-114 votes

Truthers continue to see what they want to see.

Let me give you an example, and then I will go off on my rant.

Regarding the passport: You guys only see what you want to see. Why don't you list every item that survived? Drivers licenses survived, entire arms and other limbs, clothes, etc. Tons of things survived, but you frame the argument like only the passport survived. They already had flight manifests. They knew who was on those flights. There was no reason at all to plant a passport. The fact of the matter is that tons of things survived, not just a passport, and planting a passport would have been useless. It only seems like it matters to you guys because you want it to matter. If it was a conspiracy, don't you think the real cover up would have been about how they faked the flight manifest?

You people just continue to see what you want to see, regardless of how ridiculous it is. You take every bit of flimsy evidence and force it to support your conspiracy. Check that, I shouldn't even call it "evidence' because it isn't. It is a lack of evidence that you have. You invent questions about the incident and when you can't wrap your brain around reason and logic, you take every stupid thing any witness ever said and cling to it as if it were straight from God's mouth to your ears. You twist logic to fit your own narrative so you can feed your feable need to feel important on a national scale, like somehow the nation is reading your posts.

I remember when this sight was about liberty and free market capitalism. I remember when people here discussed topics related to the ideas Ron Paul was bringing up every day. You all have driven those fine people away with your own ignorant lack of critical thinking. I enjoyed those people. We shared information and learned together. I don't enjoy you people. You spread fallacy through verbosity. You post every tiny scrap of psuedo-evidence no matter how easily refutable, rendering the rest of us simply too tired to continue to address your never ending pile of fiction.

And worst of all, you continue to move the goal post, to the point that no amount of debunking will ever satisfy you because you will simply wait for the next bit of psuedo-evidence to come out, and if that evidence isn't readily available, you resort back to the old time honored defense of "All I know is that I don't believe the official story". And that only creates another fallacy you all love, the false dillema, where you try to shoot holes in the official story thinking that it somehow proves your story is true, only you don't even have a coherent story to back up. If I point out all the inconsistency in the Bible, does that somehow prove that Thor is real? You need evidence in support of your story, not lack of evidence in support of their's. You people don't have evidence. You don't have a story. What you do have unfortunately, and in abundance, is a never ending supply of fallacies.

As a middle school teacher, part of my curriculum is teaching fallacies, so when I claim you are using them in abundance, I'm not speaking generally. You are using them in abundance and it is killing your argument. The sad part, is that even if you all were right, your constant use of fallacy and lack of logical skills has driven away countless people who might have actually cared.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Michael Nystrom's picture

Hey snakepit

Don't worry about it.

-75. That is pretty good! You managed to offend a lot of people! Which is simply another way of saying, you hit a soft spot. Or a vulnerability. Kind of like that spot on the knee that makes people involuntarily kick.

If for no other reason (but there are other reasons), this post is interesting because it shows both:

1) You know that spot exists

I knew my post today would get down voted like nobody's business and it wasn't intended to convince anyone of anything.

2) You intended to hit it

I just felt like expressing how I felt about the fact that I've debated this topic to nerd-like lengths and I hit the same wall constantly.

3) And most interestingly, you really didn't want to, but you couldn't really control yourself either.

To be honest, I guess I just had one of "those" days

- - - - -

Don't worry about it.

In any case, I again apologize for my rant. I realize it did nobody any good except for myself.

Please don't apologize. It is interesting. Look at the above three points of data you provided.

That helped convince me finally that people aren't responsible for their beliefs in the traditional way we think of it. Those three data points.

Within this crowd, there is a sub crowd. That subcrowd responds in predictable and manipulatable ways. You have proved it with this post, and for that I thank you deeply.

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

Well...

The DailyPaul is one of the rare places in my life, and I'm sure a lot of the people who frequent here's lives, where I typically feel like I'm among people who get what I'm talking about. I think many of us almost pride ourselves in being the minority in our regular lives, almost like a badge of honor that we are part of the select few who "get it". I guess maybe sometimes agreeing with too many people on the DailyPaul starts to make a person feel like part of the majority, and for many of us, myself especially, we love being part of the minority. Maybe this article was just my attempt to remain in the minority, even among friends.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Michael Nystrom's picture

Be careful

Be careful of falling into that trap, of being a perma-contrarian. That is just as dishonest as going along with the crowd. It is actually just a different mechanism applied to the same thing.

