Do you believe in God?

[Danoff]

False belief can be dangerous, especially in the modern, interdependent and packed-together world. China has a workable system for removing false beliefs from society. It seems rather brutal, but they are an old, smart and successful civilization. Is it too bold to suggest that censorship, hidden persuasion, and denial of educational and employment opportunity for people with false beliefs are practices already promulgated, tolerated or sought for here?

Yes, that is too bold.

 

[Dotini]

Yes, that is too bold.

It is very widely believed that anti-vaxxers hold dangerous beliefs and practices. I think their children are denied entrance to the school system. This is sensible, is it not?

 

[Danoff]

It is very widely believed that anti-vaxxers hold dangerous beliefs and practices. I think their children are denied entrance to the school system. This is sensible, is it not?

Totally depends on the country and school.

 

[Dotini]

Totally depends on the country and school.

So sensibility, reason, rationality, even boldness, depends upon its geographical location. Humpf.

 

[Danoff]

So sensibility, reason, rationality, even boldness, depends upon its geographical location. Humpf.

No, whether your proposal is sensible (not sensibility, reason, rationality, etc. overall) depends on the country or school. It actually depends on more than that, I should have said it depends "at least" on the country and school.

Is it sensible to deny an anti-vaxxer's child entry to a school? D) not enough information

 

[Dotini]

No, whether your proposal is sensible (not sensibility, reason, rationality, etc. overall) depends on the country or school. It actually depends on more than that, I should have said it depends "at least" on the country and school.

Is it sensible to deny an anti-vaxxer's child entry to a school? D) not enough information

Denial of anti-vaxxer's children to school is a fact. A truth. A reality.

 

[Danoff]

Denial of anti-vaxxer's children to school is a fact. A truth. A reality. It is a not a mystery.

How is this responsive to the discussion of the sensibility of that "fact"?

 

[Dotini]

How is this responsive to the discussion of the sensibility of that "fact"?

It is responsive to the senses. It is apparent. It is real. It is the way things are, at least here. Is it different in your community?

 

[Danoff]

It is responsive to the senses. It is apparent. It is real. It is the way things are, at least here. Is it different in your community?

"to the senses"? Is this meant to be a surrogate for "sensibility"?

You went from asking me if it's sensible to deny anti vaxxer's children access to a school to stating that it is a fact that it happens and somehow that has to do with sensibility because you can sense it?

I'm not denying that it happens.

 

[Imari]

Denial of anti-vaxxer's children to school is a fact. A truth. A reality.

You don't do well with nuance, do you?

 

[Dotini]

You don't do well with nuance, do you?

The question is whether false belief is dangerous, and if so, should sanctioned here in some way. I say yes. Others say it depends on location. There's your nuance., and I'm okay with it.

 

[Danoff]

Others say it depends on location.

No, I said that whether it is sensible to deny an anti-vaxxer's child access to a school depends (at least) on the country and the school. I did not say, and it is not equivalent to, "whether false belief is dangerous depends on location". In fact, the reason that it depends on those things has nothing to do with location (or at least not directly), and everything to do with the obligations of the school and government. Those obligations are different depending on the institution and government, for "sensible" reasons.

 

[Imari]

The question is whether false belief is dangerous, and if so, should sanctioned here in some way. I say yes.

False belief is always dangerous and should always be sanctioned. Very nuanced take there.

Of course, you yourself have never espoused any beliefs that may have been false, since you are well known for being entirely grounded in rational, evidence based thinking.

 

[Dotini]

False belief is always dangerous and should always be sanctioned. Very nuanced take there.

Of course, you yourself have never espoused any beliefs that may have been false, since you are well known for being entirely grounded in rational, evidence based thinking.

Yes, thank you. I like to think I bring the best available evidence to controversial and unresolved questions, like consciousness, UFO/UAP, belief in God, ancient mysteries, etc. It's a lonely job, I get plenty of pushback, but I still find it very worthwhile. When I first started, I was a little loose with the evidence, but I think I've tightened it up in recent years.

For a belief to be false, some agreed-to authority must determine it to be false. Therein lies a potential problem. On the specific issue of vaccination, I think the science is settled enough to conclude anti-vaxxers hold false beliefs. For their children to be denied educational and employment opportunities seems a bit harsh on the surface, especially in an era of inequalities due to racism, sexism, sectarian intolerance and other social injustices. But some jurisdictions have the right to impose that, and they do. For my own part, I have always taken every vaccination recommended to me, including the annual flu shot.

 

[Danoff]

For a belief to be false, some agreed-to authority must determine it to be false.

I'm pretty sure that's not how facts work.

