Which of your beliefs are justified and which ones aren’t?

[laly520]

[Lliam]

Beliefs are locked in. They reside in our emotions, bypass logic, and trigger emotional response. Phobias, for example, are emotional, not rational.

Belief is blind; ideological and dogmatic; tribal. It is not arrived at independently. It requires gullibility and trust.

Challenging one's belief triggers cognitive dissonance. The person feels attacked and threatened. They will use logical fallacies and every defense in arguing against facts.

Opinions, on the other hand, are based on fact and logic. They are based on what a person knows so far. But they can be modified or even changed as more information becomes available. That is how science works. That is how knowledge advances. It is how intelligent people learn.

The more you know, the more you realize how much you don't know. And that stokes your curiosity and thirst for knowledge.
The less you know, the less you question. You are threatened by information that diverges from your internalized beliefs.

[JSkye]

This. Perfect.

[HawkPerception]

Damn... you've been spitting a lot of gold recently and I've noticed. Well said man. I have nothing to add to this.

[Lliam]

Thank you, HawkPerception and JSkye.

[razelove]

That's a tough one, generally it's tough to identify which ones are unjustified, as your beliefs, if strong, aren't going to waver like that.

I'd say one that comes to mind for me is being with more than one woman at a time and expecting them to be exclusive to me while doing so. I've had that, I think 15 times now, I know it's what I want, can't justify it, nor control that urge.

Deep down I believe I deserve it, because I want it. At the same time I can't rationalize it besides as a deep instinct that if I can do it, I will do it. As it's a conviction, that's a belief, and I can't justify it logically. Nor how I've convinced so many women to share me, but be with only me while doing so. Granted it doesn't last long usually.

[JSkye]

I don't believe that any beliefs can be justified. Religious people have faith, but by the very definition of what faith means, it is being assured of something that you can't justify.

I believe what I can feel, taste, touch, hear, and see. Even so, I am aware that my brain can feed me misinformation, so who can actually be SURE of their own beliefs, even when presented with undeniable proof.

As such, I don't assume to assume that I am correct in what I believe. No one really KNOWS anything. People can believe as they wish and put their faith in this or that philosophy or religion.

[DemocratsRDumb]

"I don't believe that any beliefs can be justified"
Really. Thats a contradiction. You obviously believe that. You don't? Then its unjustified and you have no good reason to assert that.

"I believe what I can feel, taste, touch, hear, and see."
Wrong. You believe in propositions in which you asserted to be true.
Another contradiction.

" I don't assume to assume that I am correct in what I believe. "
Thats an assumption that you can't justify.

"No one really KNOWS anything. "
You dont know that either. Therefore you can't justify that either.

[DemocratsRDumb]

You must be an atheist. You comment like one.
I mean given that you're easily refuted.

[JSkye]

@DemocratsRDumb
"It's a contradiction." Yeah, when taken out of context like that it is. I go on to explain that I don't believe in anything firmly to the point that I am no longer open-minded. I am flexible to my beliefs changing.

You also took that second quote out of context. I also said that senses aren't a trustworthy way to gain information because your brain interprets information however it wants to 😅

"That's an assumption you can't justify." Yeah. I know. That's literally the point of my post.

"You don't know that either. Therefore you can't justify that either." Yeah. Exactly lol

Aside from picking it apart line by line, did you even read/comprehend what I was actually saying?

[DemocratsRDumb]

You know whats so stupid about this: " I am aware that my brain can feed me misinformation, "
Even if we grant that possibility, there is no way for ANYONE to posit that with any sort of confidence.

WHY? Because unless there is some sort of OUTSIDE observer to discern those minds who are being misled from those who are not, then there is no good reason to think this is even plausible.

YOU have no good reason to think thats true because if it was, you wouldn't have access to discern its legitimacy.

It can therefore NOT be posited as more likely than not.
Which is what you did.
Saying something "can" happen when there's no good reason to assume it can happen at all, is taking the position that its possible in some possible world.

And there's simply no good reason to think its possible in any possible world, given what i just said.

[DemocratsRDumb]

You know who has the MOST faith? Those who say NOTHING can be known and is therefore believing everything based off nothing.
At least religious people THINK they can justify their positions.

In order to refute them youd have to have justified knowledge to assert they are wrong.
Which under your own admission. YOU DONT.

[DemocratsRDumb]

"Yeah, when taken out of context like that it is. "
No there's no context to where that statement is true. Based upon your entire comment.
There is no context in your entire comment that justifies that claim.

