[karajorma]

Exactly. What did God say when the other gods took the piss out of him for not knowing who his mum and dad are?

Then you've also got to consider the likely psychological damage from

1) Having no equals to talk to
2) Having no friends you didn't create specifically to be your friends
3) Having some of them turn against you even despite this
4) Having everyone be more interested in what you can do for them than actually just simply wanting to hang out.

i think between both your response and aldo_14's reply, there has been a bit of smuggling.  i stipulated "a Creator".  Not "God".  The two aren't necessarily or automatically co-equal; in naming one but not the other, i was specifically trying to avoid the baggage commonly strewn everywhere by the latter.

So, at the risk of boring anyone further by endless repetition of my rambles: "Suppose a Creator [i.e. an intelligent something, with the ability to create plus maintain influence over this universe, and which exists as far beyond the current reach of scientific inquiry, as a laptop is beyond the grasp of an ant] truly was in charge of such things..."

If this elaborated definition isn't sufficient, let me know.  In the meantime...

Let's call him Zog. It's easier to discuss these things once you don't have to keep using long phrases to distinguish between real-life fictional and hypotheical fictional beings.

i was asking, "since you don't know, is it wise / worth the cost to aggressively disbelieve, even though your own limitations might be defying the connection of 'natural disaster' with 'imposed punishment'?"

In hindsight it might not be a good idea to attract the wrath of Zog but quite simply we don't live our lives in hindsight. And that's why the question is loaded. It's like saying "I've slipped a bomb into your backpack and you don't know about it. Wouldn't it be a good idea to take off your backpack and run away from it"

There's no way to know about the bomb and we have special places to put people who do things like that without having any good reason for it. They're called asylums. So yes it is wise to act to what is the best of your knowledge in every situation. Sometime that can get you very wisely dead but that's life (or death).

Acting on information you don't have is lunacy and therefore the complete opposite of wisdom.

[thoughtful again] Although this answer is afield of my question, i still find it intriguing.  In your eyes, does an aggressive disbelief / resistance against proof, always amount to petulance?  Some might argue that several of humanity's greatest moments of triumph versus adversity, came about precisely because the people involved refused to accept the fact of their situation / their oppressor's power / their own weaknesses.  Is there a difference between that versus what you would label as petulance?

 I've yet to hear of a situation so desperate that someone had absolute proof that they were going to die and didn't. Or absolute proof that something couldn't be done and yet it was. The world simply doesn't work that way.

What I was talking about was a case where you had proof of the existance of Zog and yet completely refused to believe it. That is petulance.

[Mefustae]

1) Having no equals to talk to
2) Having no friends you didn't create specifically to be your friends
3) Having some of them turn against you even despite this
4) Having everyone be more interested in what you can do for them than actually just simply wanting to hang out.

Not to mention having an estranged son who never got a girlfriend in 33 years, and spent most of his time hanging out with his 12 male friends... well, you see where i'm going with this, and this was 2000 years ago! Let's just say tolerance wasn't a big thing back then.

Damn, he must be sitting up there screwier than a... a screw!

[Wobble73]

And I never liked that "suffer the little children who come unto me" line either!

[]C[rusader]

@aldo_14:
[curious] Why be inclined to seek a "point"? 

i asked a rather ponderous question, karajorma was indulgent enough to answer. 

Simple enough, yes?


@karajorma:
It's odd that i more or less agree with you, both in general and in specific, as regards this topic... and yet... it's as if twice now, your answer has fallen slightly outside the exact context of my question.  Thus inspiring my continued pokes for clarity.

Still, i do appreciate your answers, since my questions are sincere... i like asking such things, but rarely do i find anyone willing to endure me long enough to participate.  So, thank you. 


In hindsight it might not be a good idea...

[nods] Not exactly germane, since my question didn't really try to involve hindsight, but still a true enough statement in general.


And that's why the question is loaded.