This is interesting: Maybe this article was just my attempt to remain in the minority, even among friends.

What does that mean?

At this point I'm left confused as to what you believe. It was a good rant, as far as it being like, you know, a tantrum.

I get it your sad that those other people went away, but I don't think these people drove them away.

I think a group is its own worst enemy. and what has happened to the site was bound to happen to it, and what will happen to it is unpredictable. It is like evolution in action.

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

Well, to be clear...

...I don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job, or that it was allowed to happen or anything along those lines. I am perfectly fine with accepting that there are holes in the official story, without having to think that those holes are the evidence of a conspiracy. I am extremely aware of the flaws in human logic and actions and I liken it to a prosecutor who doesn't have all the evidence he needs, so he doctors the case. It doesn't mean the defendant was innocent, just that the prosecutor was either over ambitious, or clumsy. To me, 9/11 was the natural consequence of decades of bad foreign policy. Whether the official story had flaws or not, I think the real conspiracy would be if we screwed over so many people around the world for so long and nobody ever retaliated. In short, what happened that day makes perfect sense to me whether the flawed human investigators were able to correctly reconstruct it perfectly or not. What doesn't make sense to me is the abundance of bad intel often used to support the conspiracy, and the need for such a conspiracy when our foreign policy should have done the trick on it's own anyway.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Michael Nystrom's picture

Wow - this is interesting

You are a bona fide non-truther. Your kind is rare in these woods.

I know others as well.

I got turned onto the truthers in late 2003 - 2004. I was working in Taiwan, and surfed the internet copiously. I had no one to talk about to in those days. Interactive websites like this one were rarer.

But I read, and read, and on a trip to Hong Kong, picked up a bootleg copy of "In Plane Site" at a night market. I knew it was a movie, but there was no way to get it delivered to Taiwan, and there wasn't YouTube back then. I watched it on a DVD - a bootleg at that, purchased in a Hong Kong night market.

You can now watch it for free on YouTube:

In Plane Site
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_3-YkV_Uik

If your'e a middle school teacher, then I think you'll like this one. He builds his case logically and rationally.

I dare you to show that film to your students - just for discussion purposes. Sometimes it is interesting, like with this thread, just to discuss something, and see what comes out.

If you did show this film to them, I predict you would be fired. This is something that shall not be questioned in this regime.

- - - - -

After watching that I was primed for Crossing the Rubicon

http://www.amazon.com/Crossing-Rubicon-Decline-American-Empi...

And that pretty much sealed the deal for me.

- - - - - - -

But your approach does bring up what another non-truther RP supporter said to me. He said, "You're schizophrenic. To believe that the government did this, but the government is somehow going to save us."

His point was that it wasn't necessary, which is I think your ultimate point is as well: ...when our foreign policy should have done the trick on it's own anyway. That is the end of the line for you; no need to go beyond that. That is the Ron Paul approach as well.

But I'm just curious how much research you've done into the matter. I think I spent the whole summer of 2004 watching 911 videos on YouTube. The site was new and addictive, and there were all kinds of home made content as well.

What is positively clear to me is that that was an unnatural, engineered event and a lot of covering up. The only thing I'm certain of is that we're not getting the truth on that one.

And it puts one in a weird state. Because if you believe that about your own government - that either it was the perp, or the enabler - suddenly your whole world turns a lot more hostile. More evil. You realize you're living with a monster, and you just got a glimpse of its true face.

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

I'm about 12 minutes in to this video...

