The "wrongness" of the result would depend on the moral values of the one making the judgement, and thereby be entirely subjective.

Quote:

Premeditated Murder.

You do realise that the United States is not the world, and "usually" means "not always", right?

Are you thus conceding that "that premeditated murder is a punished more harshly than heat-of-the-moment murder" is not always true?

Quote:

By applying the process of critical thought to the evidence presented.

How does one do that to a viewpoint or evidence that has been suppressed?

Quote:

Usually, the experts in the field at hand (laywers for law, doctors for medicine, etc...), sometimes with the specific aid of an arbitrator (a Judge, for example, settles many disputes). Enforcement is usually carried out by an agency of force on behalf of the other parties (the police, for example).

But we were speaking of science, sir- are you intimating that the government should have a hand in deciding which viewpoints in science are correct, and suppressing dissenting theories?

Quote:

Literally the trait of making it difficult to breath. The metaphorical use you are putting it to likens it to "quash", "subdue", "suppress", or "eliminate".

It is the second sense of the word in most dictionaries, and it is listed as a cognate of the words to which you refer in most thesauruses. Intimating that I am somehow creating my own definition is disingenous.

Quote:

You're playing up the tyranny angle pretty hard here; I would appreciate it if you desisted in this straw-man.

That is my argument- that supression of thoughts leads to tyranny. To what fantastic version of logic do you subscribe that allows one to strawman one's own arguments?

Or have you succumbed to the misapprehension- unfortunately growing ever more common on these pages- that "strawman" is but a simple incantation one may invoke to render moot an argument against which one's arguments are powerless?

Quote:

And where did I say people should be locked up? Putting words in my mouth, perchance?

I would invite you to recall the meaning of "metaphor", to which you previously made reference in the very post to which I am responding.

Quote:

It's not a coincidence that "right" has synonyms at both "good" and "correct" and "wrong" has synonyms at both "bad" and "incorrect".

The shifting between which is equivocation, which it seems I am correct in suspecting here.

Quote:

Even small arguments can get pretty heated, because of the implicit "incorrect is bad" understanding.

I hold no such "implicit understanding". "Correct" and "incorrect" are factual insofar as they are evidenced, "good" and "bad" are subjective value judgements.

That you do not seem to recognise the difference is unfortunate, and would serve to illustrates the fundamental error in your thinking, if correct.

Quote:

Yes and no. There's a difference between my conscious understanding and my unconscious feelings.

Extraordinary. What and how do you know about these "feelings" of which you are "unconscious"?

In any case, we were not speaking of you, good sir, but of me. Are my incorrect thoughts "bad"? It would seem you think so, considering your assertion that "incorrect is bad" is something "implicitly understood".

Quote:

Does talking with you count as "forcibly modified"?

Considering your assertion "Any change to the way a person thinks, by an external factor, is an invasion of the sanctity of their mind" it appears you think so. The question is, is there any limit to the extent to which you feel empowered to so forcibly modify my thoughts so they are no longer "bad"?

Quote:

Because you consider your own thinking to be correct, of course.

Very good. How then do we determine who is in fact correct? Whoever has the capability and will to use the greatest force to "invade the sanctity" of the other's mind to a sufficient degree to modify their thinking?

Quote:

You are moved to pour more energy into responding to me (and I to you) than other posters in this thread because of the implicit message of "badness" carried by our disagreement.

There is that remarkable talent you seem to imagine you possess for knowing another's thoughts.

You are completely wrong about my motivations, I can assure you. I shall not presume to speak of your own, as I do not claim to have these singular powers you grant unto yourself.

Quote:

A decrease in the sense of one's self-worth.

"Any time you voice disagreement with someone else's spoken thoughts, there is an implicit message that they are wrong (and, by extension, that the idea is a decrease in the sense of one's self-worth)."
Really, that's what you meant to say? By that are you suggesting that any dissagreement is undesirable as it decreases the self esteem of the party with which you disagree? Is this an element of your "sancticy of mind" hypothesis?

Quote:

But they do carry such connotations. They shouldn't, but they do.

For everybody, at all times?

Quote:

Personal experience.

Personal experience of the thoughts of others, or of their actions only?

Quote:

Observation of those around me.

Observation of the thoughts of those around you, or of their behaviour only?

Quote:

Discussion with trained experts.

Trained by whom? "Experts" in what- observing thoughts, or observing behaviours? I have little respect for appeals to authority, especially to the legendary "trained experts".

Quote:

Also, thought-to-action isn't straight causative: there is plenty of feedback going on.

That's just another assertion in kind. Unless you can observe thoughts or this "feedback" affecting these thoughts, all you have is behaviour. Can you observe the thoughts of others, apart from their behaviour?

Quote:

By observing their behavior.

If behaviour is the only agency by which to know someone's thoughts, how do you propose to modify those thoughts to preempt their undesirable behaviour before they act?

[DeusPhasmatis]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

And what exactly do you mean by "sanctity of mind"? "Sanctity" is the condition of being sacred, so what you seem to be saying then is that the initial state of someone's mind is sacred and any acquisition of knowledge that thereafter "invades" it is counter to the sacredness of that state. In otherwords, ignorance is to be valued over learning?

And I don't think the mind has any sanctity, so I freely trample ignorance. It was a metaphorical play on how harshly you disagreed with the idea of changing how people think.

Quote:

Nope. I'm not trying to silence those who endorse this viewpoint; I am merely disagreeing with it. I enthusiastically support the frequent and widespread airing and discussion of this particular mode of thinking, that its flaws may be better seen and recognised.

So you're changing how people think to include the "flaws" of "this particular mode of thinking"?

Quote:

Insomuch as I doubt even the ability of anyone to change a person's thoughts according to their intent, I think it is most likely irrelevant.

