Viser arkivet for stikkord religion

How people fail to notice they are being proven wrong in arguments.

Often people ask questions like “Why don’t people fight climate change? Why don’t people fight ageing? Why don’t people fight AIDS? Why don’t people fight poverty?” and lots of other similar “good fights” they themselves undertake.
On the face of it fighting climate change, aging, AIDS, poverty, all seem like no-brainers. So why don’t people do these things?

1. They think doing something won’t help enough.
2. They think the outcome would not be good.
3. They think it is not a problem of theirs at this moment in time.

Number One is easy to understand. If you think what you yourself can do is not enough to fight climate change, ageing or AIDS then you will not do anything. Number two is present even when it comes to AIDS and aging in some cases. Three is also somewhat easy to understand, most often people have not been thinking about the problem and so it is like an uninvited object they don’t consider theirs. Like if you go up to someone with a random dog-poo bag and say “is this yours?”; they say no if its just a tiny bit negative or something that seem quite out-of-place (there’s a time and a place for everything, it seems).

Ageing:
1. People think they can’t do anything to help stop ageing (no one yet have managed to stop ageing, they think no one has managed to affect ageing, they think no one has a theory of how to succeed, they think ageing is a feature of humans untouchable by biotechnology, they believe this technology will come at the same time in the future no matter what they do).
2. People think the outcome of succeeding in stopping ageing will not be good (They think there will be overpopulation, that bad people will live forever, that science will progress slower if the old don’t die and make room for the new, they believe there will be lack of resources, they believe people should die to make room for the next generation, they believe stopping ageing will result in very poor quality of life because of boredom or very poor health, etc).
3. They think ageing is not a problem that they should concern themselves about right now (They believe they can’t do anything anyways, they believe it won’t be in time for them, they believe they have more pressing things to take care of first, they believe they might do it at another time and place when they can consider the question more, etc).

Climate change:
1. People think they can’t do anything to help stop climate change (fex because they think its not manmade, or because they think everyone else will just continue to pollute even if they themselves stop).
2. People think the outcome of succeeding in stopping climate change will not be good (They believe it will bankrupt the nations to stop it, and a whole bunch of other things).
3. They think climate change is not a problem that they should concern themselves about now (They believe it is still so far away they have more pressing things to take care of first, or that the climate is not changing at all, or that climate change is not due to man).

The same three points can be written for any number of things, including but not limited to:
-Crime.
-Education.
-Personal Health.
-Personal intelligence.
-Specific personal abilities.
-Roads.
-Healthcare.
-Laws.
-Public opinion.
-Traditions.
-Norms.
-Opinions (personal and others).
-What leaders do (prime ministers, presidents, CEO, social group leader etc).
-Pretty much anything, even atheism and agnosticism and ignosticism (“I can’t imagine how life formed” is Type One, Type Two; “I don’t think atheism/agnosticism/ignosticism gives a good quality of life even if I became one” and Type Three is that they don’t feel they have to do all this intellectual work about this particular problem right now).

Most people are not consciously aware of which of these three Types need to be argued in order for them to change their minds. If the main reason they don’t stop aging is type One, Two or Three. And as such, most people fall into the others once one type has been argued against. If you argue against Type One they retort with Type Two or Type Three as if that makes your argument against Type One invalid somehow. If you then argue against the Type they retorted with they retort with either of the other two Types again, as if your first argument against Type One was invalidated.

Quite frankly, I’m tired of meeting this phenomenon every time I argue for rejuvenation biotechnology. People want to force people to die of repairable decay because of three reasons they don’t notice have been proven to be bad reasons. They hop from Type to Type and in-doing so maintain the delusion of not being argued wrong.
I can imagine people that try to get people to stop climate change and cure AIDS and Religion and so forth also could do without this fundamental flaw in human being’s self-proclaimed rationality.

It can be summarized as such;
For something to be done it must be considered feasible, desirable and undeferable.
And subsequently, if it is not considered to be feasible, desirable and undeferable, it will not be done.

Religionsfrihet uten statsreligion.

