To you, as you have refused to marry her. But that's your action, not her loyalty to her partner. — TheWillowOfDarkness

We were discussing faithfulness towards me though in this particular circumstance, I thought that was evident.

Which is why it's rehtorical-- faith is convincing you to marry her. It has nothing to do with with truth, nothing to do with describing her or her behaviour. — TheWillowOfDarkness

It does have something to do with truth, because if I don't have faith in her, I don't marry her, and thus there will be no truth of her being faithful to me.

Her faithfuness is entirely possible, despite your lack of hope. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nope, because I won't marry her if i don't have faith in her. Faith is a pre-requisite for her faithfulness.

That's precisely why faith acts as a rehtorical enforcer. The world anyone hopes for gets attached to faith, creating a situation where people think faith is required to hope. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Faith is hoping and acting on that hope. It's being committed.

I do: that's why it merely rehtorical. In faith, one hopes for God, for an unknown to turn out how they wish. In terms of an argument, it like saying: "I hope the coin turns up heads."

Some people complain faith doesn't give a reason for belief, but it's that's too kind. Faith doesn't even take a position on either the world or ethics. — TheWillowOfDarkness

There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your vain philosophy...

Alas, you fail to note the category of things for which there is no evidence, but which require belief in order to be possible, and hence real, and hence true. Some things are made true in virtue of being believed. So no, it's not like saying I hope/believe the coin turns up heads, because my hoping/believing that the coin turns up heads, has nothing to do with it actually turning up heads. It's more like saying I hope my wife will be faithful to me, because if I don't hope that, I won't marry her, and then certainly her being faithful won't even be possible. But my hoping in that case is the substance of things hoped for (that which will bring it about) and the evidence of things not seen - who really knows if she'll be faithful or not? Except that by faith, one can make it the case. By lacking faith, one will certainly lose.

They don't need to agree. In this respect, they are ignorant of themselves. As for the point, it's about understandi the relationship of knowledge to faith. — TheWillowOfDarkness

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" - why don't you start from there?

The fear arguments actually work in terms of describing a lot of human behaviour. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Maybe, except they're not used merely to describe behaviour. They're used to look down on behaviour. Eh, that weakling, he believes in God, must be a coward who is too scared of death. So if atheists look down on theists for such petty reasons - theists should be able to do the same. An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.

What use for all those words if no theist would ever agree with your definition of faith? And you certainly must know that. So why make it then?

It seems as if you wish for my motivations to be grounded in some sort of fear of the unknown. Truth is I know nothing about the unknown so I see no reason to fear it. — Mayor of Simpleton

Likewise, it seems to me that atheists wish theist's beliefs to be grounded in some fear of annihilation... My point is that both arguments are absurd - even the theist one. Such arguments should never be used. I merely used a silly argument against you to show you that your own argument against theists was silly.

I'm not sold that a disbelief in a theistic god acts as a point of centering the being as it does for those who belive in a theistic god existing. — Mayor of Simpleton

Maybe not for you, but there certainly are many such atheists in the world. Or do you mean to tell me that there are no psychological advantages at all in being an atheist? I freely admit there are psychological advantages in being a theist for example - reduced fear of death, ability to hope to meet loved ones again, and so forth. And I can clearly see advantages to being an atheist - not having to worry what happens after death, being able to let go of your wrong-doings more easily, not being so concerned about responsibility, etc.

This is a placebo in a medical trial. Fine. Is that the same as a placebo in a non-medical trial? — Mayor of Simpleton

Well I think that your life clinging by the thread and doctors and others trying to save you is a medical trial, is it not?

I would think that would be safe to assume this would apply to placebos take with actual medicine, as both are chemicals. — Mayor of Simpleton

A placebo is generally a sugar pill. I'm unaware of medicines which have harmful interactions with sugar. So I'm quite sure it doesn't apply to placebos.

So let's pretend for a moment we are not speaking of chemicals, but if ideas/notions. Would it be possible that there are combinations of ideas/notions that are not a good combination; thus leading to more problems than solutions?

The interactions of faith based placebos (acts of centering the being) may indeed conflict and impede progress of empirical investigations (acts of knowledge); thus any combination or mixture of ideas/notions will not guarantee a benefit. — Mayor of Simpleton

In-so-far as people blabber about God and so forth in the room yes. But in-so-far as your inward attitude, which is what I'm discussing here, no. Your inner belief in God would have had no bad effect on the medical procedures going on (it may have had a positive one though due to placebo). But the folks blabbering about God around, would likely have had a negative impact on the medical procedures, and thus, yes, they should have gone out.

