What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?

[OwnLogic]

Hi Guys

Thanks for the replies

I really do appreciate them, it seems im selling like popcorn in a Sunday night movie

Anyway, ill try answering everyone one by one so that there wont be much confusion. I just hope i could answer all of you before my next tabulation hour starts.
Here we go;

Jdawg First

Believe First and You will See
<snip>
Some say, Trust or Confidence is what you give in Business and Not Belief.
How do you trust something or have confidence in something you absolutely dont believe in?
Would you really put your money out on a business you dont believe would work?
I wont

Your business analogy is lacking.  You are describing belief in a manner that is synonymous with 'confidence' or 'trust'.  What you are talking about in your analogy describes a situation of believing in the value proposition of widget x and believing in the business model behind selling widget x.

I ask - does widget x exist?  You then proceed to tell me all of the great things widget x does, and how great your business of selling widget x is going to do.  Alright...but does widget x exist?

I believe that a ray gun that cured cancer would be wonderful.  I believe that a business selling this ray gun could make a fortune with even a poorly defined business plan.  Does any of that matter if the ray gun that cured cancer doesn't exist?

First of all its not being synonymous that im saying here but, belief first, then comes trust and confidence. Thats why my question is;
How do you trust something or have confidence in something you absolutely dont believe in?

Your statement here implies that you admire the idea of widget x's existence and sale-ability under the proposition that widget x doesnt exist. Thats a very wrong position, business-wise and otherwise.

Another postulated that before you enter a business, you study it first, gather data, etc. And the moment you do that, youre already past the Believing Before Seeing part.

Please tell me how on Earth you convinced a bank to loan you money with this 'no need to do due diligence' plan of yours.  Please tell me who this bank is, and let me know if they are looking for new customers.

Please read the first 3 words... "Another postulated that..." ...then tell the guy who postulated that with that reply you gave me. Thanks

I ought to thank you for implying that you believed first before doing the research, by saying you are "past" that.
But I still have a question left about that;
During the times of gathering the data for the Feasibility Study for the preparation of your business, is your business already there? I think not yet, right?

Um.  No, my business isn't there.  My hope that my business will start and become successful is there.

Seriously...we have the word hope - it's right the hell there in the dictionary.  We use it in common discourse all of the time.  You clearly mean hope whenever you use the word belief.

Or, if you don't simply mean hope, please explain what you do mean with the word belief.

Oh yes Hope, would you put your Hope over something you dont believe can produce what you hope for?
How can you hope for something you dont believe you can have?

Maybe you meant Wish.

Anyway thanks for that reply, ill be proceeding with answering the others in a few moment. Please bear with me

[bertatberts]

Hi Guys

Thanks for the replies

I really do appreciate them, it seems im selling like popcorn in a Sunday night movie

Well that would be because, we cant understand how you can be so wrong in everything. You have yet to make a coherent statement.

How do you trust something or have confidence in something you absolutely dont believe in?

By studying the evidence for said thing.

Please read the first 3 words... "Another postulated that..." ...then tell the guy who postulated that with that reply you gave me. Thanks

This is, what is called a dodge, and it isn't acceptable, answer the question.

Oh yes Hope, would you put your Hope over something you dont believe can produce what you hope for?

Hope is something religious or gullible people do.

How can you hope for something you dont believe you can have?

You don't hope, it would be pointless.

[OwnLogic]

Next comes Median's first Reply

here we go;

Believe First and You will See
Many got lost over the long post and forgot the thought;
"If you dont believe you can, you cant, coz you wont"

When I discussed about my business, Some say, "no its not true", "no thats not how it works" or "thats how cons work".

First, id like to say it works, and im thankful coz it works that way, otherwise if it doesnt, id be broke and a lot of people would be suing me.
Another thing, I dont make business proposals, I go to the prospect partner which i believe would need my business and tell him straight the basic thing he need to know, which is how he would earn. If he believes the system, then we start working and he start earning if he doesnt, i leave him alone for a while, I come back again when I think hes ready. Coz I believe everyone wants to earn, some are just not ready yet.

Some say, Trust or Confidence is what you give in Business and Not Belief.
How do you trust something or have confidence in something you absolutely dont believe in?
Would you really put your money out on a business you dont believe would work?
I wont

Another postulated that before you enter a business, you study it first, gather data, etc. And the moment you do that, youre already past the Believing Before Seeing part.