England hadde fartsfrihet på sine veier helt til noen testet toppfarten på en racingbil på offentlig vei. Vi vil ha religionsfrihet helt til noen tester de grensene like ekstremt og uforsvarlig.
Denne nyheten inspirerte denne korte teksten.
Religiøse (ikke alle) har raskt for å levere trusler i form av “Du vil brenne i helvete” om man gjør noe de ikke liker at man gjør. Men de forstår faen ikke (unnskyld fransken) at vi har frihet fra å måtte gjøre det de vil at vi skal gjøre, mot betalingen at vi ikke kan tvinge de til å gjøre som vi vil (også at vi ikke kan stoppe de fra å gjøre hva de vil om det ikke skader noen om de gjør det).
Det er helt absurd at vi i år 2013 enda har mennesker som ikke forstår prinsippet av ytringsfriheten når de står på gata og bruker ytringsfrihet for å kreve at andre fratas ytringsfriheten.

Ytringsfriheten betyr at du kan gjøre hva du vil så lenge det ikke skader andre fysisk eller psykisk, du kan si hva du vil så lenge det ikke er personangrep, du kan mene hva du vil så lenge du ikke skader folk fysisk eller psykisk basert på dine meninger. To mennesker har rett til å gifte seg uansett hva du mener, og de har retten til å ikke bli utsatt for personangrep og trusler.
Andre har også rett til å fortelle deg hvor full av dritt du er, hvor teit din mening er, hvor idiotisk din tro er, hvor absurd din religon er, uten at du har retten til å angripe de verbalt og fysisk.
Merk: Jeg sa ikke at de har retten til å si du er teit, at du er idiotisk, at du er absurd. Det er forskjell på å refse dine meninger og tro, og å refse ditt “jeg”. Det første er en beskyttet rettighet, det siste er personangrep.
Det er ikke vår feil om du anser hva du tror, mener og eier som en del av ditt “jeg”, slik at du anser refsing av hva du tror, mener og eier som et personangrep.

Det er nødvendig å også poengtere at det ikke lengre er slik at folk er så overtroiske at man tror noe vil skje hvis man prater om det. Så banneord, som kommer fra “å forbanne noen”, er kun ord, på linje med “og”. Det er helt teit at banneord blir behandlet slik at vi avler fram generasjon etter generasjon som føler seg ubekvem når noen ord brukes. Det senker livskvaliteten til samfunnet og gir ordene en symbolsk makt det ikke er intelligent å gi de. Det betyr at hvis noen banner på talestolen på stortinget så får det nyhetsplass der hvor sultne barn og antallet som unødig døde av aldringsprosessen i dag skal være.

Om de religiøse fortsetter med denne ekstreme og uforsvarlige utnyttingen av religionsfriheten sin, for å angripe andre, true andre med evig tortur osv, så vil det bli nødvendig å drøfte om religionsfriheten må utvannes, eller i værste fall fjernes.

PS: Om religionsfriheten utvannes/fjernes er ikke så farlig som man skulle trodd, vi har ikke lengre en statsreligion, og kongen er ikke lengre lederen av den norske kirken.
Jeg foreslår at hvis ikke de religiøse skjerper seg så kan vi begynne med en lov som definerer trusler om å brenne i helvete og å miste sjelen sin osv, som voldstrusler på vegne av annen part (de religiøse tror jo de sier hva en annen vil gjøre mot personen, det er jo nesten som å si at en torpedo vil banke personen om han ikke betaler).

Our views and beliefs

When I do something, it is because my brain somehow assign most value to that choice. When I choose 2 slices of bread over 3, somehow, 2 slices of bread is of the higher value to my brain.
This affect everything we do, also religion and views about the world.

The most logical argument in the world presenting the best evidence in existence can not convince anyone of changing their minds if their current belief is after the argument still considered more valuable than the belief being offered in the argument. In essence, if you want to convince someone that God does not exist, you just have to provide the feelings/value believing God exist provides, and the belief in God will fall away as a superfluous dry piece of skin. If, to make the example simple, the belief in God provides only the feeling of security, then all you need to provide in your argument against the belief in God, is security without God. In reality, we probably get between half dozen and a dozen feelings (or naturally occurring chemical highs as they are on a neurochemical level) from each world view and belief. We also on a neurological level get a high from various neurons firing more or less, but that is another article.