So if it is more appealing or not should be the foundation for fielding an answer? — Mayor of Simpleton

Not should be - I never claimed that. I claimed that for many, as a matter of fact, it is. Most people who are atheists or theists don't hold those positions because of hundreds of hours of thought, debate and reading, and consideration.

I find that character is developed and adapts. — Mayor of Simpleton

This doesn't mean that it fundamentally changes though.

Either one choose to investigate it or chooses not to investigate it. — Mayor of Simpleton

And prayer/meditation in an effort to develop a relationship with God doesn't count as investigating it?

Is the unknowable an answer or is it not? — Mayor of Simpleton

Who said God is (completely) "unknowable"? The unknown isn't necessarily also unknowable.

How is this religious faith any different than simply saying "because" or "it is evident" without any foundation to support this other than saying "because" or "it is evident"? — Mayor of Simpleton

The reason why most arguments end up this way is that people who don't believe will never agree with the reasons/explanations offered by those who believe, and will instead find any other possible explanation for them that they can. This is a silly game. Any fact can be explained in a multitude of ways. You choose to believe it a certain way, I choose to believe it a different way. There's nothing really to discuss, except share that one of us has faith and the other doesn't.

His Pensées is one of the greatest books I have ever read. A pity that he died before he managed to finish them - he intended the Pensées as one finds them today to merely be separate thoughts which had to be merged in a comprehensive book of apologetics. However, he died before he could get it done. It's hard to summarise it, because it jumps around and he hasn't created a unity around it all. Different topics are addressed throughout. I could summarise it, but I'm not going to do that, because I shouldn't deprive you of the experience of reading the man for yourself. Please note that he has useful things to say about epistemology for example - not just theology/Christianity/God. So even if not for your interest in Christianity/God, you should read it as one of the greatest works of philosophy - up there with Kant, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, etc.

Perhaps there are atheists who believe in some sort of absolute moral correctness and believe there is an afterlife of sorts, but I'm not one of them. — Mayor of Simpleton

But my point isn't this. It's not whether they believe it, because by this logic, neither does the theist believe that death is the end. The atheist, when he says that the theist resorts to belief in God because of fear of death (annihilation), does exactly the same as the theist would if he were to say that the atheist disbelieves in God because of fear of responsibility/accountability after death. So those arguments you have pointed against me, are equally valid against the atheist position. That's all I'm saying.

Atheists are simply those who do not believe a theistic god(s) exist. That's just a single variable. I would not wish to add on connotations of "believing in sin" or "afterlife" as a must be so or it must follow that based upon a single variable. — Mayor of Simpleton

Sure - but my point was a rhetorical one aimed to show mainly the silliness of making an argument like religious belief exists because of fear of death. If that were the case, then we have to also accept the argument that disbelief in God exists because of fear of responsibility and accountability. Just the same way the atheist uses a psychological motivation to account for the existence of belief in God, so can the theist use one to account for the existence of the disbelief in God.

Is there any evidence that indicates that belief in god raises one's chances of survival by 30%? — Mayor of Simpleton

There is evidence that the placebo effect betters one's condition by approximately 30%
http://patient.info/doctor/placebo-effect

Is there any evidence that a placebo really provides an improvement in my life? — Mayor of Simpleton

Yes.

Is there any evidence that indicates that a placebo mixed with traditional medicine will result in a maximised effect? — Mayor of Simpleton

I haven't researched it, but it would seem intuitively obvious. In either case, I find it rational to play all possible cards that you have at your disposal.

Is there any evidence for god existing? — Mayor of Simpleton

It's more about the will than the intellect I find. Some of us find belief in God appealing - others don't.

I don't see any way to unring a bell. Once something is done I live with the consequences. I do make efforts to adapt future notions based upon these collective of consequences, but I don't make a point to simply dwell upon them for the sake of dwelling upon them. — Mayor of Simpleton

Yeah, I do agree that there's no point crying over spilt milk - but if one has cried over it, there's no point in worrying about that either. Hence ultimately it doesn't matter whether one cries or not.

I simply attribute and assert purpose (a notion of value) in my life, but it's never absolute or ultimate. Purpose adapts with the influx of experiences/information. I suppose one could say I have no fixed points in value notions. Indeed some adaptions in value for me are quicker and some are slower, but nothing stays fixed. Context matters. — Mayor of Simpleton

We all kind of do that, because we all need to adapt to our circumstances. But that's not to say that who we are fundamentally changes. I think character stays quite constant.

