Defluffing: Why "I believe, thus it's right for me" is wrong

[Gho the Girl]

TatteredAngel

Here's a question I don't have a good answer to, maybe y'all can help me out.

Where do you go when logical argument has failed? For some people who strongly believe in something, even if that something is monstrously wrong, how do you combat it after they've rejected logic? Is there anything left, or do you just have to chalk it up as a loss?

Well, when they're choosing willfull ignorance, or delusion, or fluff, or whatever over the facts, there's nothing you can do. You can't help others 'les they want to be helped.  

[Violet Song jat Shariff]

Gho the Girl

TatteredAngel

Here's a question I don't have a good answer to, maybe y'all can help me out.

Where do you go when logical argument has failed? For some people who strongly believe in something, even if that something is monstrously wrong, how do you combat it after they've rejected logic? Is there anything left, or do you just have to chalk it up as a loss?

Well, when they're choosing willfull ignorance, or delusion, or fluff, or whatever over the facts, there's nothing you can do. You can't help others 'les they want to be helped.

But it's so hard gonk .
Even more so when you know they go on to perpetuate and support misinformtion.
emo  

[Ainwyn]

TatteredAngel

Here's a question I don't have a good answer to, maybe y'all can help me out.

Where do you go when logical argument has failed? For some people who strongly believe in something, even if that something is monstrously wrong, how do you combat it after they've rejected logic? Is there anything left, or do you just have to chalk it up as a loss?

If it's so monstrous, as some of the examples from this thread have bee, taking legal action is usually a good choice.

This is something that's discussed at great length in anthropology (especially when dealing with religion). When does something cross the line of cultural relativism? There are some things where an anthropologist can no longer just say "oh, that's what they do here", and something needs to be done about it.  

[Gho the Girl]

Violet Song jat Shariff

Gho the Girl

TatteredAngel

Here's a question I don't have a good answer to, maybe y'all can help me out.

Where do you go when logical argument has failed? For some people who strongly believe in something, even if that something is monstrously wrong, how do you combat it after they've rejected logic? Is there anything left, or do you just have to chalk it up as a loss?

Well, when they're choosing willfull ignorance, or delusion, or fluff, or whatever over the facts, there's nothing you can do. You can't help others 'les they want to be helped.

But it's so hard gonk .

This we are well aware of.

Quote:

Even more so when you know they go on to perpetuate and support misinformtion.
emo

Then all we can do is fight that misinformation best we can.  

[TeaDidikai]

Gho the Girl

Recursive Paradox

Another person saved by PFRC fast intervention! <3

We should get tee shirts.

Or rather Tea shirts.

Mwahahaha

sweatdrop  

[Gho the Girl]

TeaDidikai

Gho the Girl

Recursive Paradox

Another person saved by PFRC fast intervention! <3

We should get tee shirts.

Or rather Tea shirts.

Mwahahaha

sweatdrop

Have we forgotten to warn you of our punster nature?  

[TeaDidikai]

Gho the Girl

TeaDidikai

Gho the Girl

Recursive Paradox

Another person saved by PFRC fast intervention! <3

We should get tee shirts.

Or rather Tea shirts.

Mwahahaha

sweatdrop

Have we forgotten to warn you of our punster nature?

I dig puns graves.  

[PrometheanSet]

TeaDidikai

Hard Subjective Moralists:

The problem with the position that "Reality is subjective, thus if I believe it, it's true" is that it starts by making an objective statement.

First off, have you ever heard of the phrase "mental masturbation? Even if you succeed, its kinda anticlimactic (unless its about proving recursive relationships among different iterations in a bifurcation diagram, which would be a major breakthrough in chaos theory).

Second off, this is false.

TeaDidikai

Hence, if reality really is subjective, it's defined by an objective position (the absolute statement that all is subjective), which creates a paradox. On the other hand, if it's subjective for you, but I hold it to be objective, then it's objective.

But, who are we with our subjective perspectives to decide what is objective? That right there is a bit of a fallacy, with respect to beliefs. With respect to, say, a physics lab, you are allowed to see the block falling as a subjective experience. But that doesn't change the fact that you have to do your friggin work.