 

[Dotini]

I'm pretty sure that's not how facts work.

I'm sure objectivity plays a role. But you have already determined that anti-vaxxers who hold false beliefs should sometimes be sanctioned and sometimes they should not. So there seems to be subjective, qualitative or non-binary elements at work in that logic.

 

[Danoff]

I'm sure objectivity plays a role.

In whether a belief is false, yes. No agreed-to authority can make something true or false.

But you have already determined that anti-vaxxers who hold false beliefs should sometimes be sanctioned and sometimes they should not. So there seems to be subjective, qualitative or non-binary elements at work in that logic.

The fact that sometimes an action is "sensible" and sometimes not does not mean that there are subjective elements for whether a belief is false.

 

[TexRex]

False belief is always dangerous and should always be sanctioned.

I'm not on board with this. Belief on its own, its validity notwithstanding, is benign in that it isn't in violation of...anything. Action, however, may be sanctioned if it is deemed to be in violation of something. That sanction still may not be appropriate, and it has been established that there exist countless laws for which there is no reasonable justification.

 

[Dotini]

In whether a belief is false, no. No agreed-to authority can make something true or false.



The fact that sometimes an action is "sensible" and sometimes not does not mean that there are subjective elements for whether a belief is false.

We can agree upon an authority who decides questions of truth or untruth. We can use agreed upon processes to discover truth. But yes, at the end of the day, what is real and what is not can devolve into philosophy, epistemology, etc. Sometimes it is fun and useful to question our beliefs. I agree, "sensible" is a fun word to steer a way through complex facts and issues. Sometimes it is sensible to sanction false beliefs, sometimes not. It is sensible to sanction the children of anti-vaxxers in modern metropolitan US school districts, but likely it is not sensible to do so in developing nations.

 

[Danoff]

We can agree upon an authority who decides questions of truth or untruth.

You mean like a court? They don't really determine truth, usually there is a burden of proof standard that needs to be met. And that burden of proof depends on what is being judged. What they determine is what is deemed sufficiently "likely" to meet the burden of proof standard that applies.

We can use agreed upon processes to discover truth.

You mean like logic? There is no need to agree.

But yes, at the end of the day, what is real and what is not can devolve into philosophy, epistemology, etc.

Not really. Philosophy can help you to question your understanding of what you consider to be true, but the concept of truth stands independent.

For example, philosophy might help you to question whether what you see is really a chair, but truth can be contingent. "If what I see exists, it appears to be a thing called a chair based on my sensory information".

Or... to put it more concretely:

Premise: A
Premise: A->B
Conclusion: B

True. The conclusion is contingent upon the premises, but the conclusion is still true.

It is sensible to sanction the children of anti-vaxxers in modern metropolitan US school districts, but likely it is not sensible to do so in developing nations.

Let's take a hypothetical. Let's say that you signed a contract with a school whereby you pay them tuition and they admit your child, and their admittance of your child did not require vaccination. Is it then sensible for them to deny access?

Let's take another hypothetical. Let's suppose that your government seizes tax dollars from you to provide education to all children. And let's suppose that it is not illegal to avoid vaccinating your child. Is it "sensible" for your government to deny your child access without refunding the seized tuition? If so, which vaccinations? I'm not vaccinated against smallpox, and until recently I was not vaccinated against Hep-A (I got it to travel to China). I never got vaccinated against chickenpox (because I contracted it).

What is "sensible" can depend on other things besides whether the belief is false. For example, it can depend on whether they have a contract, whether they have paid, which vaccine it is and how much of a risk it poses. A tetanus vaccine? A flu vaccine? A chickenpox vaccine?

D) Not enough information

 

[Imari]

I'm not on board with this. Belief on its own, its validity notwithstanding, is benign in that it isn't in violation of...anything. Action, however, may be sanctioned if it is deemed to be in violation of something. That sanction still may not be appropriate, and it has been established that there exist countless laws for which there is no reasonable justification.

I agree. I think we're both on the same page with regards to disapproving of Dotini's stated opinion that any false belief is automatically worthy of sanction.

We can agree upon an authority who decides questions of truth or untruth. We can use agreed upon processes to discover truth.

Can we? I sort of doubt it. For starters, people with false beliefs will disagree with you as to the validity of this authority. They will disagree with your truth-seeking processes. I seriously doubt that you can get universal approval for any authority on any topic at all.

Not to mention, it's pretty central to the core of the scientific method that one should not have to refer to an authority. One should be able to simply observe an effect oneself, hence why objectivity is kind of important.

Sometimes it is sensible to sanction false beliefs, sometimes not.