Eh.  i do get your meaning.  i'm not sure that's an apt analogy though.  How about:

"All your life, you've heard stories about a type of liquid chemical bomb, supposedly implanted in all humans at birth.  Nobody has actually found one, and none are known to have verifiably exploded.  Nobody is aware that the "bombs" are actually an inactive control apparatus, since [cue handwaving] the liquid components are separate in the body and appear commonplace." [cough-yes-just-humour-me-cough] 

"As such... does a vanishingly small (i.e. from your POV) probability of having been implanted with anything, bombs or otherwise, justify forming and holding an aggressive disbelief in them?  Is it worth the cost if perhaps the bomb explodes someday / the control device is activated?"

Is it clear, what i'm aiming at?  i'm not really looking to find out how you'd literally act in the htl.; you've already mentioned the impracticality of "living in hindsight", and i concur. 

What i'm wondering, is if you feel / think / believe that an aggressive disbelief is wise, justified, or worth the potential cost, in such a situation?

And for fairness' sake, i'll answer my own question: in the context of the htl., i don't think an aggressive disbelief is wise, justified, or worth any potential cost.  i think the cultivation of an impartial mind, with a willingness to hold no belief at all, neither pro nor con, in as neutral a state of bias as is humanly possible, would be best.

Back to you... do you believe you've answered my question already?  If so, i accept that.  If not, i'm all ears.


I've yet to hear of a situation so desperate...

"i've yet to hear" is very well said.  i read that as a willingness to hear.

However, the addition of "absolute" to "proof" is a little troublesome.   i said and meant "proof" alone, which seems implicitly to be a lower standard... i'm thinking the one could be falsified, the other could not.   Hence, a proof of imminent death, would be a gun in the face, falsifiable by a lack of pulling the trigger.  Absolute proof would be the actual death-by-bullet, which apparently can't be undone.  Is that a fair assessment?

If that does hold water, then i can think of a situation in which someone had proof (not absolute proof) that they were going to die, but lived through it.  Viktor Frankl's experience in a Nazi concentration camp comes to mind.  He had at all times a tremendous amount of proof at hand of his own impending death, yet he chose to aggressively disbelieve in that fate for years.  (i hope i'm characterising that correctly; corrections are welcome.) 


What I was talking about was a case where...

Back to "proof"?  Now i'm thinking i overanalysed your use of "absolute".  Ah well. [slaps forehead] Moving along: my example of "completely refusing to believe" is listed above.  Would you say the example is apt? 

And, if so, would you therefore answer "no, it doesn't" to my little tangent about "does an aggressive disbelief / resistance against proof, always amount to petulance?"  If not, why?

[aldo_14]

Ok, then, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking.

[karajorma]

[nods] Not exactly germane, since my question didn't really try to involve hindsight, but still a true enough statement in general.

Actually it does. The question only becomes important if you say that Zog actually exists. Since there is no current evidence for the existance of Zog the only way that current actions could be considered in the light of Zog's existance is if he is proved to exist in the future. Hence the reason why it would have to be in hindsight.

And that's why the question is loaded.

Eh.  i do get your meaning.  i'm not sure that's an apt analogy though.  How about:

"All your life, you've heard stories about a type of liquid chemical bomb, supposedly implanted in all humans at birth.  Nobody has actually found one, and none are known to have verifiably exploded.  Nobody is aware that the "bombs" are actually an inactive control apparatus, since [cue handwaving] the liquid components are separate in the body and appear commonplace." [cough-yes-just-humour-me-cough] 

"As such... does a vanishingly small (i.e. from your POV) probability of having been implanted with anything, bombs or otherwise, justify forming and holding an aggressive disbelief in them?  Is it worth the cost if perhaps the bomb explodes someday / the control device is activated?"

Here's my point. I can come up with millions of hypotheticals all as obtuse or unlikely as this one. Any single one of them could be true but almost certainly isn't. They all contradict each other and the consequence of acting on any of them is that you act as if thousands of other ones aren't true.