...and to be honest, it seems like the same sort of easily refutable stuff I've been encountering on this topic for years. However, if I have time tomorrow, I'll start my rebuttle along with the times in the video for each issue. For starters, this guy can't seem to figure out why a fire would keep burning so high up in the twin towers, but it wouldn't keep burning in the Pentagon, on the ground floor. I think its pretty easy to figure that out, but for starters, it's dang hard to fight a fire 30 or 40 stories up, and rather easy to fight one 2 stories up. This guy is making the claim that two different planes hitting two very differently designed buildings at two extremely different heights should be having he same affect. If this was a science project, and you substituted the Pentagon for the WTC, and you changed the floor the fire was on from the 80th to the first, and you expected your science teacher to think that was sound science, you would fail that assignment. Those differences are huge variables and to change them but for some reason expect the same outcome is just illogical. In addition, he points out the things in the Pentagon which weren't destroyed and assumes that means that the damage was enough to prove a plane hit, but he ignores the fact that plenty of items survived the twin towers crash and collapse as well. To him, everything that wasn't destroyed somehow proves that it wasn't a plane. I'll get more into it tomorrow, but I'll be very surprised if tomorrow, when I watch the rest, he doesn't reverse his stance and begin to claim that the planes which hit the WTC couldnt have caused enough damage to bring the towers down. Of course this would be illogical according to his own belief that the lack of damage at the Pentagon somehow proves it wasn't a plane, but the excessive damage at the WTC somehow proves it wasn't a plane also. Again, I don't know that he will take that rout, but I sure bet he will. Surely you see the flaw there? At the Pentagon, the damage isn't enough to be a plane, and at the WTC, the damage is too much to be a plane. In either case, he makes an assumption about what he should see, and when he doesn't see it, it proves to him that the conspiracy is true, even if what he expects to see contradicts itself from case to case.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

You do realize that the WTC

You do realize that the WTC 1and 2 are constructed of different materials then the Pentagon, right; because it sounds as though you are suggesting that the damage to WTC 1 and 2 should be able to refute the damage claims of the Pentagon and vice versa.

Considering that the construction of those building are different, and the material is different, then it could only stand to reason that the damage pattern would also be different if hit by identical objects; would it not?

Even if the wings did not penetrate the Pentagon, there should have been impact marks of where the wings hit; also, the wings should have therefore been right outside the hole in the Pentagon -they weren't. Also, if the wings were outside, then the fuel would have never been inside to create fires inside the Pentagon, because the fuel is carried in the wings.

As testified by Leer, the wings should not have been able to penetrate either WTC towers; why did they? Was it cheap material used on the building? Also, Jet fuel burns at 1800 decrees, and steal melts at over 3200 degrees; I'm sorry but there is no way that the fuel from the plane could be used as an excuse for everything. The fuel couldn't burn hot enough to melt steal, period, let alone while flooding down the elevator shaft to create the explosions people heard; there is only so much fuel available.

If you are really interested in proving that the building could not have collapse as the official story would have people believe, then there is an experiment one can conduct to prove it.

(1)Build a building out of popsicle sticks, or something similar. All of the joints should be glued in place, as to replicate the fastened joints of a building.
(2)Build another section, similar but smaller.
(3)Add the smaller section the the larger section.
(4)Take away the supports, which are supporting the smaller section on top of the larger section. The much larger bottom section will not collapse from the smaller upper section being compressed onto the bottom section; for one, because only one level was at most the distance the upper section fell onto the lower section. There would not have been enough momentum from that short fall to trigger a spontaneous and continuous collapse of all of the subsequent lower levels. Also, even if it could be accomplished -which it is impossible- the building could not have fallen even remotely close to Free-Fall velocity.

Free-Fall is the velocity which an object reaches while experiencing zero resistance to its downward trajectory -approximately 9.81 meters per second. If there is resistance, as there would be with a building falling, then that rate of collapse of 9.81 meters per second would drastically decrease. However, with the collapse of both tower 1 and tower 2 of the WTC a velocity of around 8.8 meters per second is recorded; this is impossible. Any velocity of the 8.0 range and up, would require very limited resistance. Building 7 falls at even closer to Free-Fall speed of around 9.5 meters per second; this doesn't happen in the real world.

Philosopher

You are making all the arguements already made, but t=you have several glaring flaws in your post.

First of all you completely missed the point that the poster understood the different constructions of the buildings in question, he did, which is how he explains the difference in the damage to the different buildings and the different ways they burned despite being impacted by similar planes.