TeaDidikai

That's the conflict from the affirmative position. In the negative, we see the statement that "There is no objective reality", in which case we just pointed out a statement about the objective nature reality, that it doesn't exist- thus it does. wink

Once again, you're thinking too hard about something you didn't think through. Are you one of those kids that had trouble understanding how to read? I don't mean to be insulting, I just am curious.

TeaDidikai

Soft Subjective Moralists:

If the assertion is that what is true for one isn't true for another, you've defined a statement that for it to have any meaning, has to be true for everyone, even if it isn't true for them (if they believe in objective reality), thus, you have defined something that disproves itself.

Hassan I Sabbah is quoted as saying that "Nothing is true; everything is permitted." Bear in mind that he was the leader of a proto-Sufi militant Muslim sect, where everyone else is his day was saying that "the only reality was that of Allah!"

TeaDidikai

Nihilism: The idea that we can't actually know anything for sure is self defeating because we cannot know that Nihilism is valid for sure.

Cute- no?

Congratulations, you can make fun of someone you don't agree with. Have a lollipop! Now go sit in the corner and read a book if you want to be a parrot; not some some schitzophrenic's rambling webpage.  

[TeaDidikai]

PrometheanSet

Second off, this is false.

Put up or shut up man.

Quote:

But, who are we with our subjective perspectives to decide what is objective?

Since objective reality is based on observation within the realm of empiricism/empirical knowledge, compounded by the fact the pattern of observation is predicable, it would bloody well seem that the non-deluded are able to do this.

Quote:

That right there is a bit of a fallacy, with respect to beliefs.

Being a belief doesn't make it sacred, beyond reproach or right. Being right makes it right.

Quote:

Once again, you're thinking too hard about something you didn't think through.

Quite frankly, your red herring is a bit smelly. Care to actually address the position? Or are you going to try and be cute again.

Quote:

Hassan I Sabbah is quoted as saying that "Nothing is true; everything is permitted." Bear in mind that he was the leader of a proto-Sufi militant Muslim sect, where everyone else is his day was saying that "the only reality was that of Allah!"

That doesn't make him right.

Quote:

Congratulations, you can make fun of someone you don't agree with. Have a lollipop! Now go sit in the corner and read a book if you want to be a parrot; not some some schitzophrenic's rambling webpage.

 

[PrometheanSet]

TeaDidikai

PrometheanSet

Second off, this is false.

Put up or shut up man.

Quote:

But, who are we with our subjective perspectives to decide what is objective?

Since objective reality is based on observation within the realm of empiricism/empirical knowledge, compounded by the fact the pattern of observation is predicable, it would bloody well seem that the non-deluded are able to do this.

Quote:

That right there is a bit of a fallacy, with respect to beliefs.

Being a belief doesn't make it sacred, beyond reproach or right. Being right makes it right.

Quote:

Once again, you're thinking too hard about something you didn't think through.

Quite frankly, your red herring is a bit smelly. Care to actually address the position? Or are you going to try and be cute again.

Quote:

Hassan I Sabbah is quoted as saying that "Nothing is true; everything is permitted." Bear in mind that he was the leader of a proto-Sufi militant Muslim sect, where everyone else is his day was saying that "the only reality was that of Allah!"

That doesn't make him right.

Quote:

Congratulations, you can make fun of someone you don't agree with. Have a lollipop! Now go sit in the corner and read a book if you want to be a parrot; not some some schitzophrenic's rambling webpage.

You have a habit of quoting me out of context.
There is no objective religion. Even an empirical belief structure must be able to shrug on occasion, leaving that to subjective explanations about the nature of reality, or no explanation at all. Now, we can't have that, now can we?

Subjective views of reality, where they don't contradict the empirical evidence, cannot be relegated a value for their truth or falsity. Basic. The point is you CANNOT determine which is right! outside of your own subjective little bubble.

The first paragraph - you state that it is an objective position to say that reality is subjective. False!

And that "red herring" was just pointing out that you kept running on the same fallacy.

So what if Hassan I Sabbah wasn't right? He's dead. Just like the original Nihilist. They had their own ideas, which is more than most of us can say. (Note: I'll joke on occasion that my entire belief structure is serial plagiarism!)  

