We can't choose to believe?

[sandy whitelinger]

Because I used the same word twice when describing the exact same thing?


Extrapolate whatever you want about me - it makes no difference. Your argument is still nonsensical. Two mes is not equal to one me, and two mes that exist in two different states cannot meaningfully be described as a single me existing in one state. Your inability to accept this simple point only shows up your unwillingness to admit that you are wrong.

Hmm, oh never mind. Have a nice life. And lighten up a little and have some fun dude. That's not unreasonable.

Proverbs 26:4

 

[leibowde84]

Truth is relative. If I wanted to believe it was dark out when it's light, I think all I need to do is redefine my parameters as to what's dark and what's light. Once I've changed my perceptions it would be easy to change my beliefs according to what I choose.

But, that wouldn't be a change in belief, it would be you adhering to a new definition of the terms dark and light.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

But, that wouldn't be a change in belief, it would be you adhering to a new definition of the terms dark and light.

So, what's the difference?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Because I used the same word twice when describing the exact same thing?

Yet it's neither silly nor uninformed. As I said, and you ignored, it's a valid argument that was offered in the 4th century and has roots that probably go further back than that. What's silly is that you cannot refute it except by calling it derogatory adjectives. Now that could fall under the definition of asinine.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

But, that wouldn't be a change in belief, it would be you adhering to a new definition of the terms dark and light.

Aren't our beliefs based on perceptions of what is true. If I change my perceptions, why haven't I changed my belief?

 

[leibowde84]

So, what's the difference?

In your example you are merely choosing to adhere to another linguistic meaning of certain words. With language, since it was man-made, there are absolute truths, depending on what meaning certain words have. For example, the statement "there are no married bachelors" is inherently true merely due to the meaning we assign to the term "bachelor". I am in agreement that we can choose to change the meaning of specific, man made terms.

Belief is completely different, as belief involves accepting that something is true objectively, or beyond subjective experience. For example, belief in God is accepting that God exists in reality. Either one is right about that, or one is wrong about it. Accuracy, in regards to belief, is not dependent on personal preference. So, belief, for me at least, is based on what I think is actualky, objectively the case rather than mere choice.

 

[leibowde84]

Aren't our beliefs based on perceptions of what is true. If I change my perceptions, why haven't I changed my belief?

What do you mean by "change your perceptions"? Do you do this by choice, or rather do you follow reason, thinking your previous perceptions were flawed and needed correction?

 

[Willamena]

I would think,"Not if you believe it."

Then it's not make belief.

 

[leibowde84]

I would think,"Not if you believe it."

Wait ... that doesn't make sense. Can you expand?

 

[leibowde84]

No you don't, because you don't have the capacity to "decide" what is true or convincing to you.

Exactly!

 

[leibowde84]

I do until you prove otherwise.

That's just about as unreasonable and invalid a claim can be.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yet it's neither silly nor uninformed. As I said, and you ignored, it's a valid argument that was offered in the 4th century and has roots that probably go further back than that. What's silly is that you cannot refute it except by calling it derogatory adjectives. Now that could fall under the definition of asinine.

You're in no position to talk about "ignoring" things if you're going to assert that I didn't refute your argument except for "calling it derogatory adjectives". I have repeatedly refuted every argument you have made - at length, and you're hung up on a word I used to describe your argument. I don't care if the argument was from the 4th century, the 3rd century, or Buck Rogers in the 25th Century. It's asinine, and I have explained precisely why. Don't get upset just because you're incapable of arguing my refutation, be graceful to admit you were wrong.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

What do you mean by "change your perceptions"? Do you do this by choice, or rather do you follow reason, thinking your previous perceptions were flawed and needed correction?

Perception is just the way we look at things. I think we can do that at will and for whatever reason you choose. Some reasons are better than others. A good example is political views. Almost all of them are personally biased and rarely based on fact or more universal truth.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Wait ... that doesn't make sense. Can you expand?

When one chooses to change their perception, for whatever reason, real or imagined, we then tend to believe it as truth.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Then it's not make belief.

Ever hear the phrase, "Imagination becomes reality?"

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That's just about as unreasonable and invalid a claim can be.

Prove the statement invalid then, if it's so flimsy.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

You're in no position to talk about "ignoring" things if you're going to assert that I didn't refute your argument except for "calling it derogatory adjectives". I have repeatedly refuted every argument you have made - at length, and you're hung up on a word I used to describe your argument. I don't care if the argument was from the 4th century, the 3rd century, or Buck Rogers in the 25th Century. It's asinine, and I have explained precisely why. Don't get upset just because you're incapable of arguing my refutation, be graceful to admit you were wrong.

I believe you are unreasonable. I'll discuss it with someone else.

 

[Willamena]

Ever hear the phrase, "Imagination becomes reality?"

Well, no.

 

[Willamena]

So, what's the difference?

Perception.

 

[Willamena]

Aren't our beliefs based on perceptions of what is true. If I change my perceptions, why haven't I changed my belief?

No. Perceptions of what is true are our beliefs, not a basis for belief. That's why the implication of changing beliefs equates to changing truths.

If you change your perception of truth, you change your belief, not your basis for belief. That (perception of truth) equates to more information. It's the new true information that changes your beliefs.