I suppose what I'm ranting about is that to make a statement like "But you'll "waste" that time anyway. Anything you do, in the end won't matter" I need a context. If the context is a set of all sets absolute/ultimate for everyone, everywhere and every case... I'll probably say that's irrelevant. No one has the ability to have that much experience/information as to have the set of all sets regarding absolute/ultimate; thus why bother with such a standard of measure? — Mayor of Simpleton

The context is simple. If you spilled the milk and cried, there's no reason to cry more for crying in the first place. In that sense, crying is never a "waste" of time - or it always is a waste of time. Means pretty much the same thing.

Perhaps this is part of why I simply cannot believe in god(s). God(s) are all to often "understood" as being a set of all sets... an unknowable. I fail to see how an unknowable is is anyway helpful when answering a question regarding what is currently unknown. — Mayor of Simpleton

It's more about how one relates to the unknown.

Belief in god(s) is not an act of knowledge. — Mayor of Simpleton

True, it's an act of faith.

Whether they don't deserve it? well I heard that whomsoever turns to God is allowed in. That all that is required for salvation is to turn to God. That in our ignorance we can't judge which way the weighing scales will fall. — Punshhh

Yes but it is his Mercy which saves you, not his Justice, which condemns you. There's a big big difference there. And being saved only works once you understand that in truth you deserve punishment. Then being saved makes sense. But if you think you don't deserve punishment, then you can't be saved.

It is impossible to "figure everything out" - especially in an inherently unpredictable world. And even in the highly regulated and predictable world of a board game, it is more efficient to limit your scope for mistakes. while attempting to force your opponent into a realm where there can only be "mistakes". — apokrisis

Yes, and even more than that, in chess, and especially in reality, there's is no "best play". No series of moves that are guaranteed to win, no strategies that are guaranteed to win either, because things are always changing, and even an opponent's mistake may so alter the game that the initial plan/strategy can no longer succeed. Computation is a useful skill to have - being able to see a few moves ahead - since it's what it takes in order to be able to execute tactics. But if all you have is tactical capability, and little strategy, then it will all come to naught.

But strategy cannot be taught in terms of computation or figuring things out. Strategy is always about, as you call it, constraints. Whoever manages their own constraints, and those of their opponent better wins - so long as he can also execute the tactics required. But in philosophy, especially Western philosophy, there is little discussion of this level that is beyond mere computation. This is what I call unintelligible precisely because there is no "best way". In strategy for example, there never is a best strategy. When you're playing chess for example, there is no "best" strategy, which if you adopt and execute perfectly you will win. Every strategy always has a counter-strategy. Every strategy generates both weaknesses and strengths in terms of constraints. There may be best tactics in order to fulfil strategy X, but there never is a best strategy. Why this happens is difficult to say, except that it's to do with the ever changing interaction between circumstances.

In chess, most of the world champions agree that given perfect play, the game ends in a draw - this also seems intuitively obvious for me. A perfect strategy, against its perfect counter-strategy end in a draw.

Perhaps one of the main purposes of religious beliefs and beliefs in god(s) is to make the inevitability of death seem a bit less distressful. — Mayor of Simpleton

Ah but that can be turned around so fast. Perhaps lack of belief in God is there in order to make the consequences of our sins less frightening. Perhaps what atheists are really afraid of is the afterlife, hence the denial.

Anyway... the fear never seemed to justify an appeal to a supernatural ally as to work as a placebo to vanquish my fears. — Mayor of Simpleton

But why would you renounce the effects of the placebo? Any improvement is still an improvement after all. If belief in God raises your chances of survival by 30% because of the placebo effect, that's great! Combine the placebo and the medicine, and maximise the effect.

I have the feeling that such contributions of wishes to have done or to be able to undone lead me nowhere and just waste what little time I have — Mayor of Simpleton

But you'll "waste" that time anyway. Anything you do, in the end won't matter. My point isn't that you should meditate on your regrets, etc. but rather that folks who do this don't exactly "waste" their time either.

Samuel Johnson (via James Boswell), in response to George Berkeley's idealism: "I refute it thus" (as he kicked a rock). — Terrapin Station

Don't you find it funny though that he thought he disproved idealism by kicking a mental rock with a mental foot? >:O

No, I don't believe War is about truth. It is about the immorality of man with man, it is an ethical issue, it is not an epistemological issue. It is about the rough reality of life, which is not cast in any book of logic. — Cavacava

Well in the sense of truth that you use in this post, then certainly not.

