What Do You Believe?

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

Then why murderers, why not used car salesmen?

[Asimov]

Then why murderers, why not used car salesmen?

 

That would have been the very next example I would have brought up. You're so perceptive.

 

Her claimed focus was on being an introvert.

 

My problem is that her claimed principles of humanitarianism rely on vague statements like "being true to oneself" and how being true to oneself will create good people. Unless I'm missing something, she's operating on the assumption that everyone is inherently good if they look for the good inside them.

 

Then she states that everyone knows what "good" is deep down inside them. Again, very vague wording, very ill-defined terminology.

 

So, perhaps a better worded question would be "If someone being true to themselves necessitates them murdering other people, should that person continue to be a murderer?"

 

My passion is Personal Training, and being true to myself is being a Personal Trainer and helping people change their bodies and lifestyles to something healthier, correct?

 

A car salesman's passion is being a car salesmen, etc.

 

I just found the wording a little vague and wanted clarification.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

Ah, now I see where you are coming from. What you are thinking of is that being true to one's self creates morally excellent people. But, that is not what she is saying. I can see how you can misinterpret that. When she was speaking of "good" she was speaking in terms of this

 

"By being true to oneself I do NOT mean doing anything and everything that comes to mind or that might appeal when one feels angry and vengeful. It means that if I'm an introvert, then be a good introvert."

 

It's not good in the sense of being morally excellent, virtuous, righteous, or pious but rather in the sense of being genuine. Like when you say someone's money is good, it is not counterfeit.

 

Even saying someone is good does not give a meaning of being good all the time, one can still be good with lapses. I'm sure you have said at some point that a person has a "good sense of humor" or "good character" but, that udually does not remain true for every occasion, it is just a general statement describing a general sense of worth as you see worth being defined.

 

A good introvert does not necessarily mean being anti-social. She accepts that she prefers solitude over social settings. I did not take her meaning of being a "good introvert" as being morally in the right because introversion is a prerequisite for being pure. I took as being accepting of who she is and not trying to hide it.

 

Being "true to one's self" is just a statement of not being false or pretending to be something you are not. Murderers should be good murderers by not denying they are murderers or pretending that they are innocent. Murderers who know they murder are less dilusional than those who deny they are the ones doing the murdering.

 

"The very foundation of my value system is being true to oneself because that is what makes good people." I took this statement as being honest to one's self because the context suggest self-esteem and not what others deem as good, right, or proper behavior. There is something to be said for people's good mental health when they are first true to themselves. If you can't be honest with yourself, how can you be honest with others? If you are honest with yourself, then you will tend to be honest with others.

 

How many times have you seen someone in the news say, "I didn't realize what I was doing was wrong." They don't really mean wrong for other people, they mean wrong in their own sense of what is right and wrong. Those Christians who let their children die because they do not believe in medical assistance is a good example of this. For them, what they did was a good thing, it was right and proper to deny medical attention to their children and leave their children's health in God's hands. For most of us, it is a disgusting practice. But for them, it was being true to their faith (not counterfiet to their beliefs) and hence, no murder conviction. We might consider it wrong, bad, evil and the like, but you can still say they were "good" at what they believed in, just like one can be good by being true to one's self.

[Asimov]

Being "true to one's self" is just a statement of not being false or pretending to be something you are not. Murderers should be good murderers by not denying they are murderers or pretending that they are innocent. Murderers who know they murder are less dilusional than those who deny they are the ones doing the murdering.

 

"The very foundation of my value system is being true to oneself because that is what makes good people." I took this statement as being honest to one's self because the context suggest self-esteem and not what others deem as good, right, or proper behavior. There is something to be said for people's good mental health when they are first true to themselves. If you can't be honest with yourself, how can you be honest with others? If you are honest with yourself, then you will tend to be honest with others.

 

 

Ok, but did you read the paragraph where she seemingly interchanges your definition of "good" as in "good sense of humor" with morality?

[DarthOkkata]

They will be sure to reply, "Oh I believe that, too. That's part of what it means to be Christian. But what do you really believe?"

 

How do others handle that question?