Keep in mind that the WTC building were more or less normal offic buildings, and that the Pentagon was designed (roughly) to withstand a nuclear attack, this pretty much completely explains the differnce in the impacts. The WTC buildings would be like throwing a soda can against a cardboard box, it'll likely penetrate, and the pentagon is like smashing the same can against a rock it'll be crushed and it's contents will spew in the general vicinity. So, in the WTC buildings the airplanes almost went through the buildings, but the exterior steel columns basically carved the plane into chunks s it did so, like a potato in a french fry slicer, the fuel largely continued into the building and down the building mechanical shafts which became huge chimneys approximatly 1000' tall. This effect provided all the air the fires could ever want. Also, steel may melt at 3200, but it loses about 90% of its strength at 1000-1200F, structural engineers build in a lot of safety factors, but to make something 10X stronger than it needs to be in case a plane hit the building would never happen. No engineer would design that, and no architect would let him build it.

Now, the pentagon is completely different. Only the heaviest parts of the plane were able to penetrate the extremely thick and strong outer walls of the building thus a small hole relative to the size of the plane. Also the windows on the pentagon were security glass, and very thick, even so if you look at the photos, you can see the shape of the airplane wings in the pattern of the windows that were blown out in the impact. As you suspect, the wings did not penetrate, but largely collapse/ turn to dust on or near the exterior. The fuel in the wings burned mostly on the outside of the building, and inside the first ring where it was able to enter through blown out windows but was mostly contained to a small area. For this reason the fire was somewhat localized and much easier to fight, but the difference is mostly in the construction of the building. Whereas the WTC towers were built with cost and market considerations in mind, the pentagon was built by the US government with basically limitless military funds, and so was designed to withstand a nuke which it might actually have reasonably needed to do when it was under construction.

Also, the construction of your model as described is in no way an accurate model of the buildings in question, your experiment would show nothing of value. In order to have something of value from the experiment you'd need to do a very faithful scale model recreation of the building in question, and the damage suffered.

The freefall numbers you give are actually what you would expect in a collapse situation.

As previously pointed out you will of course believe what you are predisposed to believe, but in my professional (yes I said professional I am one of those dang engineers)opinion the damage and manner of collapse of the buildings is more or less exactly what I would expect to occur given the situation. That being said, I am open to the belief that some insiders may have known some sort of ttack was being planned, if they didn't they were worthless. However there is no indication they were aware of the potential scale of the attack, or privy to any information relating to timelines or specific targets. If you want a governement conspiracy, look to the response by our dear legislators and president in rushing through legislation on the back of the tragedy. I also find it odd that none of the clear constitutional violations inherent in the PATRIOT act have ever been heard by the supreme court...that to me sugests that someone(s) in high places is making sure such a case (probably because they think these powers are really necessary to protect us, not because they are sinister) is not heard.

Josh Brueggen
Engineer
Entrepreneur
Gardener
Jack of all Trades
Precinct Commiteeman Precinct 5 Rock Island Co Illinois

You are making all the

You are making all the arguements already made, but t=you have several glaring flaws in your post.
First of all you completely missed the point that the poster understood the different constructions of the buildings in question, he did, which is how he explains the difference in the damage to the different buildings and the different ways they burned despite being impacted by similar planes.

Actually the poster was complaining that people had different interpretations of what kind of damage would have occurred between the two different kinds of buildings. I was pointing out, that the two buildings were in fact different in their construction, and therefore the damage pattern would be different, and therefore what the damage should have been would also be different.

Keep in mind that the WTC building were more or less normal offic buildings, and that the Pentagon was designed (roughly) to withstand a nuclear attack, this pretty much completely explains the differnce in the impacts.

Stop right there; the Pentagon was not designed to withstand a nuclear blast. If it was, then the plane would never have been able to penatrate the building at all.

The WTC buildings would be like throwing a soda can against a cardboard box, it'll likely penetrate, and the pentagon is like smashing the same can against a rock it'll be crushed and it's contents will spew in the general vicinity.

While this may be fairly accurate, the wings were not found directly right outside of the hole that the plane made in the Pentagon. If the walls did infact sheer the wings off, then they would have been right there.

