Do unbelievers get you mad?

Originally Posted by SpiritualFreedom

If something you believe that is actually good, it works, and it's proven, you just don't care 0% about the opinion of others.
That's the right indicator, don't you think so?
In the other hand, when something it's not proven, it's fear.group-based, it's manpilutation-based, it's ego-based and the other side of the coin calls them up for their lies.
That's when they get angry/heated. Because its either a fear group based things, or a theory that just doesn't work.
It's all about mental peace

The only problem with that is that many of the craziest cults would have told you that what they believe is good, works, proven, and they don't care 0% whether you believe it or not. Any you might say yippee for them, I don't care 0% what they believe either. But then it comes out years later that they believed in raping children, or drinking cyanide laced cool aid, or perhaps even that the US Government is controlled by an international cabal of Satanists who traffic in, rape, and eat children, and it all seems sane to them.
All belief systems appear sane and rational to the believers on the inside, and to them, those on the outside appear to be manipulated based on fear and operating under theories that don't work. But it is true that one can ignore it all and find ones own metal peace, as long as they don't come knocking on your door after hearing those rumors about you.

Originally Posted by ketzer

The only problem with that is that many of the craziest cults would have told you that what they believe is good, works, proven, and they don't care 0% whether you believe it or not. Any you might say yippee for them, I don't care 0% what they believe either. But then it comes out years later that they believed in raping children, or drinking cyanide laced cool aid, or perhaps even that the US Government is controlled by an international cabal of Satanists who traffic in, rape, and eat children, and it all seems sane to them.
All belief systems appear sane and rational to the believers on the inside, and to them, those on the outside appear to be manipulated based on fear and operating under theories that don't work. But it is true that one can ignore it all and find ones own metal peace, as long as they don't come knocking on your door after hearing those rumors about you.

Don't forget Heaven's Gate! Yes, Hale-Bopp was spectacular, but to believe there was a UFO hiding behind it waiting to take them on-board after their self-induced demise wasn't rooted in rational thinking.

By the way, Neowise was fairly spectacular itself last July. One night was absolutely perfect for observing it. No Moon, no clouds and clear as a bell atmospherically speaking (astronomical "seeing"). It was easily viewable with the naked eye and incredible using binoculars.

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Don't forget Heaven's Gate! Yes, Hale-Bopp was spectacular, but to believe there was a UFO hiding behind it waiting to take them on-board after their self-induced demise wasn't rooted in rational thinking.

By the way, Neowise was fairly spectacular itself last July. One night was absolutely perfect for observing it. No Moon, no clouds and clear as a bell atmospherically speaking (astronomical "seeing"). It was easily viewable with the naked eye and incredible using binoculars.

I don't believe that either, but we have no way to prove it, do you?

rooted in rational thinking ... How would we know? My rational isn't your rational. Maybe none of us is "rational". Rational thinking is way overrated. It is better than emotional "thinking", but no match for intuition, if you have that feature and option.

Rational and ratio share a common root. In rational thinking, we look at the supposed facts or theories, and weight each of them by assigning credence to each one. It is not impossible that the UFO picked up the Heavens Gate cultist's souls as the comet flue by, but I think most would argue that the sum of the credence against such a supposition is far far far greater then the sum of the credence for it. Of course we will all assign the credence differently. That said, I expect that most would find the ratio of evidence against such an idea is far greater then for. I might personally say 99.99999999999999...keep going..9% against it. But it is true, it cannot be ruled out entirely. In this case the credence ratio is so far titled toward it being false that it is foolish to the power of insane to bet on it and take ones own life because of it. So Heavens Gate is not sane rational thinking in the sense that no sane person who looks at any reasonable credence ratio would make the decision they did. Perhaps it could have been rational thinking, but the way in which they assigned credence to the supposed facts, was not sane, so it was not sane rational thinking.

Even if they had some special mystical knowledge that we are not privy to, special knowledge that did make it real, if they got angry at us for not believing them, that would not be sane rational thinking, as we would not have had that knowledge and our sane rational assessment would still conclude that they are insane and/or irrational.


But all of that is of course based on what I think I know....so...what do you think you know, and what does that tell you.?

Rational thinking is the ability to consider the relevant variables of a situation and to access, organize, and analyze relevant information (e.g., facts, opinions, judgments, and data) to arrive at a sound conclusion.

www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › sane
1 : proceeding from a sound mind : rational. 2 : mentally sound especially : able to anticipate and appraise the effect of one's actions. 3 : healthy in body.

[inavalan]

... are you saying that JC's ascension passes your "rational" test, but those Gates' ascension doesn't? With what percentage?

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by inavalan

... are you saying that JC's ascension passes your "rational" test, but those Gates' ascension doesn't? With what percentage?

Should be interesting what the percentages on such beliefs as, is Jesus God vs Jesus is the son of God. Or better yet, what are the percentages for the belief there is a God vs the belief there is not a God.

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Rational thinking is the ability to consider the relevant variables of a situation and to access, organize, and analyze relevant information (e.g., facts, opinions, judgments, and data) to arrive at a sound conclusion.

the problem becomes one of what information is accessible. Most of us know even from being in the world that some types of information are restricted and/or restructured in a potentially manipulative fashion.

It doesn't matter how good your ability to reason is. If you you are denied access to basic information to reason around, you simply can't reason effectively.

But at the same time if you don't even know information has been denied the next step is to assume you can reason effectively after you are able to make some small effect on your surroundings. Which can be just as bad a thing to have happen to you as if you couldn't reason at all, because with the kudos you are getting from yourself and others you won't be likely to care any more about how rational you are. Unless of course you want to get prideful about it... but that is another issue altogether.

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

Should be interesting what the percentages on such beliefs as, is Jesus God vs Jesus is the son of God. Or better yet, what are the percentages for the belief there is a God vs the belief there is not a God.

Anyway, truth can't be discovered by vote.

[psychoslice]

Originally Posted by Dargor

Beliefs only exist to be questioned, unless proven as a fact. If someone gets angry when their beliefs are under fire, it's most likely due to the fact they have a narcissistic personality disorder, or just out of plain arrogance. Or perhaps both...

I was going to say more or less the same thing, I like how you are strait to the point.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by inavalan

Anyway, truth can't be discovered by vote.

...... and I suspect, some truths can not be ascertained.