You're basing this on the absolute fact that there is a Zog and then expecting people to believe in him despite the fact that there is an equal amount of evidence for Zib, Zob and an entire pantheon of other deities with no particular reason to pick any of them at all.

Given the fact that there is no proof of the existance of any of these the only sensible option is to act as if none of them exist until proof does turn up. Anything else is simply grabbing at straws and you're far more likely to grab the wrong one than the right one.

What i'm wondering, is if you feel / think / believe that an aggressive disbelief is wise, justified, or worth the potential cost, in such a situation?

And for fairness' sake, i'll answer my own question: in the context of the htl., i don't think an aggressive disbelief is wise, justified, or worth any potential cost.  i think the cultivation of an impartial mind, with a willingness to hold no belief at all, neither pro nor con, in as neutral a state of bias as is humanly possible, would be best.

I think you've wondered off on a tangent because you've failed to understand what I was saying. You've assumed that saying I don't believe in something is proof that I agressively disbelieve it. I said no such thing. I don't believe in God but I don't disbelieve in him. I simply see no point in choosing a low probability event over a high probability event. To act any other way would be stupidity as far as I'm concerned. I have the data so why should I choose what every single logical thought shows to be the wrong choice? 

"i've yet to hear" is very well said.  i read that as a willingness to hear.

However, the addition of "absolute" to "proof" is a little troublesome.   i said and meant "proof" alone, which seems implicitly to be a lower standard... i'm thinking the one could be falsified, the other could not.   Hence, a proof of imminent death, would be a gun in the face, falsifiable by a lack of pulling the trigger.  Absolute proof would be the actual death-by-bullet, which apparently can't be undone.  Is that a fair assessment?

If that does hold water, then i can think of a situation in which someone had proof (not absolute proof) that they were going to die, but lived through it.  Viktor Frankl's experience in a Nazi concentration camp comes to mind.  He had at all times a tremendous amount of proof at hand of his own impending death, yet he chose to aggressively disbelieve in that fate for years.  (i hope i'm characterising that correctly; corrections are welcome.)

Not a good enough example. Any fool knows that there would be the possibility of surviving long enough for the Germans to lose the war. Which in the end is exactly what happened. You're going to have to try much harder to come up with a situation so hopeless that it's worth even continuing this particular idea. 

And, if so, would you therefore answer "no, it doesn't" to my little tangent about "does an aggressive disbelief / resistance against proof, always amount to petulance?"  If not, why?

Disbelief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is either stupidity or petulance. The simple fact is that if you can't prove it then you have to act on what you know. You confuse continual testing to prove if you're right (i.e the scientific method) with refusing to accept any evidence, picking an opinion at random and then insisting that it must be correct. Like I said the latter is either stupidity or petulance. The former on the other hand is what has actually led to the advances you want to claim came from belief in the face of evidence to the contrary.

[]C[rusader]

@karajorma:
i'll halt here.  If you desire any further reply beyond the following, just ask.


Given the fact that there is no proof of the existance of any of these the only sensible option is to act as if none of them exist until proof does turn up. Anything else is simply grabbing at straws and you're far more likely to grab the wrong one than the right one.

Thank you for your answer, and i'm rather sorry about belabouring the question.


Disbelief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is either stupidity or petulance.

At this point i'm willing to take your statement as granted true from your perspective, and not probe farther to see if there is actually an exception to which you'd agree.  It's fine if there isn't; i was simply curious.

[karajorma]

Nothing wrong with curiosity.

Well unless you're a cat. Then it's murder.

[]C[rusader]

Mm.  i'm feline quite well, actually.

[Colonol Dekker]

Ba'doom'Chsshhhh.....................*kill me please*

[Polpolion]

Ba'doom'Chsshhhh.....................*kill me please*

My pleasure!

*takes chainsaw to CD's face