Ask a Complicated Ecumenical Existentialist Universalist Christian Stuff

[Received]

No, because I'm not saying anything. I'm asking questions to determine your position. I've been trying to get an answer for pages. Let me know when you will answer them.

The questions do work toward unveiling my position. That's why I asked them.

Now do you want me to take your "no" as actually answering the question, or "no" as in you're refusing to answer because you think I have some evil ulterior motive that isn't conducive to this argument? Because, you know, all this parallel argumentation started entirely because of this assumption or something close to it.

 

[BL2KTN]

The questions do work toward unveiling my position. That's why I asked them.

And I'll be glad to answer them second since they were asked second. First, you should answer the questions that were asked first. This is how a fair conversation works.

Now do you want me to take your "no" as actually answering the question, or "no" as in you're refusing to answer because you think I have some evil ulterior motive that isn't conducive to this argument? Because, you know, all this parallel argumentation started entirely because of this assumption or something close to it.

I've already told you by letting you know I'm not saying anything yet. Answer my first questions first and I'll answer your second questions second... otherwise, I don't think you'll ever answer mine at all. I think you're still scared.

 

[Received]

Lol it's a simple choice...truth or happiness. You can have one but not both. Thankfully it's not representative of real life... Im just asking if you had to choose between the two, which would you choose?

From your post about the children, you make it sound like you'd choose happiness. Yet, I find it difficult to think that's what you'd choose for yourself

I'll be danged it's a simple choice!

Actually, I think your question is unfair, because you used believing in one part of the question and knowing in the other part. That really makes my head hurt. But if I had to choose, and believing is not the same thing as knowing God doesn't exist (because, after all, people can believe opposite of what they know, which is what we call cognitive dissonance), then I'd go with believing God exists without knowing he doesn't and being happy.

OTOH, if it were a matter of knowing God doesn't exist and having the option of knowing this or not knowing this and being unhappy or happy, I'd have to go with knowing and being unhappy.

Have I made this complicated enough?

 

[Received]

And I'll be glad to answer them second since they were asked second. First, you should answer the questions that were asked first. This is how a fair conversation works.

Now we're getting somewhere. You seem to be saying that answering a question with a question (whether or not the question can be restated as a statement that isn't a question) doesn't count because only statements that aren't questions can be adequate responses to questions. Right?

I've already told you by letting you know I'm not saying anything yet. Answer my first questions first and I'll answer your second questions second... otherwise, I don't think you'll ever answer mine at all. I think you're still scared.

I didn't know you meant the first sentence until just now, though.

 

[BL2KTN]

Now we're getting somewhere. You seem to be saying that answering a question with a question (whether or not the question can be restated as a statement that isn't a question) doesn't count because only statements that aren't questions can be adequate responses to questions. Right?

Try this: Copy my questions and write the answers behind them. If a question answers a particular question better than a statement, we'll play Jeopardy and continue on.

 

[Received]

Try this: Copy my questions and write the answers behind them. If a question answers a particular question better than a statement, we'll play Jeopardy and continue on.

You always make it complicated.

 

[Received]

And I hope you're not refusing to answer my question because you think I haven't answered your question, because my question above is an attempt to untangle the assumption that my question that originally spawned this disagreement isn't an answer to your question.

Any questions?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'll be danged it's a simple choice!

Actually, I think your question is unfair, because you used believing in one part of the question and knowing in the other part. That really makes my head hurt. But if I had to choose, and believing is not the same thing as knowing God doesn't exist (because, after all, people can believe opposite of what they know, which is what we call cognitive dissonance), then I'd go with believing God exists without knowing he doesn't and being happy.

OTOH, if it were a matter of knowing God doesn't exist and having the option of knowing this or not knowing this and being unhappy or happy, I'd have to go with knowing and being unhappy.

Have I made this complicated enough?

Well that's why I tried to simplify it for you...reducing it to truth or happiness.

The point was that in happiness...you believed a falsehood. In unhappiness you knew the truth. I wasn't sure you caught that...since you didn't address it in your reply.

Since we're clear now...(hopefully) you'd still rather believe a falsehood?

And I only chose knowing in one part and believing in the other because only one possibility can exist at a time (supposedly)....and I'm sure you understand which possibility I'm assuming for this question.

 

[Received]

Well that's why I tried to simplify it for you...reducing it to truth or happiness.

The point was that in happiness...you believed a falsehood. In unhappiness you knew the truth. I wasn't sure you caught that...since you didn't address it in your reply.

Since we're clear now...(hopefully) you'd still rather believe a falsehood?

And I only chose knowing in one part and believing in the other because only one possibility can exist at a time (supposedly)....and I'm sure you understand which possibility I'm assuming for this question.

Yeah, I'd rather believe (but not know) a falsehood.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yeah, I'd rather believe (but not know) a falsehood.

Well at least you're consistent...and honest.

I, for one, hope you stay happy.

I'll leave you to the deep philosophical stuff now....

 

[Received]

Well at least you're consistent...and honest.

I, for one, hope you stay happy.

I'll leave you to the deep philosophical stuff now....

Whoawhoawhoa, you gotta unpackage the subtext with "at least you're..." Whatcha mean bydat?

