• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > Religion: A mental illness?

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1...34567...16
Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:Written by: Simian
ah, israel. Just another justification for my thesis that religious belief should be treated the same as any other mental illness. But that's another discussion entirely...



Well, this is another discussion entirely. smile

Thoughts?

I'm inclined to agree.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete Topic

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: Icer

ok, so ill refine what i said and say that quantifiable things like maths or physics or whatever can be right and wrong. like the engineer with the bridge.



Good, then we agree on that smile


Written by: Icer

...
but qualifiable things like morals or ideologies or whatever are subjectively right or wrong. like the holocaust example.





I'll say two things-

1. the buddhists have a good perspective on morality- then neatly sidestep the quagmire of debate on right/wrong, good/bad etc, by classifying intentions/deeds in terms of whether they're compassionate or not. This frees them from millenia of debate that goes nowhere, and enables them to get on with doing what is necessary to bring about a more compassionate world

2. if morality is subjective, then does that mean that those who do feel confident in deciding what they see as right/wrong, can then go off and impose their views on the world? Presumably, their, albeit subjective, view that they are entitled to do so, is as valid as anyones, and means that they can't be condemned?

Condemnation would surely only be possible based on some absolute moral principles (eg that it's wrong to impose ones views on others)?


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

quiet


quiet

analytic
Location: bristol

Total posts: 503
Posted:more craziness which I cannot ignore:

quote [icer]: '. . your entitled to your own view, and your free to express it. i think thats what people call 'freedom of speech'. which, correct me if im wrong, is kinda founded on the fact that people have different views, which are equally valid, so should be able to express them. if they were not equally valid, why should they be allowed to express them?'

Nope: maybe there's something inherently good about freedom of expression, but the grounds of freedom of speech is NOT that everything is equally valid. When Mill is arguing for freedom of expression (it's in 'On Liberty', which I take to be the canonical text on the issue) he cites the fact that the best way you're going to get to the truth is to allow free discussion.

But while we're on the subject of validity . . .

Although I agree with OWD's point - and bear in mind that, in philosophical contexts, 'valid' has a pretty specific meaning - there's something wrong with the following:

again quoting Icer:

'i think in this context 'valid', means not that something is right or correct, but that who ever holds a view on anything has reasons for that view. those reasons are real and cogent for that person.'

Again, this is simply wrong. Lots of people hold views for no good reason, or indeed no reason at all. Racism, for instance, often doesn't have reasons. Or maybe people think that it's all a big Jewish conspiracy. Are you saying that they have 'real and cogent' reasons? Just because people have opinions doesn't mean that there are reasons behind those opinions, or indeed good reasons.

and this is also wrong:

quote [mynci]:

'right and wrong are based on a moral stand-point taken from the average human belief.'

You presumably think that it's possible for there to be widespread moral error, i.e. for most of the human population to be in the wrong (suppose everyone was racist, say, or thought that killing Jews was OK). But if so, right and wrong can't be a function of average belief; if it was, then widespread moral error would be impossible.

and mynci: 'who said the holocaust was wrong'?

I suggest you go away and think about this for a bit.

--------

For the record, I never claimed that better philosophical training makes you right. But I don't understand why people stubbornly refuse to admit that philosophical training can sometimes *help*: it makes people think more rigorously, and renders them less prone to making stupid mistakes, at least in most cases.

OWD: maybe we should have a 'NOT ALL OPINIONS ARE EQUALLY VALID' thread, and perhaps also a 'NOT EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE' thread smile


ture na sig

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:Apologies for the Blahing, it was a long thread and I lost patience with it.

Anyway, on relative morality, I hold by beliefs because I believe that are right. If someone does something they believe is right, but I believe is very wrong, then I will try and stop them. From their point of view they are right. But my point of view is, in my personal opinion, one hell of a lot better that theirs if they're trying to torture childen or something like that. I'm not going to just throw up my hands and say "Oh well, I suppose the Americans/Terrorrists think they're doing the right thing, it would be wrong of me to judge".

I guess I don't have a lot of respect for moral relativism. I won't mince my words here and someone's bound to say it sooner or later but I do think some people morality is just damn wrong and if they are causing hurt to others then it's our duty to stop them, regardless of what they think.