[Recursive Paradox]

PrometheanSet

There is no objective religion.

Good thing no one was suggesting there was.

Quote:

Even an empirical belief structure must be able to shrug on occasion, leaving that to subjective explanations about the nature of reality, or no explanation at all. Now, we can't have that, now can we?

It should be said that Science and many empirical belief structures (like philosophical empiricism or the misnomer Atheism) don't treat the things that they can't deal with as part of a subjective reality.

They deal with them as irrelevant because they are unproven. In no way does that claim that no objective reality exists. Merely that they are not dealing with something that empirical evidence is lacking for.

Quote:

Subjective views of reality, where they don't contradict the empirical evidence, cannot be relegated a value for their truth or falsity.

They can when they contradict themselves logically, are subject to fallacious reasoning or are based upon other viewpoints that have been shown to contradict these elements or empirical evidence as well.

The truth or falsity levels are not perfect no and you can't say that one is 100% or 0%, but you can get an appropriate feel of how unlikely a given belief is if it is those things with a small margin of error.

Quote:

The point is you CANNOT determine which is right! outside of your own subjective little bubble.

Justify this.

Quote:

The first paragraph - you state that it is an objective position to say that reality is subjective. False!

It seems as though you aren't really comprehending what was said.

An individual who asserts that "reality is subjective" is applying a claim to reality for which it is assumed that this claim is always true, no matter what other subjective views state.

This is a textbook attempt to make an objective claim.

No one here is stating that someone who makes the claim "reality is subjective" is truly objective themselves. That would be stupid. Only that they are attempting to, unwittingly, make a claim from an objective position about the universe being subjective.

Obviously their position is not truly objective, not just because of the self contradiction but also because they have no way to individually prove their statement logically or empirically. But it is still an attempt to make an objective claim.

Failing does not change what the attempted goal was. Nor does being unaware of that goal change it either.  

[PrometheanSet]

Recursive Paradox

PrometheanSet

There is no objective religion.

Good thing no one was suggesting there was.

Given the context that this is a religious forum, where we're discussing objectivity and subjectivity, and that the discussion is heavily leaning towards discounting subjectivity altogether.... Well, what's left? You connect the dots.

Recursive Paradox

PrometheanSet

Even an empirical belief structure must be able to shrug on occasion, leaving that to subjective explanations about the nature of reality, or no explanation at all. Now, we can't have that, now can we?

It should be said that Science and many empirical belief structures (like philosophical empiricism or the misnomer Atheism) don't treat the things that they can't deal with as part of a subjective reality.

They deal with them as irrelevant because they are unproven. In no way does that claim that no objective reality exists. Merely that they are not dealing with something that empirical evidence is lacking for.

Thank you for restating my point more clearly. You either supplement your belief system, or you walk around believing that an entire realm of human activity is irrelevant, meanwhile it nourishes many. Hence, the religion suggested would be atheism.

But that's just it - these things are not irrelevant to our lives, or we wouldn't be on a guild about Paganism.

Recursive Paradox

PrometheanSet

Subjective views of reality, where they don't contradict the empirical evidence, cannot be relegated a value for their truth or falsity.

They can when they contradict themselves logically, are subject to fallacious reasoning or are based upon other viewpoints that have been shown to contradict these elements or empirical evidence as well.

The truth or falsity levels are not perfect no and you can't say that one is 100% or 0%, but you can get an appropriate feel of how unlikely a given belief is if it is those things with a small margin of error.

Okay, yes, you got me. How dare I be human and let a single case slip through. How dare I assume that, since no belief system is perfect, we need not address what to do with a flawed belief system.

Recursive Paradox

PrometheanSet

The point is you CANNOT determine which is right! outside of your own subjective little bubble.

Justify this.

If you want "objective" proof that no religion is objective, ask around various religions to make objective proofs that their faith is right.

Wouldn't an objectively "right" belief structure explain everything, everywhere, perfectly, without holes or fallacies? You said so yourself that atheism just labels such things as "irrelevant".

And removing the comments about beliefs for this "right" rant leads me to believe you might accidentally forget that context.