I ought to thank you for implying that you believed first before doing the research, by saying you are "past" that.
But I still have a question left about that;
During the times of gathering the data for the Feasibility Study for the preparation of your business, is your business already there? I think not yet, right?

First, can you please address us individually, and not with these giant posts that don't quote our words? You keep misrepresenting what we have said and I think it's b/c you are trying to tackle everyone at once. So, learn how to use the quote function here and address us one by one, please.

Ok I will try to answer you all individually.

1. You say, "It works" in regards to just believing a business proposition before seeing it. Do you really believe a business proposition before seeing it, or do you TEST it? If someone brings you a business proposition, you begin to test it, and if it fails would you say that you actually believed it completely or that you were withholding judgment until you got the test results? Trying something out doesn't imply belief. It is quite foolish to "believe" in a business model you haven't had the opportunity to test.  So no, we do not "believe before seeing". On the contrary, we place tentative trust AFTER the testing and not before.

Nope, I say "it works" meaning "my business works" and im not talking about the "business proposition" is what one would be believing before seeing but the business itself. A proposition or business model is all words and numbers, its not a business yet, so you cant really see the business yet because it isnt there yet, but would you believe the business?

Would you do it if you dont believe it will ever work?(question unanswered)
If you would still do it despite the fact that you dont believe it would ever work out then thats weird. Really?

As Ive said "If you dont believe you can, You cant coz you wont"

Testing is already the act of doing it, still comes around the question would you waste your time testing something you believe wont ever work?

2. You don't make business proposals? Yes you do, in verbal form. And if your "proposal" is one that you are claiming works for everyone, then that claim can be tested. No, not by a self-test but by actual research under controlled conditions. Are you arguing that your business works for everyone (like you're arguing that your religion does)? Also, you claim "if he believes in the system" and I'm arguing that such an idea is foolish. Tentative trust (under trial) is NOTHING like "believing before seeing" like you are trying to use for your god belief because, again, there is demonstrable evidence that can be provided for businesses - not so for your Yahweh belief.

Actually, In my way, dont propose the business, i just explain the system and what the result would be, the guy sees the system and asks if he could be part of it and how, if he doesnt ask that, i wont bother asking him if he wants to be part of it. Its easier and much more productive to work with people who are interested, faster results.

3. Businesses that put their money out on a risk, without doing any research or homework, don't last. That is called FOOLISH. And this was my earlier point (which you failed to address). Once research begins, your idea of "believing before seeing" makes no sense. I can run a business (i.e. - test it) without believing that it will succeed. And if the business starts going south, I can (and will) bail out! Will you bail out if you discover your Jesus beliefs are based in irrational arguments? B/c this is exactly what I would do if your business model was based on faulty reasoning.

Tell me, would you trust in my business proposal (and financially invest significant money in it) if it was completely irrational? I think not, and this is why your example is a failed analogy.

Then dont put their money at risk in the first place, when they put out their money, give them products and services that is Value For Their Money, so ROI is immediate, no risk, not Foolish.

Now when it comes to Jesus, i wonder why your reply is so Jesus-centric, what do you have against the man really?

The Bibles words i treat as a system for my life to follow, i believe it so i do it and it works.
Some would go all too philosophical and ask if "would you kill your son if god asks you to?"
Im saying that kind of remark shows they just dont get it. Its simply an extreme example of obedience.

People tend to concentrate on the details of the story and forget all about the things that could be learned from it.
I have proven this in actuality here in this thread. I gave an extreme example and the replies came with Personal Attacks, but the guy who seems to be master of Logical Fallacies dare not say anything against it. Why? because he too is so into the details of the story and not at the idea being conveyed.

4. Businesses are demonstrable. Your God Yahweh is not. And I did NOT (in any way) imply that "believing" in a business came before seeing the results of a test. This is what you seem to be incapable of wrapping your mind around. Ever hear of a person who said, "I believed wholeheartedly that my business would succeed, but it failed." This happens all the time. People get themselves into bad/irrational business ventures (and they believe it will work) but it fails. Ever see Kitchen Nightmares with Gordon Ramsey? People believe in irrational nonsense all the time, and this is a perfect example of your Christianity - irrational nonsense.