Once again apologies for previous rudeness but please try to avoid vage ambiguity when philosophising, it really gets up my nose. wink


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:Written by: onewheeldave

If someone claims that pi=4, then they are wrong.



Except for very large values of Pi, and very small values of 4... biggrin

Written by: LilMissSmartyPants

I started to read this and then gave up. you guys are too deep for me lol
my religion is sex, drugs and hardhouse euphoria (Vol 2 teehee)



Ah, Finally! A view point I can respect.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Mynci
BRONZE Member since Apr 2005

Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...

Total posts: 8737
Posted:All I am doing Quiet is stating the "validity" of a point of view. I have edited my post as I was interupted when writting it; to get across my point a bit better.
And does anyone else think we've got so heated we've drifted WAY off topic??
redface


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

quiet


quiet

analytic
Location: bristol

Total posts: 503
Posted:stating the validity of a point of view? what does that mean?

ture na sig

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Great thoughts guys. I think there is too much I, in I am, therefore I exist or however it goes



I think Im ready to read the bible now. Never knew what to look for before. Now Ill be looking for the truth without the stories/opinions. Starting with the New Testament.



jeff (fake) wrote.



Written by:
Anyway, on relative morality, I hold by beliefs because I believe that are right. If someone does something they believe is right, but I believe is very wrong, then I will try and stop them. From their point of view they are right. But my point of view is, in my personal opinion, one hell of a lot better that theirs if they're trying to torture childen or something like that. I'm not going to just throw up my hands and say "Oh well, I suppose the Americans/Terrorrists think they're doing the right thing, it would be wrong of me to judge".







Mr Jeff (Fake), now thats just your opinion, and hey you seem prepared to start world war III over it. Like my opinion is better than your opinion.



Put the "my opinion is better than your opinion" into a religious context and you have the "mental illness".





cheers smile


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Icer
SILVER Member since Apr 2005

Icer

just a shadow of my former self...
Location: Christchurch

Total posts: 205
Posted:dam, its hard holding a discussion here, i go away for half a day and things have moved on from where i left off.

just going back a few points where i was told i was wrong, i have no problem with being told that...when i am...

i think the validity of differetn points of free i sinherent in the freedom of speech, i didnt mean to imply its the foundation.

and the reasons people hold view points are real and cogent FOR THEM, that was the key part of that statement. whether those reasons are formed out of ignorance or intolerance or whatever, they is always a reason, no matter how absurd, and they are real enough to that person, so much so that they form viewpoints on them. just cause their not your viewpoints doesnt actually mean squat.
im not going near the mental illness of religion. im in enough arguements as it is biggrin


It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.

Delete

Posted:Written by: onewheeldave


the buddhists have a good perspective on morality- then neatly sidestep the quagmire of debate on right/wrong, good/bad etc, by classifying intentions/deeds in terms of whether they're compassionate or not. This frees them from millenia of debate that goes nowhere, and enables them to get on with doing what is necessary to bring about a more compassionate world







Hey I like that. Although I'm more a relative truth person, I can see that there is some sort of absolute morality. It's obvious from the examples that everyone's given, that morality simply cannot be defined 100%, and there will always be different points of view and exceptions. I believe that love and compassion come from a plane higher than rationality itself, so therefore we can't define exactly what is moral and what isn't, even if it does exist.



Here are some statements that are difficult to say aren't justified:

Morality is about not hurting other beings.

Morality is about spreading love and compassion

Morality is about respecting other opinions.



I'll relate the last statement to the torturing of innocent children for fun. Even if from someone else's perspective they thought this would be OK, if it wasn't ok in the childrens' mind, then the torturer wouldn't be respecting the childrens' opinion and so would be doing something immoral.



That said, these statements are just approximations.


Delete

Posted:The main problem with trying to define morality is that people tend to confuse morality with unrelated issues such as cultural traditions, desire and power. This conditioning is so intergrated into our upbringing that it's hard to separate from it.



Here are some examples.