We live in a world where "...only small groups of men who, however, hold in thrall many million of their fellow human beings and who defend their own antiquated interests" (Strauss) When I think about the war in Syria, there is no way I can think of this being the 'truth'. — Cavacava

Certainly, but think about it ... politicians on all sides of the interested parties have to realise the truth - namely what each party wants out of Syria and how to ensure that their nation gets that. People afflicted by the conflict should also realise the truth, because that's what will best enable them to escape or defend themselves. Pretty much everyone needs to understand the truth (ie, reality) in order to play their cards the best way possible. What else can they do? Is there a better alternative?

An evil man who is willing to sacrifice the whole of his nation, men, women and children so he can hold on to power. — Cavacava

Well do you think he'll have a happy ending? Evil will always destroy itself in the end. In the end, Assad will lose even the power he wants to hold so desperately.

That can't be true in any sense of the term. — Cavacava

Except in the pragmatic sense that this is what is actually happening - in that sense it is certainly true.

And what have you gained from doing all this?

And surely if they offer in all sincerity, with all their heart, would they not be accepted and delivered by god? — Punshhh

Maybe, but that's mercy. They certainly don't deserve it, which is what I'm claiming.

I don't feel particularly attracted to any Christian denomination. I don't see or feel any need to join a Church. I am not a believer, not as yet, in any case. I think that if salvation is granted by God; there is no reason why good atheists should not be saved; so I don't think there is a need to espouse any particular beliefs. As I already said I don't believe merely intellectual assent to the existence of God constitutes faith in the sense that is intended by Christianity. I haven't been arguing for the soundness of Pascal's Wager; I think it is an example of simplistic thinking; I have only been arguing for its rational validity. If you accept the premises the argument is valid is all. — John

Yes, I agree to this.

Do you have any evidence that if person A believes in chi they will become better at tai chi than person B who does not believe in chi, given that each person practices tai chi the same amount? — m-theory

Yes. Evidence shows that belief in sports and competitions plays a major role in determining the winner or the one who performs better.

Yes, but the fact is that beliefs, which are of kinds neither demonstrable nor falsifiable, are almost universally associated with any spiritual or religious practice, including martial arts. — John

Agreed.

But belief is not knowledge. I don't believe that putting my hand on a flame is painful, this is something i know. — Wayfarer

You're playing with words. You also believe that putting your hand in the flame is painful.

When you know all hope of recovery is gone, do you seek forgiveness or do you go steely eyed into oblivion. I've looked into those eyes. — Cavacava

Preferably I would seek forgiveness before such a time. But if push comes to shove, I don't have another alternative. I would beg for forgiveness like a coward, and yet I would not expect to ever receive it. That way, I maintain my integrity, as I recognise I don't deserve forgiveness and can't earn it either. And I also recognise my failings, and therefore submit humbly before God for judgement - I will desire my punishment with all my heart. That way one gets out of the dilemma - to either switch from being an atheist to a theist and thus throw away one's integrity in the face of death like a coward OR to remain an atheist and go to the abyss with a cold and hardened heart.

Also remember this for practicality - if someone wants to punish you, and you can't avoid the punishment, ask and demand to be punished yourself. That's the way of wisdom.

War also tends to favor belief over non-belief. — Cavacava

>:O Not really. Believe in the false proposition, and your entire army may be wiped out. Doubt at the wrong time, and again your entire army may be wiped out. War is about truth - you have to find (or most often estimate in Bayesian fashion) the truth, there is no other option. War values the capacity to understand, in your imagination, what is the case, and what the enemy is doing and planning from the few bits of data you do have, and then act accordingly. There is no "maybe that's also a possibility" in war. You have to decide what actually is the case, and then bet on it with all your might until evidence to the contrary surfaces (if it ever does). There's no fence sitting in war - fence sitting means death - and jumping on the wrong side of the fence also means death. You just have to get it right.

Yeah, too bad the wager was never an argument for belief in God ;)

I don't think it matters, you believe in what you understand, what you have been taught about God, if it is wrong then it is wrong, but if it is even a tiny bit right it is a home run. — Cavacava

If someone married you just because they believed they'd score a home-run doing so, would you appreciate them? I wouldn't. I may marry them if it were profitable to do so, but I'd also seek to divorce them as soon as I get the occasion, because everyone hates opportunists, even those who profit from them. Opportunists are at heart traitors, and they will betray you the very first occasion to do so they get. Better to take the initiative and get that thorn in your side out - the faster the better.