So, in the WTC buildings the airplanes almost went through the buildings, but the exterior steel columns basically carved the plane into chunks s it did so, like a potato in a french fry slicer, the fuel largely continued into the building and down the building mechanical shafts which became huge chimneys approximatly 1000' tall. This effect provided all the air the fires could ever want. Also, steel may melt at 3200, but it loses about 90% of its strength at 1000-1200F, structural engineers build in a lot of safety factors, but to make something 10X stronger than it needs to be in case a plane hit the building would never happen. No engineer would design that, and no architect would let him build it.

The Plane is made of aluminum, the steal girders were sufficient in size to have sheered the wings off of a non-reinforced plane. If the plane was a commercial airliner, then it didn't have sufficient reinforcement to cut through the steal girders, and the steal girders would have left the wings of the plane falling to the ground; this didn't happen. Also, steal becomes malleable at over 2000 degrees F -to the extent that it was capable of doing what non-truthers claim. However, there are even several problems with this still: (1) The time required for 2000 degrees F to have caused the damage -that non-truthers claim- would have been several hours. (2) The fire retardant would have increased the needed burn time by 2 to 3 hours at least. (3) The combination of jet fuel and office furniture would have been around 2200 degrees at most; thereby making the temperature in the ballpark, but the time it actually burned was nowhere even close to being long enough for the fire to have caused the collapse of WTC 1 or 2. Building 7 has even more problems because it was never hit by a plane at all. Therefore, there was zero jet fuel, and the damage was isolated external damage; this makes it impossible for the building to have collapsed. While building 7 did burn for a much greater amount of time then either Tower 1 or 2, the problem is that building seven didn't have jet fuel burning, so the intensity of the fire was completely the result of office supplies burning; this will not bring down a building. Also, the structural damage was isolated to the one corner of the building, but in the video of the collapse, the center core of the building falls first -this is how building fall to fall into their footprint. The center core needs to go first, thereby pulling the external walls inward and then they collapse, and the result is an implosion as opposed to an explosion.

Now, the pentagon is completely different. Only the heaviest parts of the plane were able to penetrate the extremely thick and strong outer walls of the building thus a small hole relative to the size of the plane. Also the windows on the pentagon were security glass, and very thick, even so if you look at the photos, you can see the shape of the airplane wings in the pattern of the windows that were blown out in the impact. As you suspect, the wings did not penetrate, but largely collapse/ turn to dust on or near the exterior. The fuel in the wings burned mostly on the outside of the building, and inside the first ring where it was able to enter through blown out windows but was mostly contained to a small area. For this reason the fire was somewhat localized and much easier to fight, but the difference is mostly in the construction of the building. Whereas the WTC towers were built with cost and market considerations in mind, the pentagon was built by the US government with basically limitless military funds, and so was designed to withstand a nuke which it might actually have reasonably needed to do when it was under construction.

Again if the wings were sheered off by the outer wall of the Pentagon, then why weren't the wings found right there? If a commercial airliner could do that much damage, then it(the Pentagon) certainly wasn't designed for any great impact of anything.

Also, the construction of your model as described is in no way an accurate model of the buildings in question, your experiment would show nothing of value. In order to have something of value from the experiment you'd need to do a very faithful scale model recreation of the building in question, and the damage suffered.

Actually, the experiment does what it is suppose to do, and that is to demonstrate that when a small section of a building collapses onto a much larger section of the very same building -with identical construction, the larger section will not collapse due to the mass of the smaller section; especially when the distance traversed by the smaller section is an even smaller length of the building. The small section of the building fell at most 4 floors, this would have never been a great enough distance to generate the kind of momentum needed to make the preceding 80+ floors simultaneously collapse.

The freefall numbers you give are actually what you would expect in a collapse situation.

When and individual drops any item of significant mass and distance unobstructed, the item falls at or near 9.81 meters per second -Free Fall. If something were to be placed between the item falling and the ground where the item will naturally come to rest, then the average rate of declination -ie velocity- over the entire distance the item fell will be significantly lower than 9.81 meters per second; to think or expect otherwise is unprofessional. 8.0 meters per second and over indicates very little, to zero, in the form of resistance; this is not a real wold scenario concerning real objects with significant mass, traversing a significant distance.

