View Single Post
Old 09-20-2010, 06:18 PM   #112
ShortNCuddlyAm
WWHALD
ShortNCuddlyAm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ShortNCuddlyAm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ShortNCuddlyAm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ShortNCuddlyAm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ShortNCuddlyAm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ShortNCuddlyAm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ShortNCuddlyAm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ShortNCuddlyAm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ShortNCuddlyAm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ShortNCuddlyAm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ShortNCuddlyAm ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
ShortNCuddlyAm's Avatar
 
Posts: 7,879
Karma: 337114
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Mitcham, Surrey, UK
Device: iPad. Selling my silver 505 here
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT View Post
It's the difference between saying "I think fairies are a load of superstitious claptrap and, as a rational person, I don't believe in them" and "nobody has presented me with any evidence to support the existance of fairies, therefore I have no reason to believe in them". The first is an active act of "non-belief", the second is simply not having any reason to believe.

I think myself that these are entirely different viewpoints.
That's my take on it, too. I look at active disbelief as something an inverse Duchess from Alice might do, disbelieving in 6 improbable(*) things before breakfast. The second is probably far more common - there are lots of things we don't believe in because there's not any/enough evidence to, but which we don't give a moment of thought to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilmarr View Post
***Have you looked at the quiz referenced? It's really quite fascinating! ***

Agreed, Harry. I did take a hit because the question about Peter Sutcliffe was ambiguous. (I covered the murders and his trial, by the way and interviewed the family and friends of victims as well has his own family and friends [with the exception of wife, Sonia].)

I took the question to mean: Did Sutcliffe, as a demanted beliver, feel that his actions were justified?

Certainly he did. Certainly I do not. But I answered 'yes, he was justified.' But he was justified only in the same way as a virgin-sacrificing potty sect or a manic suicide bomber in a packed McDonalds might be ... only according to his/her own insane delusions.

Cheers. Neil
That was one of the questions that really made me think before I answered it. I initially read it the same way - did Sutcliffe feel his beliefs justified his actions? As he seemed to, I was going to answer yes, but then I thought back to the previous questions about morality existing without god, and basing one's world view on internal convictions not external evidence; and decided otherwise.


(* Yes, I know the duchess believed in 6 impossible things, but improbable fits better)
ShortNCuddlyAm is offline