Granting the possiblity exists, the "wrongness" of the intent would depend on what the intent actually was, and the moral values of the one making the judgement, and thereby be entirely subjective.

The "wrongness" of the result would depend on the moral values of the one making the judgement, and thereby be entirely subjective.

So why do you disagree with my desire to change how other people think?

Quote:

You do realise that the United States is not the world, and "usually" means "not always", right?

Are you thus conceding that "that premeditated murder is a punished more harshly than heat-of-the-moment murder" is not always true?

Yes, yes, I'll answer your pedantry: The USA is not the world (nor is the world the universe, less you accuse me of misrepresenting law on Alpha Centauri next), premeditated murder is not always (nor is it never) punished more harshly; do you feel it is unjust that some countries punish premeditated murder more harshly than heat-of-the-moment murder?

Quote:

How does one do that to a viewpoint or evidence that has been suppressed?

Where did I say I would be suppressing evidence?

Quote:

But we were speaking of science, sir- are you intimating that the government should have a hand in deciding which viewpoints in science are correct, and suppressing dissenting theories?

Wrong way around: science has a hand on which laws are made and how they are carried out.

Quote:

It is the second sense of the word in most dictionaries, and it is listed as a cognate of the words to which you refer in most thesauruses. Intimating that I am somehow creating my own definition is disingenous.

I didn't mean to imply any wrongdoing on your part, merely a notation on the difference between the literal meaning of the word and the metaphorical one.

Quote:

That is my argument- that supression of thoughts leads to tyranny. To what fantastic version of logic do you subscribe that allows one to strawman one's own arguments?

Or have you succumbed to the misapprehension- unfortunately growing ever more common on these pages- that "strawman" is but a simple incantation one may invoke to render moot an argument against which one's arguments are powerless?

Where you imply I am a tyrant; Where you imply that I seek to imprison anyone with a dissenting voice; Where I seek to suppress evidence that supports alternative theories. Your argument isn't only that suppression of thoughts leads to tyranny; it is that I seek to suppress thought. It's that second part that is the straw-man.

Quote:

The shifting between which is equivocation, which it seems I am correct in suspecting here.

I hold no such "implicit understanding". "Correct" and "incorrect" are factual insofar as they are evidenced, "good" and "bad" are subjective value judgements.

That you do not seem to recognise the difference is unfortunate, and would serve to illustrates the fundamental error in your thinking, if correct.

Or that I'm making a reference to the general human psyche that holds in most cases.

Quote:

Extraordinary. What and how do you know about these "feelings" of which you are "unconscious"?

Introspective thought, with the assistance of a second party.

Quote:

In any case, we were not speaking of you, good sir, but of me.

Wrong. As can be easily demonstrated:

Quote:

Are my incorrect thoughts "bad"? It would seem you think so, considering your assertion that "incorrect is bad" is something "implicitly understood".

We happen to speaking of my view of you; that includes both of us in the discussion. Pedantry aside, the answer to your question is yes.

Quote:

Considering your assertion "Any change to the way a person thinks, by an external factor, is an invasion of the sanctity of their mind" it appears you think so. The question is, is there any limit to the extent to which you feel empowered to so forcibly modify my thoughts so they are no longer "bad"?

Yes.

Quote:

Very good. How then do we determine who is in fact correct?

Quote:

There is that remarkable talent you seem to imagine you possess for knowing another's thoughts.

You are completely wrong about my motivations, I can assure you. I shall not presume to speak of your own, as I do not claim to have these singular powers you grant unto yourself.

Ah, how you belittle the field of Psychology.

Quote:

"Any time you voice disagreement with someone else's spoken thoughts, there is an implicit message that they are wrong (and, by extension, that the idea is a decrease in the sense of one's self-worth)."
Really, that's what you meant to say? By that are you suggesting that any dissagreement is undesirable as it decreases the self esteem of the party with which you disagree? Is this an element of your "sancticy of mind" hypothesis?

I am suggesting that when someone concedes a point, it costs them some of their confidence.

Quote:

For everybody, at all times?

For nobody, at no time ("disagreement has no such connotations.")? False dichotomy; I find your pedantry tiresome.

Quote:

Personal experience of the thoughts of others, or of their actions only?

Observation of the thoughts of those around you, or of their behaviour only?

Trained by whom? "Experts" in what- observing thoughts, or observing behaviours? I have little respect for appeals to authority, especially to the legendary "trained experts".

That's just another assertion in kind. Unless you can observe thoughts or this "feedback" affecting these thoughts, all you have is behaviour. Can you observe the thoughts of others, apart from their behaviour?

If behaviour is the only agency by which to know someone's thoughts, how do you propose to modify those thoughts to preempt their undesirable behaviour before they act?

Again, I must cite the field of scientific inquiry known as Psychology.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Mashuna

I think it's rare to hear theists arguing against free will. I thought they considered it to be God-given?

Ever heard of a Calvinist?

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by LarianLeQuella

Sadly, in the US, your position is not adhered to as often as it should be. Look at Mr. McLeroy of the Texas Board of Education for one fine example. Or Gov Jindhal (sp). The list goes on. And not only in that specific regard, but Jenny McCarthy seems to be doing a lot of arm twisting for her agenda. These type f people are the ones I have a big beef with. They are causing a lot of direct harm. http://whatstheharm.net/

You are making an assumption here that I find rather weak: that such an anecdote is reflective of a majority consensus among all Christians.

I think you are counting the hits and deliberately ignoring the misses.

Just because Jerry Fallwell was loud does not mean the majority of Christians agreed with him. But he sure fooled you, it seems.

Did carnival barkers make a lot of money on you as well?

DR