What are your beliefs?

[MarketMasher]

Lesson: It was the woman's belief that piss was making her and others sick. Because she shared this belief with the man, he in turn changed his own beliefs.

----------
1) You are assuming he changed his beliefs. Not necessary so. He may just have changed his behavior without changing his beliefs.
2) You are assuming he would change his beliefs - or his behavior. Neither is necessarily so.
3) Her statement about the results may be correlative, but not causative. If not causative, her belief is false and she is spreading a false belief.
-------------



Your statement can be improved by removing the five words “I believe, only to oneself”

You might try it this way:

One’s beliefs matter.

Adding the other five words is pointless, if indeed you believe them to be true.


-------------
With apologies to Blaise Pascal: I have made the statement longer because I don't care to make it shorter.
-------------






Just because someone says or does something of contradiction- it doesn't mean they must believe it was right or wrong to do so- it just means they made a statement or an action despite what their beliefs may be.


------------
Their time is best focused on how they behave then, rather than what they believe.

------------


Thank you for sharing the thoughts of, IMO, one of our great philosophers. I think I will think over some more, what Waldo is thinking here. J


----------------
Good.
-----------------

 

[trendlover]

Quote from Hoofhearted:

How about a golden calf?

Torture devices?





Where in Nature can you show me one other example of a living being that creates an inanimate object (golden calf) in the image of another being, solely for the purpose of worship?

Where in Nature is one other example of a living being that creates a device used to prolong the agony and suffering of another being.

Where in nature does another living being exist that tortures other beings for selfish and morbid reasons such as pleasure?

Is this Natural behavior?



Point to me any object that a non-human being uses for a particular purpose and I can likely show you examples in Nature where other non-human beings use similar objects for similar purposes.

Point to me any behavior that exists in a non-human being, and I can likely show you a similar behavior in Nature amongst other non-human beings.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I am not sure what you look for. I think the humans can be evil, like nature, and can be evil and kill. But what other "non-human" make laws to stop killing, and have laws?

 

[Hoofhearted]

Quote from MarketMasher:

Lesson: It was the woman's belief that piss was making her and others sick. Because she shared this belief with the man, he in turn changed his own beliefs.

----------

1) You are assuming he changed his beliefs. Not necessary so. He may just have changed his behavior without changing his beliefs.

The parable clearly illustrates that the man changed his beliefs, while making no mention of him changing his "behavior".

It goes as such, "The man then apologizes, being the decent soul that he is, and from that day forward believes it is wrong to piss in the stream."

The parable states that his action was a change in beliefs, and gives no indication that the man ever changes his behavior.

His action is not necessarily seen by others because it happens within his mind, during his thought process. The action is there none the less, and may or may not effect his behavior.

It does not say, "From that day forward, the man stopped pissing in the stream."

He may have very well pissed in the stream the next morning, simply out of habit, only to suddenly remember mid-piss that there were others down stream.

For all we know, the man kept pissing in the stream, for years to come, only to repent afterwards because he believed it was wrong for him to continue doing so.


If you would like to change the story, just to prove your point, you could just as easily have it say "the man changed his undershorts, without changing his socks."

Are you not at least open to the possibility, or the reality that a person can change their beliefs because of what someone else says?

Are you not at least open to the possibility that a person can change their beliefs, without changing their behavior?

2) You are assuming he would change his beliefs - or his behavior. Neither is necessarily so.

I am assuming nothing. The parable clearly states the man's actions.

3) Her statement about the results may be correlative, but not causative. If not causative, her belief is false and she is spreading a false belief.

Maybe so, but it doesn't change the fact that it was her expression of her belief that served as catalyst for the man to change his belief- whether it be false or correct.





With apologies to Blaise Pascal: I have made the statement longer because I don't care to make it shorter.

You have shared with us quotes from at least one famously influential philosopher, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and you have now referred us to another- Blaise Pascal

Are you to have us believe that the thoughts and views of these two philosophers, have not influenced your own beliefs?

Are there no other people in the history of mankind whose expressed beliefs have caused a shift in your own thoughts/views/opinions?