God and belief in him is not a business deal. You'll never get to Heaven if you treat belief in God as a business deal, the way Pascal's Wager treats it. Pascal's wager was a mere "in your face" showed to those who claimed to not believe in God because it wasn't profitable to believe in God in this world (you'd have to give up on the "fun"). The wager points that the "fun" is really in truth nothing. If you give it up in this world, you haven't given much up - even if there is no God. But if there is a God, and you give up God, then you have lost infinitely. Regardless of the truth, the safest option is God. The irony is that belief in God is ultimately superior - even in this world, and even if there is no God.

But this isn't an argument for belief in God. It wasn't meant to ignite faith in one. It simply wasn't. Read Pascal's Pensées, the wager plays a very minor part, on one or two pages from what I remember. You can take it out, and Pascal's greatness would not be diminished one iota. In fact, Pascal gives his reasons why you should believe in God before the wager.

Chess and poker. When I was 14-16, mainly Starcraft. I loved strategy games the most. Even now, I guess you can consider poker and chess as strategy games. I'm looking to learn the Chinese Go as well, although I probably won't be able to play anyone face to face in that in this part of the world.

Suppose you were agnostic. Pew Research indicates 4% of the US population considers itself agnostic, which is lot of people based on 320m. You believe in a true act of contrition? — Cavacava

Possible, but I wouldn't bet on it. But I don't think belief in God per say is necessary for salvation. Even an atheist can be saved - it's more about virtue and morality, than mere belief. Mere belief without the virtue and morality is empty and vacuous.

In fact, I would compare deathbed conversions to someone who, say, joins a war supporting one side because he stands to gain from it rather than because he really believes in the cause. The general in charge may accept him, because he may be an important asset, however, he will never think highly of him - ultimately he is an opportunist at heart.

Pascal's Wager early on, in his first collected work of poetry & essays in 1923. He thought it is a rational wager. — Cavacava

Rational it may be - but certainly believing in God only on your deathbed is cowardly, arrogant, presumptuous, and lacking in integrity.

Yeah, me neither for that matter. But I tend to have firm positions on issues. It's interesting how there are some members, even in such a small community, that I, for example, never interact with, and they don't interact with me either.

Are you really Cavacava or have you simply taken over Cavacava's account? I don't recall you posting stuff like this or in the manner you have done. — Thorongil

>:O What do you mean haha? How do you remember Cavacava? I don't remember him as ever having very strong positions, more like someone who liked to explore issues.

Also note that his deathbed conversion has been disputed apparently, according to this Wiki article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Stevens

Regardless, also note that he is politically conservative. Conservatism is very close to theism. I was an atheist conservative, and I've morphed back into a theist conservative overtime. Conservatives generally don't have the emotional reasons that liberals have to reject God, so it's very easy to make the step. For example, if you already think that traditions matter and have to be upheld, it's much easier to accept God. And this holds not only with regards to the deathbed, but with regards to everything else. For example, if you already see sex before marriage as harmful, when God requests you not to engage in it, then accepting it isn't such a big deal for you. But for someone who holds the very opposite view - ie sex before marriage is good and should be practiced - they'll have a much harder time accepting God. Really, discussing people's religion apart from their political orientations is starting to make little sense to me. The two seem to converge. The conservative atheist for example is very far from the liberal atheist for example - and generally the motivations for their atheism are different too.

Interesting summaries of quite a few Skepticism refutations below:

I would pray and prepare myself to meet my maker. I would be angry - if I had the strength left to be angry - to see everyone around pessimistic and sad. So what will I choose? I can't really choose anything can I? So I won't choose anything I think. I'll try to accept the inevitability of my situation and place my hope in my God and in the afterlife. I'd try to die hopeful. It's hard to think about it and imagine the scenario.

Keep in mind though that I'm a theist. If I was an atheist... I'm not sure what I'd do, because it's a hard one. I would feel the need to believe in God and convert - that's the only way to die with hope in your heart. At the same time I would be disgusted at myself, and see myself as a nothing. And I would think that if I was God, then a man like me certainly wouldn't deserve Salvation.

I used to train in martial arts. I think this notion of it have some grand philosophical aspect is nonsense. You're just taught how to fight and given practical advice on how best to do so. — Michael

That's not true. I've been training in martial arts for many years, mostly in Wing Chun, but also in Tae Kwon Do, and Aikido from the Far Eastern ones. All martial arts seek to teach a living philosophy, which goes beyond merely fighting in a physical sense. For example, all of them teach how to tame your ego, and how to use it to your advantage. At the higher levels it's all about the mind, and understanding your own weaknesses and strengths, which requires that you develop honesty.