Bob decided to get his eyebrow pierced. His strict Christian parents tell him that's its wrong to do that. They say he is doing something against Jesus and the Bible. The fact is that the ring isn't doing anything, it's just a metal ring. No-one is hurting anyone else. The parents may take it as a sign of rebellion. In this case, it's a matter of power, not morality.



Rupert decides to take drugs, or masturbate. His religion says that these things are wrong. Well, doing these things aren't an act of hatred or lack of compassion. Noone is hurting anyone else. What Rupert is really doing is indulging in desires. Whether this is a wise thing to do or not is up to you, but it's not immoral. In the case of drugs, what he's doing is dangerous, not immoral.



By brainwashing people into thinking that certain behaviours are immoral, a lot of power can be gained.


Delete

Mynci
BRONZE Member since Apr 2005

Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...

Total posts: 8737
Posted:It means i was stating how valid a point of view is...
Every point of view IS VALID it may or may not be CORRECT but without an incorrect point of view surely by definition you cannot have a correct point of view. like without day there is no night. therefore a point of view will ALWAYS be valid even if it is incorrect.

And earlier I said about the holocaust form an amoral (without morals) point of view pointing out it was a moral issue and without morals the point is moot. (I have to get across again that I in no way defend or agree with what happened)


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

Sethis
BRONZE Member since May 2005

Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University

Total posts: 1762
Posted:Psyrush, great last post. Agreed.

Written by: onewheeldave

IMO, if an issue is beyond someones grasp, they should consider just facing up to that, walking away, and leaving it to those who do have the ability to engage it; as opposed to saying 'I can't really understand this, therefore it must be something that has no possible answer'.




Written by: onewheeldave

1. the buddhists have a good perspective on morality- then neatly sidestep the quagmire of debate on right/wrong, good/bad etc, by classifying intentions/deeds in terms of whether they're compassionate or not. This frees them from millenia of debate that goes nowhere, and enables them to get on with doing what is necessary to bring about a more compassionate world




So basically what you're saying is that we should ALL avoid any kind of moral debate, and simply show compassion to other people? You seem to be saying that moral debate is beyond all Buddhist's grasp. Also, in the entire history of the human race, I'm pretty sure that there are some "Well qualified" thinkers, but even they still haven't come up with a definitive version of what is right or wrong. Following this line, then no-one can possibly gain any truth with these ethical questions so we should all stop talking about it?

And compassion is still relative. Take my previous example of abortion. You can argure perfectly well that it is both good and bad. Who is to say which is correct?


After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Delete

simian


simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London

Total posts: 3149
Posted:Sethis: Correct, there can be conflicts of interest which make things hard to judge.



But i reckon the shifting from the objective terms of Good\Evil to the subjective terms of Nice\Nasty is one of those really sensible judgements that make Buddhism so much less mental than other religions.



Written by: Sethis
I'm pretty sure that there are some "Well qualified" thinkers, but even they still haven't come up with a definitive version of what is right or wrong. Following this line, then no-one can possibly gain any truth with these ethical questions so we should all stop talking about it?





The reason no answer has been found is because there isn't one.



The question itself is flawed and nonsensical. The result of category errors in it's basic terms (Like asking: How herring is that slowly?)

It only appears to make sense because you're using the terms Right and Wrong in a sense in which they're literally insignificant.

"all sound and fury, and signifying nothing"

EDITED_BY: simian (1126175528)


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

Mynci
BRONZE Member since Apr 2005

Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...

Total posts: 8737
Posted:Written by: simian

But i reckon the shifting from the objective terms of Good\Evil to the subjective terms of Nice\Nasty is one of those really sensible judgements that make Buddhism so much less mental than other religions.



ubblol I like the insinuation ALL religions are mental.


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

simian


simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London

Total posts: 3149
Posted:That is what i believe. Quite seriously.

(though with a loose definition of "mental illness" wink )



Read my first coupla posts in this thread for my reasoning.


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

Posted:Written by: Sethis

Psyrush, great last post. Agreed.

Written by: onewheeldave

IMO, if an issue is beyond someones grasp, they should consider just facing up to that, walking away, and leaving it to those who do have the ability to engage it; as opposed to saying 'I can't really understand this, therefore it must be something that has no possible answer'.




