You are wrong!

[Sheldon]

If it is a belief, then I figure you have about a 99.9% chance of being wrong.
We all have beliefs, it depends more on how much certainty you are willing to put into your belief.

Well for me it depends how much objective evidence supports it, and there is no belief I won't abandon if objective evidence demonstrates it is unreliable.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The fact that belief is even there, tells there is something seriously lacking for the confirmation needed that no longer requires a belief anymore.

 

[Tiberius]

Have you accepted that your beliefs are inaccurate?!
That is the first step in learning.
I was a Baptist Republican when I was 16. I was right for sure in my head. Then one day I pondered "what if I'm wrong?".
That path first led me to become a Libertarian (thanks Rand Paul. You older folk had the OG Ron Paul converting conservatives)
As a Libertarian minarchist I was sure I was right on the money. There's a joke though "What's the difference between a minarchist and an anarchist? About six months"
Before the year was up, I found myself a rabid anarchist. Now, my OP says I could be wrong in this belief i.e. anarchism is the only moral societal system. But I don't think I'm wrong. I arrived at this conclusion by accepting I could be wrong. And the more study I do, the more I am assured in my anarchist philosophy.
So statists, perhaps you are wrong about the legitimacy of government! Ever think of that? Or maybe I'm wrong.
I was a Bible literalist when I joined these forums. I was sure I wasn't wrong at all, but then I allowed myself to accept once again that I could be wrong. Now I am unsure about any God.
Christians, have you accepted that perhaps there is no Christ? Wait, doubt isn't allowed, right?
You are wrong, everybody! Me too, I'm part of every body. I got strange beliefs, surely they aren't all right. Plus they are always evolving, so how could they be right in the first place?
Found wifi ;^) back to pestering you guys

I'm more than happy to accept that my beliefs are wrong. All I ask is for some testable evidence that they are.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The fact that belief is even there, tells there is something seriously lacking for the confirmation needed that no longer requires a belief anymore.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting it's possible to live without belief?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting it's possible to live without belief?

It's preferable to live without any beliefs.

Beliefs to me are at best, wishful thinking.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Are you suggesting it's possible to live without belief?

Merrily. I live without any belief. If the sun does not rise tomorrow, it is perfectly OK. What can we do about that?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It's preferable to live without any beliefs.

Beliefs to me are at best, wishful thinking.

We differ slightly, since I see believing one lives without belief is, at best, wishful thinking.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Merrily. I live without any belief. If the sun does not rise tomorrow, it is perfectly OK. What can we do about that?

Nothing. I still believe it will rise though. I have no proof it will, but assessing historical precedent makes me believe it will.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is the idea. If it has to rise, it will. If it does not have to rise, it will not. Why be burdened by belief?

 

[Twilight Hue]

We differ slightly, since I see believing one lives without belief is, at best, wishful thinking.

When something is confirmed, there is no requirement of belief needed anymore.

Everything else I regard as being a provisional truth, open to change. A belief to me is a stolid conviction, whereas it's not open to change should any evidences arise that dismisses what is believed to be.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

When something is confirmed, there is no requirement of belief needed anymore.

Everything else I regard as being a provisional truth, open to change. A belief to me is a stolid conviction, whereas it's not open to change should any evidences arise that dismisses what is believed to be.

We hold a different definition of 'belief' then (which is fine).

For me, I like to work from an assumption that I'm currently holding a whole raft of beliefs, that they range from useful, through trivial, but also include some rooted in ignorance or misinformation, and that I should challenge myself.

To be honest, it doesn't sound too dissimilar to your approach, apart from how we'd describe it. But for me, my way helps me remember the commonality of ignorance and that we're all in the same boat...albeit to a variety of degrees.

I believe it has utility.

By the way, what's your position on solipsism?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Beliefs are belief, not fact.

Really? If I don't think they are fact, why would I believe them?

 

[1213]

I’m afraid then we will never continue our discussion ;-; I’m sure on my deathbed, I’ll still hold a few incorrect beliefs.

Ok, maybe before that it would then be wiser to not say to others "You are wrong".

 

[Aupmanyav]

Really? If I don't think they are fact, why would I believe them?

If it is a fact with you, then no need to call it belief.

 

[Wildswanderer]

If it is a fact with you, then no need to call it belief.

Only nothing is really a fact if you really think about it.
There's just various degrees of certainty that something is right.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Only nothing is really a fact if you really think about it.

Really! Now, don't say that. You are a Christian.
You are talking like a Hindu Atheist Advaitist (i.e., myself).

 

[Sand Dancer]

Really? If I don't think they are fact, why would I believe them?

Because they help you. They are comforting.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Because they help you. They are comforting.

I don't believe a lot of things that would make me feel good if I believed them. Why? Because I don't find them logical. So, no that's not it.

 

[Quagmire]

When something is confirmed, there is no requirement of belief needed anymore.

Nothing's ever confirmed. You just believe it is.

 

[osgart]

I would say that some beliefs add to the freedom I enjoy, and some beliefs take away from that freedom.

There's always the possibility of being wrong, or half right, half wrong.

Gravity exists, this is verifiable and not a belief.

Some beliefs I am certain are true, though I feel contrary about it.

I think humans have an outsider perspective to what truly goes on in reality. I think math and logic are very precise tools, yet they are not at all necessarily truth values.

Until there is causes and effects revealed I'm afraid all we are looking at is external patterns to reality, and no one is getting at the intrinsic, fundamental truth of reality.

I think that throughout the history of humanity everything invented is a useful tool, or a destructive tool. Science I believe is an extremely useful tool and an extremely destructive tool. It's truths are behaviours of physical processes, and not necessarily anything to do with exact inner workings.

What's to stop reality from being completely mind blowing, vs. extraordinarily mundane?

Why should reality be one dimensional physical, and have no extra dimensions to it?

I'm always skeptical of explain all methodologies. I'm always skeptical of all my beliefs as well.

Perhaps seeking truth all the time can be a waste of time, and the real pursuit is what proves to be useful, and worthy. But you need a degree of truth for something to be useful and worthy. And a holistic picture is far better than a minute detail picture, but both serve each other.

Growing up in religion all my life, I've been wrong a lot. And I'm wary of all the stories humans tell as being the absolute truth. So I'm skeptical of everything.