Of course, in the Western world you'll find all of the martial arts diluted and packaged as consumer goods. This ruins and removes the most important aspects from them. In the West, folks who attend classes don't go there, mostly, because they want to become great fighters and want to live a certain lifestyle - but rather because they want some entertaining relaxation, and some way to socialise, or some way to defend themselves. If you consider who the martial arts were for historically, you will see that they were for warriors and spiritual purposes - people who wanted to, and liked to fight, or people who wanted to develop their body and mind together for spiritual purposes.

Take Miyamoto Musashi (and you should read his Book of Five Rings - almost at the same level as the Sun Tzu's Art of War) who was self-taught in the martial arts, never lost a single battle, and won around 60 duels (winning a duel meant killing the opponent for a Samurai, for the most part) as well as took part in a few battles. These people were dedicated and self-made, quite many of them. They were very driven. In today's Western world there's very few, if any, folk who are so driven. They were highly intelligent - they were adept at many other arts, not just the art of fighting. They were willing to dedicate their whole lives to martial arts. Find me someone who is willing to do that today - there's nobody. They go and train, but then they don't want to change their diet, they don't want to stop drinking alcohol, they don't want to stop partying, they don't want any of the discipline that necessarily has to be attached to the martial arts. And so, the martial arts as you find them in most places here in the West are jokes - where they teach you, as you say, only how to fight and give you practical advice about how to do so. But all that is useless, unless you train your mind and your spirit. Unless you develop the spirit of a champion, of a winner - to hell with all the practical advice, because it will come to naught. Unless you develop your honesty for example, you'll pick the wrong fight and get your ass kicked. Unless you can tame your ego, you'll beat someone up because he insulted you, and to jail you go. You have to be able to read yourself, and read your opponent accurately, and to do that you need to develop spiritual virtues and discipline.

Furthermore, no champion can be attached to, or care about worldly matters - because if you do, you'll renounce your long-term goals and compromise them in favour of some short-term returns. If you really want to win, you'll never do that because you've learned discipline. You've learned not to care, not to be interested in worldly goods which are easy to lose, and hard to keep. You can live with little food if you have to, you can live without sex if you have to, you can live without alcohol, you can live without any worldly pleasure. That is discipline and strength. Martial arts originally taught that, because your Sifu could do anything with you. They could beat you, they could make you take the trash out, do the dishes, anything. Because you'd live with them while you learned. You wouldn't learn just fighting, but you'd learn powerful living.

I'm asking you why they differ. — Michael

They differ because the majority of people don't care about truth and morality. And therefore, the majority cannot be convinced by truth and morality - so of what use stating it? Something else has to convince them.

Yes, if you like and appreciate people who say what's obvious, certainly. But what's obvious is never all that interesting in the first place to me.

Currently I'm at work and shouldn't even be on my phone. :D — Sapientia

LOL me too but my work is slow today (and this week, since clients are already wrapping up and going on Holidays, and I've postponed a project till after) >:O - I don't have much to do.

Once the truth is sacrificed for the sake of political expediency, we forfeit any right to criticize or condemn those who would gladly reduce us to servile status (at least partly through the use of deception) if given the opportunity. — Erik

But who said I am sacrificing truth? I am still driven by truth, except that I recognise that many others aren't. So I don't seek to convince those people of truth anymore - because they don't care about it. They're using truth merely as a coverup to be free to perform the actions they seek to perform (because remember, they may not care about truth, but they want to THINK they do). So if someone seeks to condemn me and reduce me to servile status, I will seek to defend myself, mobilise those around me, and fight back. I recognise that there exists both good and evil in the world. But if that's what they want to do, I certainly won't convince them by pleading about truth. The only thing that will convince them is defeating them - ie making it impossible for them to achieve their aims. And I may lose of course. There's no guarantee - but in life there are no guarantees. So I only forfeit the right to criticise and condemn them in the sense that doing so won't change anything. But I retain the right to criticise and condemn them in the sense that for me, I am still able to do so, since I do believe in truth.

What's left once we cede this ground? — Erik

They don't care about truth. Truth won't convince them. The people who are convinced by truth are very rare and very few.