 

My responce to this question is always the same. It's a paraphrase of a quote from Douglas Adams, who I've been citing a lot since I came here I've noticed. Heh. I need to expand my sources a bit.

 

"I don't like the word 'believe' in that context. I believe a little girl if I ask her if she made a mess on the floor. No, I an convinced that there is no god."

 

Here's the article I got it from. Worth reading, and full of arguments against foolish beliefs.

 

http://www.americanatheist.org/win98-99/T2/silverman.html

[Panther]

It depends on who is asking and the reason for the asking. If it is to engage me in debate, I will comply, but only if I am in the mood for a debate. If not, I will simply state that my beliefs are personal to me and not open for discussion/argument at this time.

(and I will do this politely)

 

If it is genuine and I feel that they are truly listening because they sincerely want to know how I feel, then I will sit down and discuss, no problem!

 

Most people that have asked me so far have some kind of hidden agenda and that makes me uncomfortable. I think it's unreasonable to ask me something that deeply and only expect to give me a few seconds before they go into a tirade of why I am wrong. It took me years to come to my conclusions and a lot of searching and pain. To cut me off after a few seconds without hearing me out and trying to engage me into listening to why I am wrong tends to just plain irritate me.

[Garnet]

My response to, "What do you believe?" is usually, "Why do you ask?" Like others on here have said, I'm not inclined to discuss my beliefs with anyone until I know that they are actually interested and don't have an ulterior motive of evangelism. I've found that the question, "Why do you ask?" will throw an evangelist off stride where as a person who is really interested will answer easily.

[R. S. Martin]

Thanks for your suggestions, everyone. This gives me something to choose from. A biggie for me has been how to tell the difference between genuine questions and ulterior motives. Sometimes I feel that by trying to answer their questions I only give them more ammunition to use against me.

[R. S. Martin]

JGJ, I am so grateful for your attempts at translating me to Asimov. At least it keeps him off my back. You seem to have some idea what it is he wants to know--I haven't a clue.

 

You're getting me right perhaps more often than not. But I disagree with a few items. I'll address these.

 

Ah, now I see where you are coming from. What you are thinking of is that being true to one's self creates morally excellent people.

But, that is not what she is saying. I can see how you can misinterpret that. When she was speaking of "good" she was speaking in terms of this

 

"By being true to oneself I do NOT mean doing anything and everything that comes to mind or that might appeal when one feels angry and vengeful. It means that if I'm an introvert, then be a good introvert."

 

It's not good in the sense of being morally excellent, virtuous, righteous, or pious but rather in the sense of being genuine. Like when you say someone's money is good, it is not counterfeit.

 

That may be the best explanation possible for a black and white thinker. However it misses the finer nuances of what I mean. I do mean that being true to oneself results in moral excellence, i.e. if you are true to yourself you will automatically be a morally good person. It does not "create" moral excellence. The word "create" implies that something new develops that did not originally exist. That is not what I mean. I mean that the human heart is inherently good. If the child is nourished in love then the goodness in the heart will result in genuinely good behaviour. If the child is not nourished but rather condemned and otherwise misunderstood and mistreated, the goodness turns sour and we may well end up having a murderer on our hands.

 

Now if that murderer happens to meet up with someone who truly believes in his potential of being a good person and turning his life around, then perhaps he will get in touch with his real self and become good again. I've seen that happen. It happened to me.

 

A good introvert does not necessarily mean being anti-social. She accepts that she prefers solitude over social settings. I did not take her meaning of being a "good introvert" as being morally in the right because introversion is a prerequisite for being pure. I took as being accepting of who she is and not trying to hide it.

 

Exactly!

 

Being "true to one's self" is just a statement of not being false or pretending to be something you are not. Murderers should be good murderers by not denying they are murderers or pretending that they are innocent. Murderers who know they murder are less dilusional than those who deny they are the ones doing the murdering.

 

Again, this may be the best we can do for a black and white thinker. But I have major objections to this explanation. For a murderer to admit that he/she is guilty of murder is a start. But like I showed above, being a murderer is not the natural state and is not true to the self. Thus, for a murderer to be true to his or her self, that person will get in touch with the goodness deep down in the heart, with their own feelings of hurt, of vulnerability, of potential for genuine goodness, love, and kindness.