As previously pointed out you will of course believe what you are predisposed to believe, but in my professional (yes I said professional I am one of those dang engineers)opinion the damage and manner of collapse of the buildings is more or less exactly what I would expect to occur given the situation.

I'm sorry but if you _in your professional opinion- think that a small subsection of a building will fall through 80= floors of the same building and fall at or near Free-Fall velocity, then I certainly wouldn't want you engineering any building that I may be inside or any bridge that I may be on.

That being said, I am open to the belief that some insiders may have known some sort of ttack was being planned, if they didn't they were worthless. However there is no indication they were aware of the potential scale of the attack, or privy to any information relating to timelines or specific targets. If you want a governement conspiracy, look to the response by our dear legislators and president in rushing through legislation on the back of the tragedy. I also find it odd that none of the clear constitutional violations inherent in the PATRIOT act have ever been heard by the supreme court...that to me sugests that someone(s) in high places is making sure such a case (probably because they think these powers are really necessary to protect us, not because they are sinister) is not heard.

The PATRIOT Act is not there to protect you; it was first introduced into the Senate by Joe Biden in 1995 it was called the Omnibus Counter Terrorism Act. It was originally written by as early as 1991 and it failed in 1993 when the RAND Corporation -which wrote the Bill- tried to get a law maker to introduce it into congress. If you think that the PATRIOT Act might actually exist as a positive as opposed to a negative, then you seriously are still asleep. Also, you will believe what you are predisposed to believe; which just so happens to be that the government is -for the most part- good.

Explain, how is it possible for people with degrees, from some of the most prestigious Universities and Colleges from around the world, are inept; and how all of these anomalies of ineptitude all manage to get into government work. If that is in fact true, then that is just as much reason as conspiracy to get rid of government.

Sorry Mr. Nystrom but people

Sorry Mr. Nystrom but people ARE responsible for their beliefs.

Michael Nystrom's picture

How so?

As far as I can tell, people believe what they want to believe out of self interest.

There are different poles that people align themselves with. Around here, the poles are ideological. They are freedom based, because we all came here because of Ron Paul. But now everything begins to bifurcate. Even the freedom message that brought us together begins to divide. Prominent divisions:

- Conservatives vs. Libertarians
- Libertarians vs. Anarchists

There are few big government folk around here. However, many people favor certain programs of the government. I know Ron Paul guys who love Section 8. They love getting the high rent, renting out to the deadbeats on the Government dole.

This is out of integrity. No wonder Jimmy can't stand himself.

What's it going to take for Jimmy to change his mind? He'll get to a point where he can't live with himself. Because he cares. He's not one of the crass people who don't care. There definitely are those. But Jimmy knows its wrong, and he does it anyway.

He's the classic example of a Libertarian with issues: Libertarians who are dependent on the system.

As long as you are dependent on the system, you're never (obviously) independent.

- - - - - - - -

Which is a long way of illustrating my belief that beliefs are an expression of evolution. They grow and morph and change based on environment and exposure.

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

I recently learned that there is no real "truth"

, there is only what serves you. So you won't believe what doesn't serve you at the present time. There may be an actual "truth" but it doesn't really matter because you only believe what you think you need to believe at that given time.

I personally was not all that anti-government when first out of college just before 9/11 occurred. I ate up the government story and towed the America can do no wrong line because it was low hanging fruit.

I eventually married a Brazilian girl that gave me some insight into how the world see's the US and why they see us that way. That gave me some pause and forced me to look at things a little differently since I wanted things to work out with her. Not that I had to agree with her to be with her, but I knew there was a gap between us and I was the one who didn't want to see her point of view while she always accommodated mine.

Anyway, the evolution of belief began then and continues to evolve to this day.

So the question to ask yourself is not about what proof you have to back up your belief. The question is how are you being served by the belief you have currently. If you can figure out how you can be better served by an alternate belief then the evidence may look different to you at that time.