This is the issue I have with you, I think: you talk a lot about virtue and character and yet you will gladly jettison these admirable things of the 'soul' for the sake of more worldly and ignoble goals. — Erik

I don't think I do. I think the two are compatible. On the one hand, one is virtuous oneself, and acts virtuously. On the other hand, one doesn't expect everyone else to be virtuous, and those who aren't, and have no inclination to be at all, can only be dealt with rhetorically. By all means surround yourself with virtuous men and women, but not everyone you will interact with will be so, or even care about being so. Those who don't care, you must be able to protect yourself from them.

You only need to lie if you don't truly believe in their superiority, or if you don't trust the judgment of others (e.g. Plato's Noble Lies). — Erik

Well why should I trust the judgement of (most) others? It's clear that the masses of mankind are selfish. I don't blame the progressives. Most of them are progressives merely because progressivism is winning now, it's socially rewarding to be a progressive. Just you wait till the Right is winning, and you'll see most folks changing wagons as soon as possible. I don't think I'm a hypocrite - I'm fighting for the losing side, using all means possible, because I believe in the cause. If I were purely self-interested I would fight for the progressives. At the moment, there's no reward for fighting for conservatism.

It seems like those who lie willingly almost always do so under the illusion that it's for some greater good. — Erik

Yes.

If you came out and told me you didn't give a shit about anyone but yourself, and that you'd kill me for the $20 I had in my wallet if you had the opportunity, then you'd be free from both hypocrisy and self-deception. You'd obviously be a sociopath, but an honest one. — Erik

Quite obviously. That's why I said good and evil both exist in the world. Good has an advantage over evil when it fights unmasked, without any pretensions. That's why the Right needs to fight unmasked - because the Left won't be able to fight back.

I think your 'type' is what bothers me — Erik

Good, that means this discussion can be productive.

Why so much effort in deceiving people--pitching your views (here at least) as nothing more than useful deceptions--if they're not generally disposed towards searching for the truth and doing good? — Erik

It's not so much deceiving people - because to deceive them assumes that they still care about truth. But they don't. This isn't about deceiving them at all, it's simply a political way to force them to adhere to certain policies via means of social pressure (just what the Left does, but turned the other way). They may not care about truth, but certainly they do care about certain goods, such as social inclusion. I have given up the goal of changing their characters and making them virtuous - that's impossible. All that is possible, is getting them to behave and fake virtue.

Why not just come out and tell them that we (for instance) went into Iraq for oil, and not because of any humanitarian aims? — Erik

A war needs a just cause otherwise people don't support it - and if they don't support it, those in power shall lose their power. This is not necessarily because people are moral, but rather because they want to THINK they are moral. My whole effort is to get the Left in a position where they can no longer see themselves as moral - that will cause them to lose.

I know I get pissed when someone lies to me, and I feel pangs of conscience when I lie to others. — Erik

Yes me too. But not everyone is this way. And so one should take this into account.

Maybe I'm just one of the sheep whom the wolf-like 'overmen' view as malleable material. — Erik

I don't believe so, I admire and respect people like you. You have similar goals to mine - we just disagree about the means of reaching there.

Anyhow, I feel your unconditional commitment to party and rigid ideology prevents you from turning more people to your side. — Erik

That's where you don't see it. You don't see that most people will not be turned by truth (or deception for that matter). They will be turned by power. Once it becomes profitable to adhere to my party/ideology, they will all turn. Just look at Paul Ryan - before the election results, Trump was despicable, after the results, he was the greatest. Most people are just like that. Of course, they don't want to lose face, they won't immediately switch over, and they will seek to switch over through an occasion in which they don't lose face (Paul Ryan obviously isn't like that). But it doesn't change the fact. Most will adhere to the socially dominant ideology. Most will always be of the socially dominant ideology. There are few people who won't. So to sway the majority, it's never going to be about truth. Truth will only sway the very few. They are important, and it's important to sway them, but the majority is also important.

Plato was right. Democracy always decays into the dissolution of virtue. The masses don't care about truth and morality. It's a problem of the heart (will), not of the head. And just watch my words - even on these forums, you're suddenly seeing more people from the Right than ever before. Why? Because the Right is now winning. Those few like me who are fighting for a cause regardless of whether it's winning/losing - those are few. But the majority will be swayed only by power - only by being compelled to do so. Most will not be willing to sacrifice social inclusion and other goods, for the truth. Those who are, are very few.

The irony is that this is why Banno's point was a good one. You made a general claim that actually told us more about you. So did the original poster, except that he made a whole bunch of 'em. — Sapientia

Yes I know. So what? Everyone knows what Banno said. There's nothing worthy or great about his comment. That was self-evident.