I will say that for you to be reading material at the level of Pascal and Emerson, I am surprised you are having such difficulty grasping the basic concept that people's words can have effect on the way others think, or believe.


IOW- People's beliefs matter to others, and not just oneself.

The limited amount of time in which I have to help you with this basic truth has likely expired.

Good luck!

 

[MarketMasher]

Quote from Hoofhearted:

The parable clearly illustrates that the man changed his beliefs, while making no mention of him changing his "behavior".

It goes as such, "The man then apologizes, being the decent soul that he is, and from that day forward believes it is wrong to piss in the stream."

The parable states that his action was a change in beliefs, and gives no indication that the man ever changes his behavior.

His action is not necessarily seen by others because it happens within his mind, during his thought process. The action is there none the less, and may or may not effect his behavior.

It does not say, "From that day forward, the man stopped pissing in the stream."

He may have very well pissed in the stream the next morning, simply out of habit, only to suddenly remember mid-piss that there were others down stream.

For all we know, the man kept pissing in the stream, for years to come, only to repent afterwards because he believed it was wrong for him to continue doing so.


If you would like to change the story, just to prove your point, you could just as easily have it say "the man changed his undershorts, without changing his socks."

Are you not at least open to the possibility, or the reality that a person can change their beliefs because of what someone else says?

Are you not at least open to the possibility that a person can change their beliefs, without changing their behavior?





I am assuming nothing. The parable clearly states the man's actions.




Maybe so, but it doesn't change the fact that it was her expression of her belief that served as catalyst for the man to change his belief- whether it be false or correct.





With apologies to Blaise Pascal: I have made the statement longer because I don't care to make it shorter.

You have shared with us quotes from at least one famously influential philosopher, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and you have now referred us to another- Blaise Pascal

Are you to have us believe that the thoughts and views of these two philosophers, have not influenced your own beliefs?

Are there no other people in the history of mankind whose expressed beliefs have caused a shift in your own thoughts/views/opinions?

I will say that for you to be reading material at the level of Pascal and Emerson, I am surprised you are having such difficulty grasping the basic concept that people's words can have effect on the way others think, or believe.


IOW- People's beliefs matter to others, and not just oneself.

The limited amount of time in which I have to help you with this basic truth has likely expired.

Good luck! [/QUOTE]

Actually, your most basic assumption is - that I care.

 

[Hoofhearted]

Quote from trendlover:

I am not sure what you look for. I think the humans can be evil, like nature, and can be evil and kill.

Nature is not evil. Man is evil.

Animal kills because they need to do so- this is Natural.

Sometimes humans will kill because they need to do so- this is also Natural.

Other times Man will kill because he simply finds pleasure in the act- this is unnatural, and this is what makes Man evil.

I don't see a division between the natural world and man.

What I am demonstrating here is a separation, or division between Man and Nature.

Animals to not intentionally torture others.
Humans do.

Animals do not create objects in the likeness of other beings.
Humans do.

Animals do not worship those made objects, or any other Natural objects. Animals do not worship anything or anyone.
Humans do.

But what other "non-human" make laws to stop killing, and have laws?

The answer is NONE. There are NO other non-humans that make laws.

The ability to create laws, is yet another division between Man and the Natural world.

Yet you are saying that you can see no division between the Natural world and Man. Just look around you. We are divided from Nature in many ways.

Man is a product and part of nature.

I agree that Man ,in part, comes from Nature, but Nature is only a part of Man.




A human’s behavior is at times driven by very primitive or natural desires and instincts.

Other times our behavior is driven by our beliefs.




Many of our natural desires fall under the category of sin.

Lust is a sin that stems from the very basic desire to sexually procreate. This is Natural. This is why we often refer to Lust as being of a sinful nature- because it is a natural desire.

There are times when a man loses site of his moral beliefs, and allows the sinful nature of Lust to over-ride his human condition and it drives his behavior.

When this happens, the man will usually have remorse afterwards, when the lustful desires have subsided, and repent because he believes what he has done was wrong, but has regrettably ignored or lost site of his belief.