It currently serves me to not buy the official story. But at one point in my life the official story served me well.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Where did you learn that?

Just curious.

I basically came to the same conclusion as a result of this thread.

Isn't it amazing what interacting with foreigners does? Especially on an intimate basis as with a lover. You learn a lot about the other side, and it sure is interesting!

So the question to ask yourself is not about what proof you have to back up your belief. The question is how are you being served by the belief you have currently.

Everyone can find proof. They can just make it up out of thin air and believe it. Then the other side says, "That is not proof. Here is my proof." It is a self-reinforcing cycle, like the two party system. Aiding it is to add energy to that tornado. Not just from your own side, but from your opposite. Opposites attract. Going in aggressively only makes it a bigger fight.

- - - - - - -

An interesting question to ponder is, what will we think of these beliefs at the moment of death. Will they serve us in the world beyond, wherever the hell that is?

Or thought of another way - what story will serve you well on your deathbed?

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

A conversation with my wife

is where I picked up on the concept of self-serving beliefs. She's been reading and listening to this one spiritual adviser type person and the general idea is that everyone is doing the best they can at that given time. To anyone other than that person it may seem like they are acting less-than or more-than they should but that is all relative to how that person views them-self and not how the actual person is seeing it.

I'm still noodling with it but I think I'm getting it and its making some sense where other things weren't.

So reacting negatively, or I even suppose positively, is always a projection of your own self and not the person you are interacting with. So I can't be upset about an idea like 911 Truth or even somebody who doesn't buy into it at least at some level because anything other than accepting where they are at would be a reaction to how I see myself. And I'm ok with my view point on it and also ok with somebody that believes otherwise.

I can still ask a question about physics just to see if there is something I'm missing but that is often fruitless as well.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Wives are good like that

I came to my conclusion with a similar conversation.

Who is the spiritual adviser person you're listening to. The ones I've enjoyed are: Tony Robbins (I would count him as a spiritual adviser, on one level), Jack Canfield (same), Deepak Chopra, and Eckhart Tolle, off the top of my head.

What you say is all correct and true.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe that what is "self serving" follows any sort of evolutionary pattern? Or is it just kind of random?

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

Truth and beliefs are totally different things

People have had all kinds of beliefs about the shape and structure of the Earth, for example, but the truth is, it's a sphere. It doesn't really serve anyone to believe it, it just is. There was a time when believing the Earth was spherical served no one but it continued to be spherical. The truth is that rock-solid foundation that just is, no matter what people believe. Beliefs change, truth is constant.

Michael Nystrom's picture

It does serve us

It serves everyone to believe the earth is a sphere. This gives us all a common frame of reference, and that is foundational to our ability to communicate with one another. Though we may all disagree on other things, we can all - hopefully - believe in this. It is our scientific, creation myth - or at least it springs from it.

Earlier in that myth is the big bang. Not too different from Christianity, when you think about it. First there was nothing, then there was something, which came from that nothing. Which isn't too different from Buddhism or Taoism, or Hinduism for that matter.

Beliefs change, truth is constant.

This is a very important distinction. To which I would like to add:

Beliefs may or may not have any actual relationship to truth.

To this I'm tempted to add, "...and there is no possible way to know when beliefs are tethered to truth, and when they are not."

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

Michael, don't feed the

Michael, don't feed the trolls.

Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.

Feed the trolls?

You're such a jerk. Get over yourself.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Mike did that really piss you off? That is funny.

This is another one of those automatic reflex spots that I mentioned around here somewhere. Like when the doctor hits your knee, and you involuntarily kick.

Continuing our conversation, I would like to add: You are not your beliefs and you are not your emotions. That is something that is easy to forget.

Imagine that you’re lazily floating along a river in your boat. It’s a peaceful day, and you’re leaning back, watching the clouds dance in a blue sky and are lulled into a meditative state by the easy flow of the boat on the water and songs of the birds in the trees on the shore. Then, abruptly, another boat bangs into yours, jarring you out of your reverie.

Your immediate assumption is that the person guiding the other boat has intentionally hit yours, and you descend into anger and turn to defend yourself, and possibly retaliate. Turning, you see that it’s an empty boat that has come unmoored and, quite by accident, run into yours.