Of course you don't see that here, to this guy. That's because my understanding, which I believe is correct, is that this guy didn't start a discussion on multiple issues, but was just using them as examples. — Sapientia

My understanding is that he threw a bone, to let the dogs fight. The truth may emerge from the fight.

So you're accusing me of being an ass towards him. I think that that's unfair. I've been no more of an ass than he has. I mirrored his own terminology and attitude.

And his complaint in its entirety isn't fair, hence my criticism. He merely raised some interesting and arguable points, but he didn't go into detail. Yet you seem to expect only me (and not him) to do so. The burden doesn't work like that. — Sapientia

Yes his post isn't fair. He's throwing you a bone. He's challenging you. That's why it's insulting and derisive. He doesn't want to make a point himself - he wants YOU to make a point. He is merely putting words there in order to provoke you. But you shouldn't react violently to that, because it is an opportunity for you to showcase your understanding, and share your understanding with others. You're here to do philosophy afterwards, not to deny challenges, but to take them head-on.

No, they're not hard to find. You must not have looked hard. Right of the cuff, G.E. Moore comes to mind, and there are plenty more realists and others who have made non-sceptical arguments along those lines. — Sapientia

I didn't find Moore convincing at all for example. Wittgenstein in "On Certainty" sent Moore back to school.

Laugh at their expense?! Don't try to twist this into something personal. It's about the position, not the person. Look at the title of this thread, for Christ's sake. He called philosophy an absolute joke, and said that scepticism has won, whereas I think that it's more the other way around. — Sapientia

Yes, what did I tell you? It's the bone. It's a challenge to prove it otherwise. Take it! Stop complaining that he's challenging you. He called philosophy a joke not because he believes it, but to outrage you, so that in your outrage you may show him the way.

Tell that to the original poster, who you're clearly biased in favour of. — Sapientia

When I'm thrown a bone, I bite it and prove my point. That's what a philosopher does - fights the good fight, and shows the way. What kind of a philosopher are you if you never fight?

If the reasons you give for wanting the Left to fail are caricatures, rhetorical points, and lies, then what are the real reasons you want Left to fail? Because if these (known) false reasons are the real reasons then you have no reasons at all. — Michael

I don't agree with everything the Right says or does - but the Right is the lesser evil here. My vehemence against the Left is because if the Left wins, it's tragic, if the Right, as it is today wins, it's bad, but redeemable. — Agustino

You're mistaking the reasons I want the Left to fall, for the manner in which to bring about the fall of the Left.

it's dawned on me how blatantly hypocritical most of us are — Erik

What about someone like me? I freely admit that I am biased against the Left and use all weapons in my arsenal against them.

I don't agree with everything the Right says or does - but the Right is the lesser evil here. My vehemence against the Left is because if the Left wins, it's tragic, if the Right, as it is today wins, it's bad, but redeemable.

Why do we as human beings have such a powerful tendency to succumb to logical and moral inconsistency? — Erik

Well I don't think I do. I am fully aware that many of my attacks on the Left are caricatures, and rhetorical points. But I make them nevertheless. Why? Because I treat it like a war - any tactics and strategies that will ensure victory, should be used. The Left has been winning because of using such tactics. Thus, the Right, in order to usurp the Left, must use the same tactics. The Left won't be able to defend, because they claim they don't use such tactics, while in fact using them. The Right, can take my position, and freely admit to using such tactics themselves while blaming the Left that they're doing precisely the same thing, but are hypocrites because they pretend they don't. The perceived moral high ground matters more to the Left, because they are farther away from the natural way of being and living. They can't lose it. But if the Right adopts this strategy, then the Left is guaranteed to lose.

Is there some innate evolutionary survival mechanism which shields us from allowing our double-standards to rise to the level of transparency? — Erik

I don't think this is of importance here. I have double-standards being fully aware that I have them. So how is this self-deception?

You can take two basic approaches to this. One is the approach which you suggest, namely persuading others of those hypocrisies, reasoning with them, and getting them to see the truth. I am disillusioned with your approach, because it ain't working, and I don't think it's ever going to work (and please try to convince me otherwise, but my experience certainly shows that human beings are too selfish, and too attached to being seen as moral for it to ever work - and in this regard, I claim that you are self-deceived yourself). Instead I submit to the other approach - each camp is to fight the other one to the best of their abilities - that's what's going to determine who emerges out as the victor. So I have no shame in fighting the Left using any tactics and strategies which work.