Recursive Paradox

PrometheanSet

An individual who asserts that "reality is subjective" is applying a claim to reality for which it is assumed that this claim is always true, no matter what other subjective views state.

This is a textbook attempt to make an objective claim.

No one here is stating that someone who makes the claim "reality is subjective" is truly objective themselves. That would be stupid. Only that they are attempting to, unwittingly, make a claim from an objective position about the universe being subjective.

Obviously their position is not truly objective, not just because of the self contradiction but also because they have no way to individually prove their statement logically or empirically. But it is still an attempt to make an objective claim.

Failing does not change what the attempted goal was. Nor does being unaware of that goal change it either.

So, with the attempt to make an objective claim, we're supposed to take her at her word about the nature of reality?
Because the school that I came from calls that first part a premise, and the stating it as an objectivity ends up just "begging the question".

Past that, its little more than the obvious.

 

[Recursive Paradox]

PrometheanSet

Given the context that this is a religious forum, where we're discussing objectivity and subjectivity, and that the discussion is heavily leaning towards discounting subjectivity altogether.... Well, what's left? You connect the dots.

The dots are only two. Subjectivity and objectivity as they relate to reality. Religion is not reality.

It can be a way of understanding reality as a whole, certainly, although more often just a gauge of only certain elements of reality. But there is enough wiggle room with religious belief that discussing an objective reality itself doesn't imply that only one religion is true.

After all there are quite a few religions that don't contradict each other at all.

Quote:

Thank you for restating my point more clearly.

I figured that was what you meant so I made sure to point that out for the sake of clarity.

No sense in allowing misunderstanding to flourish. I also wasn't claiming that these things should stay irrelevant. Just that science does not make the claim that there is no objective reality due to the things it can't touch.

Quote:

Okay, yes, you got me. How dare I be human and let a single case slip through. How dare I assume that, since no belief system is perfect, we need not address what to do with a flawed belief system.

You probably don't need to be nearly as bitter and dramatic as you're being. I'm not accusing you of any wrongdoing whatsoever. I said that entirely for clarification purposes. I believe you are confused as to what is being discussed in this thread.

That was what Tea was talking about in her OP and what we were discussing before you got here. People who claim "subjective reality" as a buzz word to protect a fallacious, contradictory or poorly thought out belief system.

You definitely agree with this, so I'm wondering what the problem is.

Quote:

If you want "objective" proof that no religion is objective, ask around various religions to make objective proofs that their faith is right.

Wouldn't an objectively "right" belief structure explain everything, everywhere, perfectly, without holes or fallacies? You said so yourself that atheism just labels such things as "irrelevant".

Not necessarily. An objectively right belief structure only needs to be objectively right about the things it actually deals with in order to be objectively... well, you get the idea.

I think I may have misunderstood you honestly, because I didn't think you were talking about finding fully objective proof that no religion is objective. Consider your comment justified on account of misunderstanding on my part that kept me from realizing it was a comment I agree with.

I will point out that you can find objective proof of a belief system failing to be objectively correct about certain things or all of it's elements due to the things we discussed above (contradiction and etcetera)

Quote:

And removing the comments about beliefs for this "right" rant leads me to believe you might accidentally forget that context.

If I forget the context, just remind me. To be clear if I have a hard time remembering exactly what was said, I'm not going to respond to it directly and instead will ask you for clarification.

I try to always look before I leap.

Quote:

Recursive Paradox

An individual who asserts that "reality is subjective" is applying a claim to reality for which it is assumed that this claim is always true, no matter what other subjective views state.

This is a textbook attempt to make an objective claim.

No one here is stating that someone who makes the claim "reality is subjective" is truly objective themselves. That would be stupid. Only that they are attempting to, unwittingly, make a claim from an objective position about the universe being subjective.

Obviously their position is not truly objective, not just because of the self contradiction but also because they have no way to individually prove their statement logically or empirically. But it is still an attempt to make an objective claim.

Failing does not change what the attempted goal was. Nor does being unaware of that goal change it either.

So, with the attempt to make an objective claim, we're supposed to take her at her word about the nature of reality?
Because the school that I came from calls that first part a premise, and the stating it as an objectivity ends up just "begging the question".