Written by: onewheeldave

1. the buddhists have a good perspective on morality- then neatly sidestep the quagmire of debate on right/wrong, good/bad etc, by classifying intentions/deeds in terms of whether they're compassionate or not. This frees them from millenia of debate that goes nowhere, and enables them to get on with doing what is necessary to bring about a more compassionate world




So basically what you're saying is that we should ALL avoid any kind of moral debate, and simply show compassion to other people? You seem to be saying that moral debate is beyond all Buddhist's grasp. Also, in the entire history of the human race, I'm pretty sure that there are some "Well qualified" thinkers, but even they still haven't come up with a definitive version of what is right or wrong. Following this line, then no-one can possibly gain any truth with these ethical questions so we should all stop talking about it?

And compassion is still relative. Take my previous example of abortion. You can argure perfectly well that it is both good and bad. Who is to say which is correct?



One of the huge problems with abortion is that we simply don't have enough information to know whether abortion is uncompassionate or not. We don't know WHEN the soul enters the body of the foetus. We don't know where the soul will go after the abortion. We don't even know if there is a soul at all.
People have beliefs about these things, things that are so ingrained in their mind that they think they can 'prove' it when they can't. Then by saying to others that abortion or whatever, is immoral, really, they are trying to force their unproven beliefs onto them.


Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: Sethis






Written by: onewheeldave


IMO, if an issue is beyond someones grasp, they should consider just facing up to that, walking away, and leaving it to those who do have the ability to engage it; as opposed to saying 'I can't really understand this, therefore it must be something that has no possible answer'.







Written by: onewheeldave


1. the buddhists have a good perspective on morality- then neatly sidestep the quagmire of debate on right/wrong, good/bad etc, by classifying intentions/deeds in terms of whether they're compassionate or not. This frees them from millenia of debate that goes nowhere, and enables them to get on with doing what is necessary to bring about a more compassionate world







So basically what you're saying is that we should ALL avoid any kind of moral debate, and simply show compassion to other people?









No. What I'm saying in those two unnconnected points from two seperate posts that you've lumped together is that-



1. people shouldn't confuse the fact that just becasue, to them, an issue seems unanswerable, does not mean that others can't find an answer.



and



2. that, for those whose prime focus where morality is concerned is to do good things in their life, but who maybe find the state of the ongoing centuries long moral debate to be somewhat unhelpful- that there is a way of approaching morality that sidesteps it by basing ones life on the concept of compassion.



Elaborating on that- a life based on compassion is not a life free of hard decisions; it can be difficult in some cases to decide which of two actions is actually the most compassionate.



But at least, in many scenarios, you're in with a fighting chance- maybe abortion is not clear cut, but when it comes to torturing children, it's pretty obviously an uncompassionate act.



This is in sharp contrast to basing your decisions on morality as debated by philosophers, in which, after millenia of long debate, it's yet to be decided what 'right/wrong' actually mean, or whether they exist.



And, when the inevitable moral philosopher staggers in with his/her '..but what if by torturing this child one can aquire the knowledge to eliminate all suffering for all humanity for evermore...' you can simply say to them that it's an interesting little debating puzzle, but that your focus is on doing what is necessary to make the world a more compassionate place, and quite frankly, getting involved in that particular discussion would be nothing but a distraction from that aim.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

quiet


quiet

analytic
Location: bristol

Total posts: 503
Posted:Icer, sethis, mynci, I have questions for you:

i) What does it mean to say that a point of view is valid?
ii) Can there be invalid points of view? If not, what is added by saying 'this point of view is valid'?
iii) Do you think that everything people think, they think for a reason?
iv) Do you think that there are good reasons and bad reasons? Or better/worse reasons?
v) Does my belief that there is beer in the fridge give me reason to think that it's going to rain tomorrow?


ture na sig

Delete

Mynci
BRONZE Member since Apr 2005

Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...

Total posts: 8737
Posted:Written by: quiet

Icer, sethis, mynci, I have questions for you:

i) What does it mean to say that a point of view is valid?
ii) Can there be invalid points of view? If not, what is added by saying 'this point of view is valid'?
iii) Do you think that everything people think, they think for a reason?
iv) Do you think that there are good reasons and bad reasons? Or better/worse reasons?
v) Does my belief that there is beer in the fridge give me reason to think that it's going to rain tomorrow?



