Questioning Society discussion

Are you Enlightened???
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Why or why not?

REASON CAN NOT BE TRUSTED-WHEN PEOPLE USE REASON AND LOGIC, IT LEADS TO CORRUPTION AND MISERY.

**ties in with topic #1.

I disagree, using reason can get you out of a tricky choice.

I also disagree, because isn't just making a choice reason with in it self?

i suppose it could lead to corruption and misery if u make the WRONG decision, but not all the time

therefore you disagree, cause you don't think it will always happen. I can agree with you on that.

wait, it's only us agreeing with eachother...
*laugh*

I disagree! Also!

I......am confused.

We are saying what we think of the comment at the very top.

I don't understand the topic at the very top.

Oh, well, it's hard to explain.

I'll just stay out until I understand then...

If you don't use logic and reasoning what are you supposed to use? Our sense of smell....makes no sense.

Disagreed though always using logic may not be the best plan

What could be better then a thought-out logical plan?

imagination to rescue you form boredom. Logic isn't always the best cure for boredom.

The point was the logic leads to corruption.

How does logic lead to doing dishonest things?

That's what we're debating about.

Okay: IT DOESN'T IT'S LOGIC

can everyone read that?

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Why or why not?

REASON CAN NOT BE TRUSTED-WHEN PEOPLE USE REASON AND LOGIC, IT LEADS TO CORRUPTION AND MISERY.

Yeah this is a lot like topic one. My point there was that if we trust reason and logic we can use it to categorize people and create an environment of prejudice. People are such complex creatures, it takes more than reason and logic to explain them.

How does logic, which says that prejudice is illogical, create prejudice?

♥ Bella♥ {Hold Me: I’m a Fermata} wrote: "Are you Enlightened???
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Why or why not?

REASON CAN NOT BE TRUSTED-WHEN PEOPLE USE REASON AND LOGIC, IT LEADS TO CORRUPTION AND MISERY.

*..."

I disagree so deeply and passionately that it is difficult to convey.

Unreason is the one true face of Evil on this planet.

Furthermore, without reason how can this topic even be debated? Where do answers to any assertion, any why question, come from if not a mix of experience and reason. "I don't believe in reason." "Yeah? What is your reason for not believing in reason?"

Riiiiight...;-)

So that would mean, erm, that this topic cannot be debated, because the opponents of reason cannot, actually, debate using reason. Their "argument" will either contradict their premise (by its very existence) or will consist of "I have no reason to believe that reason doesn't work, I just think it anyway and no amount of reasoned argument will change my mind because I don't believe in reasoned argument".

So what, exactly, is the point of such a debate except to expose the yawning chasm of hell?

rgb

Lauren wrote: "How does logic, which says that prejudice is illogical, create prejudice? "

because messed up logic is used in the mind of prejudiced people to "logically" explain how they can sleep at night to themselves

Well, if the logic is flawed, then it ceases to be logic.

that is why Logic is in quotations because that is not actual "logic" it is the person's messed of idea of actual logic

it might be true that if logic is flawed, it ceases to be logic.
but...
perception is reality.
there may be (and probably is) an absolute truth out there that is separate from me and my brain
but the only truth I know, is the I perceive
it is the source of my logic
and to my great shock it has changed over the years
BUMMER!!!
wouldn't it be nice if we were born knowing everything and that everything we knew was right?
Even after I've had to change a few of my judgements, I consider myself no less logical or reasonable than before.
Logic is often flawed but few of us see it that way.

One does have to reason with incomplete information, but that doesn't make it unreason. The whole point of the "philosophy" of science is to believe most what one can doubt the least, and believe nothing so strongly that additional evidence couldn't change your mind.

Reasonable, logical people know that. "Faith" -- defined narrowly to be belief without logic or reason -- is the opposite. Believe this because this "authority" tells you it is true.

Science is not based on authority, a thing that many people don't "get". It is based on assertions that you yourself can test. Faith almost by definition is not testable, because the moment it is subjected to an actual test it fails.

rgb

The difference between faith and "faith" in science is science is a trust. We trust it to have answers, because it has proof and it's been right before. Faith, even when everything is screaming against it, you still think its right.

No. Faith can be harmful.

oh yeah...sorry forgot about that my brother informed me that if you feel in your faith that jumping in front of a bus s right then that's bad. Opps.

oh I don't know Jesus Christ walked on water...
so the story goes anyway

It's a trick. People can do it.

Write stories about people walking on water? Sure they can. Here:

"I was out fishing this morning and Jesus came walking across the water. This was fortunate, because I had just run out of beer, but Jesus scooped up a cupful of the seawater and handed it to me, and it was the best beer I'd ever tasted, ice cold! I really missed my Father in Law -- we used to fish together back when he was alive -- and I blinked and there he was! Jesus had raised him from the dead and incarnated him, right there in the boat with us, and out of nowhere a couple of extra fishing poles had appeared.

Well, the three of us fished the rest of the day, drinking an unending supply of beer, and catching fish after fish -- Jesus somehow seemed to know where they were and kept saying 'cast your lure on the other side of the boat' and putting us right onto school after school. Then the sun started to go down, and Jesus had to go, and he took Bill with him, because he didn't want to let anybody else but me know he was real. He did tell me to let everybody know, though, and to promise that this is all the solemn truth.

And you see, officer, that's why I'm a little drunk. What would you do if Jesus appeared and offered you a beer...?"

