[extropy-chat] I believe

[Brett Paatsch]

Bill writes:

> On Sun Nov 09, 2003 02:33 pm Brett Paatsch wrote:
> > Do you want to use the language to help save your life or do
> > you want to have a meme use your life to help it propagate?
> >
> > Please note one cannot ban a meme like the word belief -one
> > can only point out its dangers and one-by-one (person) try
> > and show that the person should choose for themselves not
> > to help talk themselves to death by propagating the believing
> > meme.
> >
> 
> I think your policy is the exact opposite of what is required! :)
> 
> First, I should make it clear that I am all in favor of clarity of
> speech and meaning. I have seen far too many discussions 
> degenerate into the participants saying, in effect, "words mean
> what I want them to mean - not what you want them to mean!"
> 
> Now, all the English language dictionaries agree that the common
> usage of the word 'believe' has a wide range of meanings,
> depending on context. You can hear people 'believing' all the
> time in ordinary conversation - nothing to do with deep religious
> or mystical beliefs.
> 
> This is a GOOD thing!
> 
> If you restrict the meaning to 'religious belief' you are giving far
> too  much self-importance  [   :-)  !!!  ] to that [interpretation
> of the word]  belief. (Ignoring [  sic   ] for the moment that any
> given group of  100 'believers' will believe 100 different things).
> 
> If you [one] hear[s] people saying, for example,
> "I believe it will rain tomorrow"
> "I believe he will make a good president"
> "I believe I am going to heaven"
> "I believe the Matrix is true"
> "I believe my SUV is better than yours"
> 
> then the effect of this is to equate religious belief with any
> other belief, like whether it will rain tomorrow. It WEAKENS
> the belief meme to the level of any other inconsequential belief
> a person might have.
> 
> It is a good result when someone says "I believe I am going 
> to heaven" and the response is "Yea - Well I believe in the 
> Tooth Fairy and I've got more real evidence than you have".
> 
> BillK
> (No teeth, but lots of coins under my pillow)

Your arguments are getting better young extrope :-) Good for
you (AND good for me - let the truth out ! ) 

I want to let this better challenge you are making sit for a little
while so others can take a peak at it as well if they want.

But let me ask you this question.  How would your argument
above be effected if I could show you examples of the courts
and the leaders of free countries making huge decisions like
to go to war or to set a person free on the basis purely of 
belief - belief in the sense of prejudice - a sense that has 
nothing to do with and indeed is the opposite of judgement? 
There is little point me providing these examples to you if they 
will not effect you view as to what is good. I like talking to 
open minds (and I like being shown to be wrong too - *if*
 I am) but I don't like talking just to hear the sound 
of my voice as I could be doing other better things with the
time. Would *you* change *your* mind if I could provide *you*
with examples of heads of government making very big even
world-historic decisions on the basis of beliefs-that-are-
prejudices? And/or courts?

Regards,
Brett