 

"The very foundation of my value system is being true to oneself because that is what makes good people." I took this statement as being honest to one's self because the context suggest self-esteem and not what others deem as good, right, or proper behavior. There is something to be said for people's good mental health when they are first true to themselves. If you can't be honest with yourself, how can you be honest with others? If you are honest with yourself, then you will tend to be honest with others.

 

Right. And if you love and understand yourself, you will be better able to love and understand others. When I see a person being closed and narrow-minded and harsh and judgmental, I know that person is not being his or her real self because a well-balanced happy individual with adequate self-esteem is not that way. The human being has enough elasticity to accommodate thinking and behaviour patterns that do not exactly match their own. Being one's own real self means being aware of one's own thoughts and feelings at all times. If one's thoughts and feelings are such that following them results in murder, then the individual needs to ask: WHERE DO THESE FEELINGS COME FROM?

 

Inevitably, those feelings are the result of cruel treatment or injustice of some sort. When the person becomes aware of what is behind the feelings of hate, the individual who wants to be true to him or herself will learn how to work through all the anger and bitterness. And the person will find ways to do this that do not cause harm to the self or others.

 

Some years ago, I read a Reader's Digest interview with Jean Vanier. Vanier insists that the human heart is inherently good. He said once he visited a man on death row, and that he could feel layers and layers of defense around the man. He said, "He must have been hated in the womb." Such profound hatred can well turn a human being into a serial killer. BUT he is not being true to his real Self.

 

How many times have you seen someone in the news say, "I didn't realize what I was doing was wrong." They don't really mean wrong for other people, they mean wrong in their own sense of what is right and wrong. Those Christians who let their children die because they do not believe in medical assistance is a good example of this. For them, what they did was a good thing, it was right and proper to deny medical attention to their children and leave their children's health in God's hands. For most of us, it is a disgusting practice. But for them, it was being true to their faith (not counterfiet to their beliefs) and hence, no murder conviction. We might consider it wrong, bad, evil and the like, but you can still say they were "good" at what they believed in, just like one can be good by being true to one's self.

 

Again, I disagree that these people are being true to their own real selves. They are being true to their beliefs but those beliefs alienate people from their real selves. Like the man on death row above, the alienation may be so profound that they don't know it. My sister who insists that Christ is her life is not being true to her real self. It was very obvious when I talked with her that she is totally out of touch with her own real feelings. She has developed counterfeit feelings that she owns as her own real self. But it's not her real self. She lives by a rigid black and white code of life and behaviour. Like I said above, the person who is being real, being true to their own feelings, and is well-balanced and happy has more elasticity than this.

[R. S. Martin]

Being "true to one's self" is just a statement of not being false or pretending to be something you are not. Murderers should be good murderers by not denying they are murderers or pretending that they are innocent. Murderers who know they murder are less dilusional than those who deny they are the ones doing the murdering.

 

"The very foundation of my value system is being true to oneself because that is what makes good people." I took this statement as being honest to one's self because the context suggest self-esteem and not what others deem as good, right, or proper behavior. There is something to be said for people's good mental health when they are first true to themselves. If you can't be honest with yourself, how can you be honest with others? If you are honest with yourself, then you will tend to be honest with others.

 

 

Ok, but did you read the paragraph where she seemingly interchanges your definition of "good" as in "good sense of humor" with morality?

 

I disagree somewhat with JGJ's explanation here.

 

It is true that a person whose self-esteem is well developed is a morally good person. Many people confuse self-esteem with egotism. Egotism is not good but self-esteem is. Egotism, when "good" as in well-developed, does not make for a morally good person but quite the opposite. The same applies for murderers.

[bluewizard]

I'm an atheist that just happens to agree with a lot of LaVeyan Satanic philosophy so I'd say I'm a hedonist.

[Asimov]

It is true that a person whose self-esteem is well developed is a morally good person. Many people confuse self-esteem with egotism. Egotism is not good but self-esteem is. Egotism, when "good" as in well-developed, does not make for a morally good person but quite the opposite. The same applies for murderers.

 

 

Hmmm...I'm still not quite sure I understand where you're coming from but let me think on it later.