In my opinion.
i) A point of view is valid when it is given as a point of view on a subject whether it is correct or not
ii) There is no invalid point of view there fore the use of the word "valid" is truely null and void. (I was mincing words earlier)
iii) Harder to answer, I feel people "think" they think things for a reason and probably "need" to think what they are thinking.
If you mean do they think things for a cosmic / universal reason, I would say no, I don't think there is a universal "puppet master" directing people.
iv) I feel good and bad are abject words which differ from person to person. I think we DO need some form of moral code to live by but good and bad are subject to perspective which differs between individuals. I do think individuals probably NEED "reasons" for things but good and bad / better and worse are too subjective to be used in debate.
v) You may use that as a basis of belief (in my opinion religious belief is based on far less) and I feel it a valid wink perspective. for example on passed history every time you've had beer in the fridge it may have rained the next day...therefore you would have a reason (not good or bad) to believe it will rain.

biggrin This is fun. It keeps my brain half awake at work....nice to discuss with people with opinions.


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

Icer
SILVER Member since Apr 2005

Icer

just a shadow of my former self...
Location: Christchurch

Total posts: 205
Posted:ok , my turn...
1)what mynci said.
2)nothing is added by saying THIS point of view is valid, if by admitting that no point of view is invalid, thereby making all points of view valid, there is no need to state that the individividual viewpoint is valid, as it would go without saying.
3)i think people do have reasons for what they think, but those reasons can often be illogical and irrational. like the IDers we discussing in the other thread. they believe in something, they have their reasons, to you or me (yes i disagree with ID) thin kit is illogical and irrational, but it isnt to them.
4)exactly what mynci said, i couldnt say it better if i tried.
5)raining tomor because there beer in the fridge? if you want ot belive that and you have your reasons, however irrational or illogical, then you go right ahead and believe that. but i should mention that i have rum in the fridge which suggests to me it will be sunny...and rum is stronger than beer, sooooo......

and your right mynci, this is fun. i hope people dont get too worked up about things tho, im just having fun biggrin


It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.

Delete

Sethis
BRONZE Member since May 2005

Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University

Total posts: 1762
Posted:1. A point of view is something that is held in someone's mind, and occasionally told to other people. It is, at best, difficult to judge, because you cannot be in someone elses head. At worst, it is so foreign that you can't understand it. BUT this doesn't make it invalid. It means that you can't understand (which my or may not be your fault), not that they are necessarily wrong.

2. Valid and invalid are simply people's point of view. Therefore you CAN'T call anyone elses point of view invalid. Because that, of course, is only your point of view wink .

3. I like to think that people have *A* reason. It cannot be judged as good or bad, because whatever you judge, it is your point of view.

4. I think there are better reasons than others. Ones with Empirical proof are generally good, because that is not based on point of view. E.g. If I believe that water will boil at around 100 celsius. I can test this, and everyone else can see through an impartial medium that it is true. However you can't call one reason better than another when discussing ethics or morality.

5. You can believe it if you want. I don't agree, but you're not harming anyone. And, for all anyone knows, maybe it will. If it doesn't rain, maybe you should drink it and go and get a different brand biggrin .


After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:I think we confuse emotion with morality. And thats the problem.

Perhaps, like looking at a swastiker, and seeing a concentration camp, instead of a symbol.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Mynci
BRONZE Member since Apr 2005

Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...

Total posts: 8737
Posted:Written by: Stone

Perhaps, like looking at a swastiker, and seeing a concentration camp, instead of a symbol.



Or the religious symbol it was originally...


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

quiet


quiet

analytic
Location: bristol

Total posts: 503
Posted:So the consensus is that saying 'this point of view is valid' is pretty much meaningless, since all points of view are, by their very nature, valid?

Ooooh, I love it when people contradict themselves. I'm going to quote Icer from p4 of this thread:

'ditto everything sethis said. there are many debates we could hold on here, of which there would be no resolution. so many points of view that they would be inpossible to count. but as long as someone holds them they are valid points of view. just b/c they are not your point of view doesnt make them wrong.'