Let the flip-flopping begin! All you need now is to say that it's never appropriate to sanction false beliefs, and you'll have the trifecta.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Taken from another thread....

Bibles have nothing to do with disapproval of a gay lifestyle. Gay vicars are a great example of that, and so is the delicious sound of thwacking any leather-bound book onto another man's firm, oiled buttocks.

Saying that for a friend, you understand.

I don't agree.

The Bible can be, has been and still is used to justify homophobic abuse and a lot of Christians use scripture as a guide in morality matters. I don't believe that without it the same amount of people would have the same disapproval of a gay lifestyle as that underestimates the power and influence of religion. That there are gay vicars doesn't disprove the idea that following lessons from the Bible can lead to homophobia - what's far more likely is that the churches that have gay vicars have a different intepretation of the Bible but it's still the same source material.

 

[Dotini]

In Genesis, God told us to go forth and multiply. And we believed it and did that. But now that Earth is very well populated and we have birth control, abortion and environmental awareness, it's time to declare multiplication of the human race to be a false belief, and sanction those practices which promote it. In fact, we should seek to reduce stress on Earth's resources by restricting population growth. Perhaps we should heavily tax marriage and human birth, encourage or even even require people to be gay. So God may not be dead, but merely queer.

 

[Kevstah2004]

In Genesis, God told us to go forth and multiply. And we believed it and did that. But now that Earth is very well populated and we have birth control, abortion and environmental awareness, it's time to declare multiplication of the human race to be a false belief, and sanction those practices which promote it. In fact, we should seek to reduce stress on Earth's resources by restricting population growth. Perhaps we should heavily tax marriage and human birth, encourage or even even require people to be gay. So God may not be dead, but merely queer.

Sweet Jesus, why people believe everything they read
religion was created by the elites as another means to separate people not bring them peacefully together.

The ladder represents humanity never moving forward, Jesus is the devil in disguise.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Sweet Jesus, why people believe everything they read

He makes an interesting point. If you believe that religion is an organised, centralised, elitist framework for dispensing laws into society then why wouldn't his question be very relevant given the enormous differences in society when the laws were written and society now?

 

[Danoff]

Perhaps we should heavily tax marriage and human birth, encourage or even even require people to be gay. So God may not be dead, but merely queer.

What does marriage have to do with birth? What does being gay have to do with anything? Many gay people procreate with donor genetics. Many married people (including gays ones) choose not to have children.

 

[Rallywagon]

I mean, if China's one child law can teach us anything, aside from how to potentially cripple a work force, its that if the gov is going to get that involved in reproductive rights, it needs to go the full monty and control nearly every aspect to maintain healthy population numbers.
In that regard, rather than making everyone gay :eyeroll:, having a more secular, less religious, better educated society would be an easier, more productive method of reducing population grow rates without needing to throw out human rights.

 

[Kevstah2004]

He makes an interesting point. If you believe that religion is an organised, centralised, elitist framework for dispensing laws into society then why wouldn't his question be very relevant given the enormous differences in society when the laws were written and society now?

If religion is real, why isn’t the oldest form of it the most popular & regarded as the most factual?
Anybody can claim anything, none of them are any better than a belief in Klingon.
Humanity survived for millennia without any divine intervention, if anything all it’s it done is cripple & halt human progression.

 

[Joey D]

religion was created by the elites as another means to separate people not bring them peacefully together.

Religion predates civilizations, so I'm not really sure how it was created by elites. We even suspect Neanderthals had some sort of religion too based on their burials we've excavated.

Religion was probably created to explain the unexplained. I mean go back 300,000 years. Do you think those ancient people understood what was happening during a solar eclipse? The aurora? A comet? Hell, weather? Probably not since there's nothing to suggest they had the tools to figure all that out. But some explanation was needed since its human nature for people to be curious.

 

[Kevstah2004]

Religion predates civilizations, so I'm not really sure how it was created by elites. We even suspect Neanderthals had some sort of religion too based on their burials we've excavated.

Religion was probably created to explain the unexplained. I mean go back 300,000 years. Do you think those ancient people understood what was happening during a solar eclipse? The aurora? A comet? Hell, weather? Probably not since there's nothing to suggest they had the tools to figure all that out. But some explanation was needed since its human nature for people to be curious.

It's a survival mechanism: in the presence of something good, the brain releases four main 'feelgood' chemicals – endorphin, oxytocin, serotonin, and dopamine – and in the presence of danger, the 'bad feeling' chemical – cortisol – comes in.
Like I said it’s all mind manipulation, from sound & vision to food & drink, they know it all and how it effects our brain patterns & thought processes, they pray on our weaknesses in order to control us.