INCLUDING this:
"I don't believe in anything firmly to the point that I am no longer open-minded."
Really. Do you firmly believe THAT? You don't?
Another contradiction.

"I am flexible to my beliefs changing."
Really. Do you believe THAT?

>>You also took that second quote out of context.<<
You keep claiming that, except im not.

>>I also said that senses aren't a trustworthy way to gain information because your brain interprets information however it wants to.<<

I know. You said a lot of things that contradict.
Just because i point out your contradictory claims does not mean im taking them out of context.

>>Yeah. I know. That's literally the point of my post.<<
Except you can't have ANY "point" without justification.

Your entire post is incapable of making a point without the possibility of knowledge.
Thats what you dont get.
Im directly addressing your entire post by showing several contradictions. So again, not taking things out of context.

[JSkye]

@DemocratsRDumb I'm not atheist lol
I'm just intelligent

[DemocratsRDumb]

>> I also said that senses aren't a trustworthy way to gain information because your brain interprets information however it wants to<<

Accepting that proposition >>AS TRUE<< Is not based upon your senses.
Another contradiction.

[Lliam]

I understand what you are saying, @JSkye, and totally agree. See my own comment to the original question.

[DemocratsRDumb]

If you're an atheist, none of them are justified. INCLUDING their belief in the non belief of atheism.

[DemocratsRDumb]

And to that coward abc3643 that already blocked me?
>>Your question is a bit oxymoronic.<<
No its not. Because EVEN those who "Know" things also believe them.
What beliefs are not are things that people posit that are automatically without any justification.
NOR are they always justified based soley on feelings.

What an idiot.

[DemocratsRDumb]

NO Lliam you're WRONG. Just about everything you said is obviously false.

Oh good. Another coward blocked me.
Ill refute this neanderthal too.
>>Beliefs are locked in. They reside in our emotions, bypass logic, and trigger emotional response. Phobias, for example, are emotional, not rational.<<

Wrong. We KNOW this is wrong because people change their beliefs all the time.
What kind of narcissist thinks they've been correct about everything they thought was true since they were born?
Probably the same kind that blocks people because they're afraid of discourse.

And they DONT bypass logic. People use logic to validate their thoughts.
Sometimes people act without thought, but only SOMETIMES. People sometimes will act based upon intuition or emotion and then use logic to validate it. How often do people try and use logic and reason to validate their emotions? ALL THE TIME.

>>Belief is blind<< No it isn't.
People is just acceptance of an idea. Thats whats called blind faith, which NOBODY advocates for.
Definition of belief: "an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists:"
Oxford. Which is considered the gold standard.
Stop conflating blind faith with faith.
You dont know what you're talking about.
Continued...

[DemocratsRDumb]

>>Challenging one's belief triggers cognitive dissonance.<<
NO IT DOES NOT.
How do we know this? Well i think you dont exist. Are you uncomfortable with my challenge?
HAHAHA.
Cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes.

Someone has to find some value in the other persons opinion in order for that to effect them.
Again, You dont know what you're talking about.

>>They will use logical fallacies and every defense in arguing against facts.<<
Ironically that a logical fallacy namely called poisoning the well.
LOL.

>>Opinions, on the other hand, are based on fact and logic.<<
No they are not. Not always. That claim is a universal.
You dont get to claim that there are no such things as an opinon based entirely on emotion or belief.
So its impossible for an opinion that you have brain damage could be based upon nothing but emotion or irrationality? Thats interesting. HAHA.

>>They are based on what a person knows so far.<<
No. Wrong. Someone could form incorrect opinions based upon ignorance. People use fallacies all the time. BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION. And one of them is actually called "argument from ignorance."
Why are they spouting "Opinions" that are fallacious that are "from ignorance" When all opinions as you say are from facts? HAHAHA.

>>But they can be modified or even changed as more information becomes available. <<
Great.
So either their opinion's were based upon facts, or they were based upon beliefs.
You dont get to have it both ways, genius.
Clearly you dont know what "knowledge" means. Nor do you understand the distinction between belief and knowledge.

Continued...

[DemocratsRDumb]

>>That is how science works. <<
No. Science is a method. Its not a group of people coming to conclusions of how reality works.
Scientists don't make absolute truth assertions. Nor do they say "this is my opinion." They make temporal claims based upon what they THINK is true at the time based upon the given evidence.

You don't understand science either.

>>That is how knowledge advances. <<
You can't justify that claim. That is also a fallacy called begging the question. Gee. I sense a lot of cognitive dissonance right now from you.