See? Nothing to it. Anybody can tell a story.

The interesting question is how we tell true stories from false stories, and how if we took this simple story and wrote it on 2000 year old parchment in suitably faked language and ink made from the rust found in ancient tombs and buried it out in the desert to be "discovered", it would be taken seriously. Ask Joseph Smith, ask any Christian, how seriously.

Otherwise, Jesus walked on water and resurrected people then and its ok, but the knee jerk default for any good Christian living now is to assume that this story is false because they know perfectly well that things like this never happen (count the violations of natural law).

When you do eventually read The Book of Lilith, Lauren, bear in mind that I've sold a few hundred copies of the book total, and at least four people have written me or talked to me and asked if I still have a copy of the scrolls that start off the novel. One group of female spiritualists was apparently a bit miffed that I'd made them up. Heck, wait a thousand years ago, and it might become a religious text in its own right...;-)

rgb

lol I'm waiting for the Holy Order of Hogwarts to come round.

The Liar, Lunatic or Lord idea? When you say God speaks to you, what is most likely? The person is lying, crazy, or telling the truth.

about the Jesus story, if a whole lot of people believe it, it's got to be true right?
How did all those people come to believe the world was round if the majority of people at the time believed it was flat? By the way- it looks flat to me.
But then, I can't walk on water. Heck, I can't even swim. I got forty percent body fat and fat should float but mmmm no- I sink like a stone. or maybe it's possible that forty percent of me floats but unfortunately my nose is not particularly fat so it sinks- no fat on the lungs either... boobies float- that's kind of cool- but not enough to be my own personal floatation devices.

Is that Book of Lilith on the internet?

Irene wrote: "about the Jesus story, if a whole lot of people believe it, it's got to be true right?
All those come the world was round if the majority of people at the time the idea came out believed it was fl..."


Not necessarily awhile ago a whole lot of people believed it was okay to own people and now a whole lot of people don't. But they did ,that didn't make it true.

The majority of people thinking something has never proven anything.

But, as a point, that is what the jury system is.

Lauren wrote: "The majority of people thinking something has never proven anything.

But, as a point, that is what the jury system is. "

very true

OJ Simpson was innocent- the jury said so. Another jury said he was guilty and fined him 35 million dollars- which he didn't pay. But that hasn't seemed to have come up to a third jury...
But there is another jury on an unrelated case that did send him to jail for like fifteen years... only even though they said fifteen, he'll probably get out in nine.... so much for juries- they seem to be inconsistent and not completely effective-
Let's just get a King and let him decide.

Law of Karma?

Statistically, if you do something mean, eventually something mean will happen, by chance.

Lauren wrote: "The majority of people thinking something has never proven anything.

But, as a point, that is what the jury system is. "

Well, not exactly. A jury is to see if one of twelve people can come to doubt the truth of something. If not a single person out of twelve can be brought to doubt something, then we consider it reasonable to believe that it is true
enough to apply the sanctions of society against the accused, except that there are one to three more places where that issue of reasonable doubt can be tested again, and yet again.

Even with all of that, the legal system makes mistakes because humans are liars, mistaken, because circumstantial evidence can appear damning but be just bad luck. When a jury declares someone not guilty, it doesn't mean innocent. When it declares someone guilty, it doesn't mean that they are, but that the jury couldn't find credible reason to doubt their guilt.

Bear in mind also that only "sound" evidence is permitted in court -- unsound evidence is usually pitched out before it gets in front of a jury. Rather different from what goes on in an analysis of religious "truth", where none of the "evidence" would be admitted at all: none of it is eyewitness testimony; none of it is reinforced by scientific or objective evidence; where all of the parties testifying in favor of a religion have a vested interest in the outcome of the trial; where the greatest probability is pretty obviously that there is no party guilty of e.g. creating a Universe (since it is a contradiction in terms).

rgb

Lauren wrote: "Law of Karma?

Statistically, if you do something mean, eventually something mean will happen, by chance. "

Statistically, mean things happen all the time, by chance and by design. By chance in that a tornado strikes your house. By design in that your house is broken into and robbed by a human (which is still at least partly by chance, since the evil designing robber had many houses to choose from and chose yours).

Now, will bad things happen to the tornado? No. Are good things more likely to happen to you after you've suffered a tornado? Not really; the bad and good things are on average independent events, and if you look for "oscillatory" behavior, bad to good to bad accidents, it isn't evident. Good and bad luck events are independent and poissonian in their distribution in time.

Will bad things attend the robber's bad action? The answer here is yes, but not because of "karma" per so, although I'm open minded about the possibility. Hurting other people very definitely increases the probability that you'll be hurt in turn, not because of karmic balance but because people are likely to hurt you back, because you take chances to accomplish your wicked goal that put you at risk.

In fact, in most societies the expectation value of a life of crime (statistically speaking) is very, very negative. Steal a few thousand dollars worth of stuff, spend years in jail, get raped, contract HIV, come out a convicted felon, lose your franchise and many freedoms, die young. Rape someone (for however much gratification the sex and/or violence might give you) and spend many years in prison, give up all opportunity to have consensual sex or an actual loving relationship with someone of the opposite sex, have your life mostly ruined.

Criminals are mostly very, very stupid, and can't figure all of this out. Real karmic balance is "Act stupid, and the world will bite you in the ass. It might do it anyway, but act stupid and the chances go way, way, up."

rgb