Because too many people make things about beliefs (instead of about universal happiness ;-) ). If they're in a group of fellow believers then there's support. But if they get exposed to a bigger world and come to feel like oddballs by social comparison, or it causes them discomfort some other way, then doubts need to be fought off.
It's the way I do things. If you disagree, then how much time do you spend disproving every crackpot claim people tell you? If you make a claim without proof, then I may not believe you especially if it's an outlandish religious claim.
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I've found that it's best to let the claimant prove her claim. I don't want to waste a lot of time disproving nonsense (unless I'm debating in this forum, of course).
Uh, they're wrong compared to what's right. What else would they be wrong compared to?
I wish they would demand that of me!
They can count anything they want. Just don't count on me to believe what they say.
Actually, what you've been arguing is mostly irrelevant to what I said in the OP. So what you're saying doesn't matter "in this context" either.
I'm glad you're paying attention.
Then drink a bottle of whiskey and go racing down the road in your car. The truth of the dangers of drunk driving shouldn't deter you from the happiness you'll experience flying along in your car high as a kite! Remember: Happiness matters more than truth as you say.
See my example above demonstrating the value of truth over happiness. In general, truth may not necessarily bring happiness, but it sure can help you avoid the misery of costly mistakes made while being currently happy.
Respecting truth isn't nearly as hard as you seem to believe. Just use your head and investigate evidence to see what's correct and what's baloney. That's what I have in mind.
You can disbelieve anything you want. If you doubt what I say, then by all means don't believe it.
Have her join the board!
I don't know what you mean by "make things about beliefs."
Congratulations--you're maybe the first person here who has engaged the issues I raised in the OP.
Unfortunately, Ciscero died in the year 43.
I'm not sure what you're talking about.
When I saw Cicero I thought it was a screen name, not Cicero the person. Then you confused me further by adding the s. But I assume that was a mistake and we're still talking about the person.
Does it stand up to observation of human history? I'd say no.
I'm not sure how one separates religious faith from religious behavior. Maybe we should call the phenomenon "faith behavior." My experience sees two distinct manifestations of the phenomenon. One behavior is sincere where a person actually believes this stuff is real, finds community and support in their behavior and goes along in life as part of a community where those dogmas are not openly challenged or even discussed. The other form is faith behavior as business for profit. Put the clerics and those making money off the community into this category.
Might as well get rid of all these "law" things then, and quit with all that useless "philosophy" and "ethics" and "rules" junk then ya?
Steve, I am not drawing conclusions except the conclusions that your claims are false, and that creatures ARE capable of adopting rules that do not comport with their initial emotional impulses, and that when they do, this yields survival value.
I do not think that is a matter of common agreement. Or, if that is so, then the relationship a lot of people have with God, the gods, spirits, kami, etc, which is based on experience to a large degree, is not faith. Faith is about degree of trust, not the source of trust. You are faithful to those who you would never under any circumstances turn away, and you have faith in those who likewise commit to you. You may believe in your feelings of mutual goodwill even when there is no evidence of it in a a particular situation, but if you are still confident that your sister loves you even when you are having an argument, it doesn't make it "not faith" simply because that trust is partially built on a memory of many shared experiences. Likewise, I think most people see their relationship to God or the other spirits that be primarily in social/relational terms, not as a philosophical claim, and when they talk about their faith, that social relationship is what they're referring to. VERY few people have any strong interest in philosophy or apologetics, or even any patience for talking about them.
I assumed this was a reference to Cicero's very well known perspective on rhetoric - as a kind of public melodrama built on the roles assumed by the speakers over and above any of the facts at hand - rather than the living man's personal likes and dislikes in forum perusal.