You dont get to claim knowledge is advancing anymore than any scientific realist gets to make that claim. Not even scientific realists asserts they are in ACTUALITY getting closer to "the truth" what they say is its an approximation.

And the problem with even approximations? You have to demonstrate that the measurements of such an approximation are objectively true. You have to demonstrate the ruler. Not a single realist has done this, and NEITHER WILL YOU.

> It is how intelligent people learn.< Intelligence has nothing to do with the capacity to change their mind. Thats retarded. Like you.

Continued.

[DemocratsRDumb]

>>The more you know, the more you realize how much you don't know. <<
Um no. Some people are know it alls and they know nothing.
Case in point? You.

>>And that stokes your curiosity and thirst for knowledge.<<
Wrong again. I think actual SCIENTISTS know a lot. Dont you?
Richard Feynman: Theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate, Richard Feynman, famously embraced the idea of not knowing everything. He once said:
"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong."

"Being comfortable with not knowing is, in my view, the most important trait of a scientist."- Brian Cox: Physicist

Mic drop.

[DemocratsRDumb]

Oh one more thing. I noticed that you agreed to that other girl, and yet offered no rebuttal.
Nice arguments there buddy.

[DemocratsRDumb]

Im going to agree with actual scientists who don't incorrectly frame "belief" as something that is blind.

Max Planck, a founder of quantum theory, acknowledged the necessity of belief in the consistency of natural laws:

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.' It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with."

"We must believe in our hypothesis; otherwise, we would never have the courage to test it."
Karl Popper

"The task of science is both to extend the range of our experience and to reduce it to order, and this task presupposes a belief in the underlying regularity of nature."
-Niels Bohr

"Science does not explain everything. It presupposes an orderly universe that it cannot explain but must take on faith."
-John Polkinghorne -physicist

"The true recognition of the limits of our understanding is a liberating faith. It inspires belief in the constant search for new knowledge."
-Ludwig Boltzmann

Scientists see the process as inherently provisional, based on the faith that more knowledge will eventually unfold even though we never have complete certainty.

And belief is not blind because it does not require complete certainty. Accepting an idea does not mean it must be blind. Literally nobody says blind faith is a thing that one ought to hold.
What a failure you are.

[DemocratsRDumb]

Here are some more, in case those werent good enough:

Michael Polanyi-
"To hold such beliefs is not to act irrationally, for they are the outcome of reasonable decisions made in the light of evidence, experience, and the opinions of competent authorities."

"Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page."
- Francis Collins.

"I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Fing Einstein

[abc3643]

Your question is a bit oxymoronic.
Anyone who has a belief already feels justified in their belief otherwise they wouldn't have their belief.

Now, if you want to talk about facts, that's a different question because facts require justification.

[KostasKouvalis]

MY beliefs? All of them! if I believe in something then obviously I think it's justified. But one controversial one I have is that White people are in fact the master race. I find it justified because we act more civilized and our areas are safer and more advanced, and the majority of global innovations were made by White people, and we run things better.

[DemocratsRDumb]

Just because you think something is justified doesn't mean it is. Your troll post needs to be better.

[DemocratsRDumb]

I believe your comment is b. s. therefore its justified.

[KostasKouvalis]

@DemocratsRDumb it's justified to ME? Isn't justification subjective opinion. How is it a troll post?

[KostasKouvalis]

@DemocratsRDumb It's not bullshit at all. Check the data and study history.

[KostasKouvalis]

Black people are better sports and entertaining, White people are better at governing and science.

[KostasKouvalis]

Don't you find it strange that people only want to immigrate to White countries?

[DemocratsRDumb]

Internal subjective justification is circular. LOL.
Like so. "The source of my justification is myself."
You dont get to self justify propositions. Thats not how logic works.
Self-justification of beliefs can be circular when it relies on the belief itself to prove its validity, rather than on external evidence or independent reasoning.

[DemocratsRDumb]

Its justified to me that your logic is terrible.
Justification is NOT subjective opinion either.
Even if it were, it'd be self refuting.

Whenever you make an "is" claim you're asserting a universal truth about the nature of reality.

[DemocratsRDumb]

Why are you suddenly appealing to external data to justify your claims? I thought it was justified based upon your subjective internal opinion.
If its justified based upon your say so, you dont need to appeal to external data.

You just performed a performative contradiction.