Other times a man may be having lustful desires, but will refrain from fulfilling those desires because he has practiced keeping his beliefs at the forefront of his mind, and therefore it is his beliefs that have influenced his behavior.






Our beliefs are often derived when we make a moral judgment between what is right and what is wrong.





There are times when a man might kill an animal because he is hungry. Hunger is a natural instinct necessary for survival.

Other times a man can be hungry, but will refrain from killing an animal for reasons that have to do with his moral decisions, or beliefs.

Perhaps he knows that the animal within his sights is endangered, or is on the very brink of extinction.
In this case the man has made a decision based on what he believes to be right and wrong.

No other animals in nature would grasp the concept of another species of animal going extinct- even if they could understand the concept, they wouldn't care.

They would still kill the animal regardless because they have no moral beliefs.

They only have natural desires and instincts to drive their behavior.

This is yet another division between man and the natural world, as no other creatures in nature make such moral decisions.

 

[futurecurrents]

Nah, we're just smart monkeys.

 

[Hoofhearted]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Nah, we're just smart monkeys.

I think you may be flattering yourself

 

[futurecurrents]

Morals, empathy etc are simply behaviors that have been naturally selected for to help our survival as a species.

 

[Hoofhearted]

Quote from MarketMasher:

Actually, your most basic assumption is - that I care.

Wrong again lil' Pascal.

The reason for my explanations to you is only because I care.

Your naivety likely causes problems for others besides yourself. I wouldn't be surprised if I haven't been able to help you directly, but I'm glad to have made the effort regardless.

Perhaps someone else can recognize simple patterns and learn from your ignorance.

Have a good one!

 

[PHOENIX TRADING]

Quote from Hoofhearted:

Nature is not evil. Man is evil.

Animal kills because they need to do so- this is Natural.

Sometimes humans will kill because they need to do so- this is also Natural.

Other times Man will kill because he simply finds pleasure in the act- this is unnatural, and this is what makes Man evil.








What I am demonstrating here is a separation, or division between Man and Nature.

Animals to not intentionally torture others.
Humans do.

Animals do not create objects in the likeness of other beings.
Humans do.

Animals do not worship those made objects, or any other Natural objects. Animals do not worship anything or anyone.
Humans do.







The answer is NONE. There are NO other non-humans that make laws.

The ability to create laws, is yet another division between Man and the Natural world.

Yet you are saying that you can see no division between the Natural world and Man. Just look around you. We are divided from Nature in many ways.








I agree that Man ,in part, comes from Nature, but Nature is only a part of Man.




A human’s behavior is at times driven by very primitive or natural desires and instincts.

Other times our behavior is driven by our beliefs.




Many of our natural desires fall under the category of sin.

Lust is a sin that stems from the very basic desire to sexually procreate. This is Natural. This is why we often refer to Lust as being of a sinful nature- because it is a natural desire.

There are times when a man loses site of his moral beliefs, and allows the sinful nature of Lust to over-ride his human condition and it drives his behavior.

When this happens, the man will usually have remorse afterwards, when the lustful desires have subsided, and repent because he believes what he has done was wrong, but has regrettably ignored or lost site of his belief.

Other times a man may be having lustful desires, but will refrain from fulfilling those desires because he has practiced keeping his beliefs at the forefront of his mind, and therefore it is his beliefs that have influenced his behavior.






Our beliefs are often derived when we make a moral judgment between what is right and what is wrong.





There are times when a man might kill an animal because he is hungry. Hunger is a natural instinct necessary for survival.

Other times a man can be hungry, but will refrain from killing an animal for reasons that have to do with his moral decisions, or beliefs.

Perhaps he knows that the animal within his sights is endangered, or is on the very brink of extinction.
In this case the man has made a decision based on what he believes to be right and wrong.

No other animals in nature would grasp the concept of another species of animal going extinct- even if they could understand the concept, they wouldn't care.

They would still kill the animal regardless because they have no moral beliefs.

They only have natural desires and instincts to drive their behavior.

This is yet another division between man and the natural world, as no other creatures in nature make such moral decisions.

wtf are you talking about I've seen plenty of animals kill for the pleasure of it.