• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Cant understand Conviction ...

You're basically asking why people believe different things. More so why people can hold very different beliefs as sacred, complete truths.

What have you been taking/why are creating problems for yourself?



Incorrect. As PA eloquently stated, it's not a question of psychology/sociology, but that of convictions of any kind and the un-yielding spirit to at least make consideration that another persons convictions exists, as strongly as their own. As I see it, and as silly and stupid as this may sound, a person with a conviction about an idea, whether it's religion or not, essentially states that anyone without his/her conviction doesn't exist. Sounds silly, right?

You can be raised in a well-to-do Jewish home and follow said beliefs as you'd had experiences in life which has convinced you that Judaism is the correct God, but that very psychology essentially states that another person, who feels the same about Taoism, doesn't exist. How can they if the Jewish faith is correct? These two people are BOTH convinced.





Don't expect to understand where the emotions of others are coming from until you've walked in their shoes.

There is no way to truly walk in another's shoes.


Thats exactly it. I simply have no idea where these people are coming from or why faith can induce thoughts about ethereal things as clearly as they can see the color blue.


Its up to you to determine which belief is telling the truth.

The First Cause of limitless space must be infinite
The First Cause of endless time must be eternal
The First Cause of boundless energy must be omnipotent
The First Cause of infinite complexity must be omniscient
The First Cause of love must be loving
The First Cause of life must be living

Thus the First Cause of the universe must be an infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, personal, volitional, holy, loving and living being. So the question is which God, Elohim or Allah, best fits this description.


You said a whole lot of nothing by using many words. You can interchange that post with half the threads in this forum.



man, this reads like a first year philosophy student conversation.

why do people get hysterical and believe incompatible ideas? because they are people, they are scared, they want to feel like they understand the world, they want to feel like they are loved, that something cares, it doesn't matter if they rationally know they can't. feelings win over reason most of the time.



FUCKING EXACTLY. Why am I so confused about this simple question? What am I missing that I cant stop being baffled about how people emote/think up truth's that incinerates all other people that think differently? That other persons conviction, that doesn't meet their own, doesn't exist. These people are sure of their God just as plainly as they can see the sky.
 
Last edited:
Rational/private thought processes are stimulated from the outside too.

Yesyes, and 'outside' experiences, for instance, particular behaviors, are often the result of rational/private thought processes. This isn't just some lame chicken-egg issue. My point (see above) was that your attitude is pointlessly reductive, and tends to disproportionately marginalize the necessity of taking into consideration the (presumably) differentially accurate/conscientious/informed worldviews and behaviors of other human beings. Is it so much trouble to admit that a) It is at least theoretically plausible that the thoughts and actions of other human beings are comprehensible on terms other than their own, or at least on terms that overlap considerably with their own, but are nevertheless substantially different; and b) These varying perspectives and behaviors can be independently, dispassionately evaluated (given the information at the assessor's immediate disposal) for their relative moral, epistemological, or practical merit?

At any rate, all of this has exactly nothing to do with determinism.
 
Well, thank you for condescending to chime in. We are humbly honored by such a prestigious visitation by a mind as uniquely gifted as yours.



And how does your little theory account for the fact that there exist in this world a pretty large proportion of scared, unloved humans that do not hold supernatural convictions?

thankyou for your welcome. i only speak of what i know.
 
I'm not going to debate this. I see OP and P A as essentially making an issue out of nothing.

Feel free to do as you wish. Have you consulted the material to which I referred you in my post above re. empiricism and rationalism?

And either way, I think that most people in the world beg to differ with your nonchalance. While I would certainly hesitate before making an entire thread on the subject, conviction is and has been, I'd argue, a serious problem facing the real world and the real people that inhabit it. Heartfelt conviction as such also raises some tricky epistemological questions, many of which can be addressed by way of probability theory and statistics. If this sort of thing isn't up your alley, I understand perfectly - but don't kid yourself that we're talking about nothing.
 
it's a question for psychology no, why people get so worked up about this or that?

nothing to do with philosophy or knowledge, unless you mean moral philosophy drawn from feelings, which aren't very successful.
 
nothing to do with philosophy or knowledge

"To what extent am I or am I not justified in believing X?"

Does that not come across to you as an epistemological question? Because, you know, you're only in disagreement with fucking Aristotle. Shouldn't be a problem for you, right?
 
that's not the question being asked tho is it? the question is, how can seemingly intelligent, rational, successful people be convinced of something to the extent that demond tutu or mike tyson are about christianity and islam? despite recognizing the same devotion and passion in others with contradictory beliefs.

which to me, seems all about psychology, life lessons learned in childhood etc.
 
that's not the question being asked tho is it? the question is, how can seemingly intelligent, rational, successful people be convinced of something to the extent that demond tutu or mike tyson are about christianity and islam? despite recognizing the same devotion and passion in others with contradictory beliefs.

But whether they/you can comprehend and/or choose to acknowledge it or not, their beliefs are, almost by definition, wedded to an ancient philosophical tradition spanning millenia of human history. Casual dismissals and appeals to psychology (?) won't change that. Feel free to dumb the subject matter down all you like, but I think I'll just stick to the philosophical side of the topic as is, thank you very much.
 
Last edited:
whether the beliefs are old or new, e.g. scientology, the religious fervour and devotion is the same, suggesting it is all to do with psychology and not millenia of philosophy. i don't know (?) if you're trying to suggest psychology is a less noble field than philosophy but i can't really see your high brow philosophical answers either.
 
Please, let's not pretend that this has anything to do with the relative altitude of institutional brows. You're strangely unwilling to concede that some questions have more than one valid answer and that some issues are multidisciplinary in nature. No topic necessarily 'boils down' to any one thing, especially one so speculatively fruitful as aberrant human mental processes. And before you condescendingly remind me that psychology is the study of the human mind, see here.
 
Most people seem to favour "practical rationality" in determining their beliefs rather than just plain rationality. Religious people will believe in their version of God(s) and the codes of conduct/practices that goes with them because they see it as enhancing their lives in some way.

Some of us value truth above irrational belief because we feel a sense of pride at knowing better.
 
Top