 

[Received]

I modify my post, Ana. I should have said:

I would rather believe (not know) a falsehood, provided that I can't be persuaded that the thing I believe in is false. I.e., believe in it because it appears to be true, not because it appears to be false.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I modify my post, Ana. I should have said:

I would rather believe (not know) a falsehood, provided that I can't be persuaded that the thing I believe in is false. I.e., believe in it because it appears to be true, not because it appears to be false.

I don't see why it would matter why you believe a falsehood....especially when your happiness is on the line. Thanks for clarifying though.

 

[Received]

I don't see why it would matter why you believe a falsehood....especially when your happiness is on the line. Thanks for clarifying though.

Sure it matters. If you believe a falsehood just to get happiness, that's entirely different than believing a falsehood you think is true that results in happiness secondhand. The latter is where I'd put myself.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sure it matters. If you believe a falsehood just to get happiness, that's entirely different than believing a falsehood you think is true that results in happiness secondhand. The latter is where I'd put myself.

How would you know the difference? A burning sensation in the back of the mind? I'm sure there's plenty of people who choose to believe something that they believe makes them happy who've created entirely "plausible and reasonable" reasons for believing in a falsehood. They too think they believe because it's "true"...

So how would you know the difference between you and them? Your reasons hold up to scrutiny much better than theirs?

I'm sure it makes a difference to you...I believe you completely on that. So please believe me, there's no difference from where I'm sitting.

 

[Received]

How would you know the difference? A burning sensation in the back of the mind? I'm sure there's plenty of people who choose to believe something that they believe makes them happy who've created entirely "plausible and reasonable" reasons for believing in a falsehood. They too think they believe because it's "true"...

So how would you know the difference between you and them? Your reasons hold up to scrutiny much better than theirs?

I'm sure it makes a difference to you...I believe you completely on that. So please believe me, there's no difference from where I'm sitting.

To me this goes back to the whole "will to believe" thing. You can't control that you believe something directly, but you can control your willingness to consider reasoning or evidence that might lead you to another position (belief) than your own.

The person who believes something because it makes him happy is a lot more prone to choosing to expose himself to things will make it easier and more likely for him to continue believing what he does. The person who believes something that's ultimately false but believes it because he thinks it's all there is is a lot less likely to select his data to support what he believes, and is therefore a lot more likely to try his hardest (within reason) to get balanced perspectives. The former person is much more likely to have the "burning sensation" (which is easily deadened) of cognitive dissonance: between what he believes and how he is continuing to believe it (by not giving other arguments a fair shot).

 

[Ana the Ist]

To me this goes back to the whole "will to believe" thing. You can't control that you believe something directly, but you can control your willingness to consider reasoning or evidence that might lead you to another position (belief) than your own.

The person who believes something because it makes him happy is a lot more prone to choosing to expose himself to things will make it easier and more likely for him to continue believing what he does. The person who believes something that's ultimately false but believes it because he thinks it's all there is is a lot less likely to select his data to support what he believes, and is therefore a lot more likely to try his hardest (within reason) to get balanced perspectives. The former person is much more likely to have the "burning sensation" (which is easily deadened) of cognitive dissonance: between what he believes and how he is continuing to believe it (by not giving other arguments a fair shot).

Aren't there those who believe because it makes them happy... yet continue to seek out different views in hopes that either consciously it validates their beliefs or subconsciously annihilates what they know deep down to be false?

I've heard many an atheist coming out story that begins..."I wanted to validate my beliefs by exposing myself to....blah blah blah."

 

[Received]

Aren't there those who believe because it makes them happy... yet continue to seek out different views in hopes that either consciously it validates their beliefs or subconsciously annihilates what they know deep down to be false?

I've heard many an atheist coming out story that begins..."I wanted to validate my beliefs by exposing myself to....blah blah blah."

We're getting deep here, but I'd say that the reason someone would believe something primarily to make them happy and then still wants to validate his beliefs is seeking to do so because part of him secretly believes that truth is more important than happiness. Or else what would motivate him, if it's all about being happy?

 

[agua]

How would you know the difference? A burning sensation in the back of the mind? I'm sure there's plenty of people who choose to believe something that they believe makes them happy who've created entirely "plausible and reasonable" reasons for believing in a falsehood. They too think they believe because it's "true"...

So how would you know the difference between you and them? Your reasons hold up to scrutiny much better than theirs?

I'm sure it makes a difference to you...I believe you completely on that. So please believe me, there's no difference from where I'm sitting.

I'd say from a Biblical Christian perspective that believing Yahweh for the cause of happiness usually results in a pseudo belief ie. being Christian brings much sorrow/trouble in this lifetime and happy clappers ( people who think being Christian is a life of physical prosperity, blessings, freedom from suffering ) usually aren't involved in the spiritual battle going on imo.

Joh 15:19 KJV If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'd say from a Biblical Christian perspective that believing Yahweh for the cause of happiness usually results in a pseudo belief ie. being Christian brings much sorrow/trouble in this lifetime and happy clappers ( people who think being Christian is a life of physical prosperity, blessings, freedom from suffering ) usually aren't involved in the spiritual battle going on imo.

Joh 15:19 KJV If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

Agua...I'm not speaking about every belief you hold. Merely a belief in god. It may surprise you that I recently had a very very long conversation with someone on here who believes in "everlasting life" because he finds the alternative "depressing".

To be honest, I can't make heads or tails of the passage you're quoting. How could you not be "of this world"....? If you're not "of this world"...then what in the world are you doing here?