I get value from having agnostic views, just like an atheist and theist get value from having their atheist or theist views. It is a comfort to me that I can know something if we really work at measuring it, and that purpose of mankind is not imposed upon us from the outside, but that it is something we ourselves can decide from within humanity. It is a comfort and value to me that what is right and wrong has evolved in most if not all species (rats give away 30% of the food they find, even if they’re still hungry, and humans pay taxes, apes usually don’t kill members of their own group, humans usually don’t kill members of their own group, and this without imposed law or morals). It holds meaning to me that for us to exist today, 4 billion years of evolution had to happen, stars had to explode, new solar systems had to form, every single dice had to land just right. It is meaningful that we’re standing on the top of a house of cards that took 13,7 billion years to stack, which fell down wholly or partially several times. When I understand one more thing about humans, like experimental results from behavioral economics, it enrich humans. It makes humans more than just a free-will-entity-that-does-whatever-it-wants-because-it-wants-to-do-what-it-does. It means something grand to me that we do not have free will, but act in such a complex way still, almost as if we had free will. When you as a theist look at atheists/agnosticists you should know our path without theism makes us feel just like you feel because of theism, the only difference is, if we really want to, we can measure that our path exist and we can measure that our path is as we think it is (I am perfectly able to take back that statement if any theist can provide something for us to measure, that measures the existence of their described God (If you can measure God, you also have to be able to measure that it is not a God from another religion, but the God from your religion)). But equally, atheists and agnostics must realize that theists, atheists and agnostics have their beliefs because it gives value. In order for someone to reject their own beliefs in favor of new beliefs, the new belief need to offer the value the old belief offers, and more.

A bad argument you realize has value is accepted even if it is a bad argument, but a good argument you do not see the value in is not accepted even if the argument is perfect. When you wish to make peace in the middle east, or cure the aging process, it is about conveying the value of what your argument tries to convince them of, not about trying to convince them that your argument is correct or not. When you convince someone to cure aging, you convince them that living forever young is indeed good. When you convince people to go to the moon, you convince them that the result of doing it is good. When you convince Israel and Palestine to once and for all stop shooting each other, they will do it because they know the value of not shooting each other (They shoot each other because it gives them value. The belief that they are correct, revenge feelings, politicians win elections by using the “I will provide security/revenge”-card etc. And they believe not shooting each other will provide less value because very few if any have ever provided them with the full list of value present in not killing their neighbor).

PS: If you misunderstand my use of “value” as it works in your brain or something else, that’s on you. Don’t put meanings in my mouth that you extrapolate or interpolate from my words and what you think my use of the words meant. Ask me if anything is unclear or deemed negative by you.

Monty Hall religion?

The Monty Hall problem is when you have 3 doors, behind two are goats, behind one there is a car. You do not know which door have the car behind it, but the gameshow host knows. See this video for an explanation.

Now, given n number of doors, each with a belief behind it (christianity behind one, islam behind another, string-theory behind another, M-theory behind another, that the superbowl is on a sunday etc, all beliefs a human can hold). If you choose lets say door X, and another door is opened behind which the theory is disproven (lets say Newtons theory of gravity which is indeed not entirely correct), it will increase your chances of having the correct belief (door), if you choose another door. This holds true for every time a belief is disproven and a door is opened. Regardless of what belief there is behind your door (You don’t know the belief is correct, you simply believe it has not been disproven). If we have lets say 10 doors, we choose one door, the odds of having the right belief is 1 in 10, if another belief is disproven (lets say we find a flaw in one sentence in the bible that simply is not true), and we choose another door, then our chances of having the correct belief goes up, if we then do this until we only have two doors left, and switch all the time, the chances of having the correct belief is 9 out of 10, instead of 1 out of 10 if you never switch belief. Switching doors every time makes sure your chances of having the right belief goes up every time a belief is disproven. If there’s a million doors, there’s a 999 999 in 1 000 000 chance of having the correct belief if you always switch, and only a 1 in 1 000 000 chance to have the correct belief if you don’t switch (and we manage to disprove 999 999 beliefs in a lifetime).

I wonder when the Monty Hall religion turns up in the Facebook choices of faith.