The teaching behind this story is that empty boats are everywhere, including that comment you just responded to. Ha ha ha.

The trick to consciousness is catching yourself before the automatic impulse kicks in.

Source:
http://www.patobryan.com/blog/empty-boats

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

Thanks Michael

It was the first thing I saw this morning. You're right though. Stepping back is always a good thing. I thought we had stopped calling each other trolls around here, especially old members.

There is truth and then there

There is truth and then there are degrees of certainty. You can believe what you want but you invite ridicule if you have no basis and ulterior motives for your beliefs.

Mr. Nystrom, you have

Mr. Nystrom, you have probably lived long enough to know that absolutely any point of view can be rationalized to some degree. That does not mean that all viewpoints have equal merit.

We have different standards of merit. Experimental data, Peer reviewed scientific studies, forensic evidence, archaeological evidence , computer simulations etc.

Hearsay is the lowest form of evidence and that is precisely what most conspiracy theories as well as religions are based on. Thus, I consider them fair game for questioning. Your beliefs should be founded on evidence otherwise you fall into an abyss of ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.

Michael Nystrom's picture

I agree completely!

Don't get me wrong.

Hearsay is the lowest form of evidence and that is precisely what most conspiracy theories as well as religions are based on.

I agree completely. And for whatever reason, that is what makes them so interesting to people. It is at the root of, "That's what she said."

Thus, I consider them fair game for questioning. Your beliefs should be founded on evidence otherwise you fall into an abyss of ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.

Conspiracy theories are fair game. That, in fact, is the only game. That is what makes them entertaining. Seeing how people achieved their thought process. Not all conspiracy theorists are created equal!

Religion also, to a certain extent, but questioning it is not something I engage in. Religion is near and dear to people's hearts; they believe what they believe - end of story. To try to "wake them up" is to try to free a mind from the matrix when it is not ready.

At some point, everyone is willing to listen to the ultimate truth.

But waiting is.

- - - - - - - -

So I agree with you when you say:

Your beliefs should be founded on evidence otherwise you fall into an abyss of ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.

But what I'm saying is that "evidence" can look either rock solid or gooey soft, depending on where you're sitting. And where anyone is sitting at any given time is not a matter of choice. Not exactly.

In other words, in an evolutionary process, you have to go through each stage. Are you "responsible" for the stage you're at? Not really - it is just a reflection of being a part of the system.

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

I understand where you are

I understand where you are coming from but I gave up this form of fatalism a long time ago. A little bit of intellectual dishonesty that I am guilty of as well.

Free will may be an illusion, but the lack of it is so alien to human experience that I cannot bring myself to accept it.

Michael Nystrom's picture

So then don't accept it

Don't accept it, and don't not accept it. Try doing that. That is also alien to human experience.

Seems we've always got to be one or the other: Either black or white, a believer or a non-believer, a free willist or a fatalist. It is the dualistic nature of the condition known as humanity, that's all.

Step outside of that paradigm. Free will or not? It is not one or the other, but both, and neither.

Try wrapping your noodle around that one.

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

I like it

Michael, I enjoy when you have a back and forth exchange with people, and this is an interesting one.
My two cents:
Evidence is great, but I am wary of what Bastiat cautioned us:
Do not hand over your own authority to an "expert". Do not be afraid of your own opinion. Trust in your own intellect even in the face of a case well made by others. It is called common sense.
In other words: dust off your Bulls--t Meter and keep it in good working order!
: )

"Any government that is big enough to give everything you need is also strong enough to take it all away."

The world is too specialized

The world is too specialized to know everything for yourself.

Do you check each individual aeroplane part when you take a flight? No, you trust to the experts.

Your evidence of flight safety is one based on statistics and trust in experts to do their job.

I couldn't comment on the safety of a nuclear power plant because I am not a nuclear physicist. I can only go by what experts on both sides say and weighing the evidence.

I generally ignore the

I generally ignore the question. Goes too far beyond what we know to be resolved at the moment.

What you suggest sounds like a fun mental exercise but I have NO idea how to go about it.