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about Tea. She's actually making an objective claim based on the objective definitions of "reality", "objective" and "subjective" about people who attempt to make an objective claim about reality being subjective and fail (as I described above).

You see? That's what we were discussing before you came in and got so upset. And I believe that you have misunderstood this discussion and your anger is due to this.  

[TeaDidikai]

PrometheanSet

You have a habit of quoting me out of context.

More accurately, you have a habit of making generalizations and assumptions and taking issue with people pointing out the flaws in your statements.

Quote:

There is no objective religion.

No one has said there is. Though- there is objectivity within religion. It isn't like the matter of Catholic dogma on transubstantiation is a function of personal opinion expressed as commentary on the RCC.

Quote:

Even an empirical belief structure must be able to shrug on occasion, leaving that to subjective explanations about the nature of reality, or no explanation at all. Now, we can't have that, now can we?

There's a difference between things such as Philosophical Empiricism acknowledging that there is no objective explanation for a given phenomenon and suggesting that such suddenly renders the summation of reality subjective.

Quote:

Subjective views of reality, where they don't contradict the empirical evidence, cannot be relegated a value for their truth or falsity. Basic. The point is you CANNOT determine which is right! outside of your own subjective little bubble.

Which is why you suddenly decided to include the disclaimer, rather than addressing the actual point of what I am writing. confused

Quote:

The first paragraph - you state that it is an objective position to say that reality is subjective. False!

You saying it doesn't make it so.

Quote:

So what if Hassan I Sabbah wasn't right? He's dead. Just like the original Nihilist. They had their own ideas, which is more than most of us can say. (Note: I'll joke on occasion that my entire belief structure is serial plagiarism!)

You really believe that they had their own ideas... how long after Siddhārtha Gautama pwned this?

(That's right. I said it. Buddha pwned Sabbah and Jacobi)

PrometheanSet

Given the context that this is a religious forum,

I talk about all kinds of s**t in here. You think that the nature of the Guild has more to do with context than the actual words I am using?

Quote:

where we're discussing objectivity and subjectivity, and that the discussion is heavily leaning towards discounting subjectivity altogether.... Well, what's left? You connect the dots.

Stop confusing "connecting the dots" with "I get to horribly misrepresent other people's arguments".

Ascribing to the idea that subjective reality trumps objective reality is ******** stupid. That's what this thread is about- idiots who plug their ears and go "La la la la la! I can't hear you, thus the horrible flaws in my position that you have noted don't exist" and variations thereof wherein people argue (falsely) that subjective reality wins because they say so.

Quote:

You either supplement your belief system, or you walk around believing that an entire realm of human activity is irrelevant, meanwhile it nourishes many.

That doesn't mean the assumptions of the "many" (can we say appeal to popularity? Shall we pull out the Latin?) are correct.

Quote:

But that's just it - these things are not irrelevant to our lives, or we wouldn't be on a guild about Paganism.

Unless of course you were into sociology, a total sadist and playing the sum of the guild for fools as you use it as one big thought experiment.

Nuri- you b***h!

Quote:

Okay, yes, you got me. How dare I be human and let a single case slip through. How dare I assume that, since no belief system is perfect, we need not address what to do with a flawed belief system.

Prove that no belief system is perfect.

Quote:

If you want "objective" proof that no religion is objective, ask around various religions to make objective proofs that their faith is right.

I know this guild isn't M&R, and we don't expect people to post fallacy free all the time, but come on man- unless you have no idea as to the meanings of the words you're using, you know for a fact that you're demanding that other people prove your claim for you, rather than admitting you can't support your position.

Quote:

Wouldn't an objectively "right" belief structure explain everything, everywhere, perfectly, without holes or fallacies?

No. An objectively correct belief structure would only explain that which it can attest to. It doesn't engage in arguments from ignorance within its own proofs.

Quote:

So, with the attempt to make an objective claim, we're supposed to take her at her word about the nature of reality?
Because the school that I came from calls that first part a premise, and the stating it as an objectivity ends up just "begging the question".

Past that, its little more than the obvious.

See- where I come from, internally consistent arguments that are based on quantifiable steps in a course of action is called a proof.