Now, leaving aside the way in which this makes it look like you are equating 'valid' with 'right' (because otherwise the last sentence would be a complete non-sequitur), it looks like, by your own account, you're not actually saying anything - since to say 'this point of view is valid' doesn't actually mean anything.

Or maybe I've misunderstood you?


ture na sig

Delete

Mynci
BRONZE Member since Apr 2005

Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...

Total posts: 8737
Posted:Written by: quiet
- since to say 'this point of view is valid' doesn't actually mean anything.



Or maybe I've misunderstood you?





possibly but that is your point of view. wink unless you are arguing the point that there is no "invalid" point of view and validity is a moot point. (that sounds contradictory to what I said a minute ago but if validity is raised then it must be allowed to be defended / contested by having an opposing view) You cannot have a coin with only 1 side... confused wink ubbloco



I think icer's point stands due to the full stop between the sentance with the word "valid" and the sentance with the word "wrong" both can be classed as statements which can be considered true (for a given value of true) ubblol


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

quiet


quiet

analytic
Location: bristol

Total posts: 503
Posted:ARGH!

PLEASE TAKE TIME TO READ MY POSTS A BIT MORE CAREFULLY

i) i'm not claiming that there are no 'invalid' points of view
ii) but you are
iii) furthermore, what you [plural: i mean you, sethis, icer, etc.] were claiming above ^^ was that it doesn't really mean anything to say 'this point of view is valid', since points of view, on your account, can't be invalid.

So I'm going to ask the question again: what does it mean to say that a point of view is 'valid'? On your account, I think this claim becomes meaningless - but in that case, why say that 'all points of view are valid'?


ture na sig

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:Written by: Stone
Mr Jeff (Fake), now thats just your opinion, and hey you seem prepared to start world war III over it. Like my opinion is better than your opinion.


In my opinion, my opinion is better than your opinion. I stand by my opinions and when I think it is justified I do impose them on other. I'm quite, quite contend to be considered intolerant of bullies, theives, murders, scam artists, war-mongers etc. If this is arrogance then I sure as hell don't want to be humble. Are you seriously suggesting that I hide away when terrible things happen like a snivelling coward simply because to do otherwise would be to 'arrogantly impose my views on others'. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your opinions (which are just that, your opinions, not universal facts like you seem to believe, in contradiction to your own beliefs). But if that is what you are suggesting then quite frankly you disgust me. No jokes, no quips, no saucy wink.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Mynci
BRONZE Member since Apr 2005

Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...

Total posts: 8737
Posted:Sorry...



to say a point of view is valid means nothing unless defending the term "invalid point of view"



all points of veiw are valid because with no incorrect OR invalid point of view a "correct" point of view would not be a "point of view" but a statement of fact. (I think... sorry at work at moment and not supposed to be on here too much)

I suppose the only way to consider a point invalid was if it was incorrect or not related there fore invalid can be related to incorrect but they are not the same.... Does that help...

EDITED_BY: Mynci (1126195481)


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:Alright, before we go on can people either provide us with what god-forsaken definition of 'valid' they are using each time they post or just stop using the word. Anouther four pages like this and I swear I'll do some of that 'arrogantly imposing my opinions on others' on someone ass! angry

I'm off for drink. Mabey it isn't actually real, but by gum it does the trick.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Mynci
BRONZE Member since Apr 2005

Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...

Total posts: 8737
Posted:fake this is a discussion on meaning not on what we would do if confronted by our own beliefs of wrong doing, we are bandying words not talking about right and wrong. if someone threatened my friends I would kick their ass...right OR wrong. chill dude.

A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

Page: 1...34567...16

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [religion mental illnes*] we found the following similar topics.
1. Learn > Cartoons, Fun, Jokes > Pictures, Cartoons, Meme > Poi is good for your mental wellbeing *help/resource
2. Forums > Religion: A mental illness? [465 replies]
3. Forums > When does religion become extremeism [61 replies]
4. Forums > dominance of religion [45 replies]
5. Forums > JUDGEMENT DAY, for religion [60 replies]

     Show more..