[DemocratsRDumb]

Okay now that I've debunked that claim. Ill move to your others.
Your claim is 100% unjustified based upon there exists no master race. There never has been for thousands of years.
Master race would necessarily entail purity. Even among people who may identify as "white," there is considerable genetic diversity, reflecting historical interactions across regions like Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. Thus, the notion of being "100% pure white" lacks a clear, scientifically valid definition, making it impossible to determine an exact percentage of the global population that would fit such a description.

Also. Even if we grant there exists purity, you can hardly say their accomplishments are a direct result of melanin or lack thereof.
Its like they said "gee" I sure like my shade of pink, therefore ill work harder."

[DemocratsRDumb]

Also, you're clearly trolling because only atheists are this dumb and try to paint religious people as white supremists, which is what you are clearly doing.
Next you'll tell me you are religious, and you believe in god.

How do i know this? Because you are obviously Larping as a believer. Its obvious and its sad.

[Dongie]

Damn!! Are y'all married?

[KostasKouvalis]

@Dongie You think I'd marry someone like that?

[Dongie]

Obviously not. I think he blocked me.😅

[Dongie]

The other guy. The you laughed at.

[Dongie]

Man, I downloaded this fancy font and screwed my stuff up. I couldn't make heads or tails of it.

[nawtee_me]

See the thing is I don’t have to “justify” my faith. Faith is something you either have or you don’t. It is not the ones who have it, but the ones that don’t that need justification.
Faith is the catalyst that allows God to do miracles in your life and the justification comes through God in the form of those miracles.

[slatyb]

And yet misfortune falls on the devout and the skeptical alike.

[NathanDavis]

I can be a bit superstitious about some things lol...

for example, I always put on my right shoe FIRST, ALWAYS!! and that's absolutely necessary, and justified...

[slatyb]

I hope they are all justified by evidence, or I'm aware of it if they are not.

[Dargil]

I believe in God. Can't think of an unjustified one.

[jahaims]

If they weren't justified I wouldn't believe in them. So all of them

[noohair]

Beliefs are like opinions. They are valid for each person.

[DemocratsRDumb]

Great. I beleive your statement is false. Therefore its just as valid as what you just said.
If thats true, then they cancel each other out and your statement is left meaningless.

[noohair]

@DemocratsRDumb That is correct. But I am not going to kill anyone that does not disagree with me. You are as smart as Fredo.

[DemocratsRDumb]

"But I am not going to kill anyone that does not disagree with me."
I think you meant "Im not going to kill anyone for disagreeing with me."
And except you probably would. If someone is trying to kill you for disagreeing with them, you're probably going to act in self-defense to save your own life.

If you had to kill them to save your own life, its the same thing as killing someone for your belief.
You believe your own life is worth saving OVER that other person. You are killing them for that belief.

[Agape93]

All my beliefs are justified

[Dongie]

Jesus is the son of God.

[Dongie]

There is someone for everyone.

[Dongie]

Well, shoot, obviously Justified Jesus and not the other.

[Aakash_Hangargi]

What do mean by justify how one would justify?

[TallAnon]

This is why I don't "believe" at all

[DemocratsRDumb]

Lol. Do you believe that?
HAHAH.
People who know things also believe them too. Dumb dumb.

[DemocratsRDumb]

Belief definition
Oxford: "an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists:"
Oxford is generally the gold standard.
So you DONT accept your statement as true.
HAHAHA.

[Dongie]

Hehe, she got you.

[Rosexøxø]

@DemocratsRDumb so you’re bored and figured you’d try to smart mouth people to get some satisfaction/reaction/attention and figured a great alias would be a lady the men in your life, or you admire, probably hate, and figured you’d just mix the two and either actually be unseasoned in life or just pretending to be 15 so that others will mostly ignore you cause you’re just “a kid.”

Nice.

Also you probably could try to argue something along “get a life/ snow flake/ sheep/ feminist/ or you’re just projecting “ “. But no-

I simply observed a new account going out of their way to bother another user whose opinions I appreciate every now and then, and the username you chose is lacking class and merely political. Politics is uncalled for on a site like this- to mention.

Welp you got your attention. You corrected the guy but he may or may not listen. (I knew to what he was implying/conveying in his opinion).

And everyone will move on. I just really think your whole get up here is odd in nature and unnecessary. 🤷‍♀️

[DemocratsRDumb]

@Rosexøxø You wrote that unnecessary novel to get my attention. Maybe people will read the whole thing. I think its pretty hypocritical to call me odd, when you go and do something like that.

[TallAnon]

Bit of a silly response. If I have to spell it out for you; I don't make assumptions when there's no reason to.