Based on your sentence:  "I believed wholeheartedly that my business would succeed, but it failed."

Question: Did that person Believe or Not?

Have you also heard of people who Believed they will succeed and they did gain Success later on?
Theres more people like that.

Here's some:
***Believe you can and you're halfway there.
-- Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore "T.R." Roosevelt, Jr. was the 26th President of the United States.

***If you believe you can, you probably can. If you believe you won't, you most assuredly won't. Belief is the ignition switch that gets you off the launching pad.
-- Denis Waitley
Denis E. Waitley (born 1933), is an American motivational speaker and writer, consultant and best-selling author.

Now maybe they're wrong and you are right, is that it?

So basically, your words and your actions don't line up here. On one hand you SAY that you "believe before seeing" but if that was the case you would believe (and invest in) an irrational business model (like you are doing with your Christianity). All things are possible right! But you don't do that, and neither does nearly any successful business person. We follow the evidence and reject the irrational. Have you done that with your religion? I think not.

So if you are pennyless and say you have a great business idea, you're going to start a business and i'd be the financier, you tell me that your business would earn me millions if i finance it, you are saying that I should be asking you to show me the millions first as evidence that it would indeed earn me millions before i release you the money to start it up? Thats irrational.

Found this on the internet; Theres a small businessman, trying to earn a few hundreds a day. He had the idea of a feasible business and decided to borrow around $300,000 to start it up. Now he is a Multimillionaire approx 140 Million Dollars Net Worth as of June last year. His name, Edgar Sia II.

If the person he borrowed from didnt believe his idea and asked for evidence(that it will earn) first, which he cant supply, i wonder where he would be now.

Or maybe this guy's story is Wrong and your idea of "But you don't do that, and neither does nearly any successful business person." is Correct, is that it?

Ill answer the next post later after T-Time, got to go for now

[Anfauglir]

Believe First and You will See
Many got lost over the long post and forgot the thought;
"If you dont believe you can, you cant, coz you wont"

Except those two thoughts are not synonymous.

The first implies that without the belief, you will not be able to understand.
The second says that without belief in abilities, you will not succeed.

They are similar thoughts, I agree - but demonstrably NOT the same thing.

In the first case, your point seems to be that there is some additional aspect of understanding that only comes with belief.  That you could explain until you are blue in the face about your particular god, but that we will be unable to grasp it unless we first believe it exists.

I ask you: what is this mystical extra information that only comes when you believe something exists?

For example: I can describe to you in great detail how the great god Atum operates.  I can explain his motives, his appearance, his history, his powers.  And you - being an intelligent person - would be able to understand and build up a clear mental picture of Atum.....despite not believing he existed.  You would be able to articulate what you would expect Atum to do in a particular situation, despite your belief that both Atum and the situation are hypothetical.  Same as you would be able to describe what YOUR god would do in a particular situation, despite you only thinking that the situation was hypothetical.

So I ask again: what is this mystical extra information that only comes when you believe something exists?

In your second case, you are talking about the application of an ability, dependent on your confidence in that ability.  I quite agree that there is often a psychological aspect to full use of a talent, where "belief in oneself" is required to perform at maximum.  If you don't believe you can jump that hurdle, you probably won't be able to, even if you have the physical stamina and strength to do so. 

But belief in ability does NOT equate to understanding.  You are conflating confidence in an ability, with understanding of a proposition - a trick we often see believers try to pull. 

What you are actually trying to say, with your second analogous statement, is "you have to believe in my god, before you will be able to have the ability to believe in my god" - which makes NO sense whatsoever.  At least the first statement, "you have to believe in my god before you can fully understand my god" has a grain of logic behind it.

But for it to make any kind of sense, I have to ask once again......what is this mystical extra understanding that only comes when you believe something exists?

[DT]

Its been a while. quick question
Does the non existence of intelligent life on other planets mean that evolution could be a fallacy, or does an atheist "believe" or is confident that one day, in some way these other planets will be able to become like earth? - and if the latter is true is this believing before seeing? We talk about reality a lot on this forum and I can appreciate that, and my argument is if mutations happen and evolution from mutation happens, why is it not happening (other planets)?

Well, you havent thought this question all the way through. We dont know what is actually on planets out of our reach. You are assuming there is no life on the planets we know about based on incomplete evidence. Also, as for the planets we CAN reach and have reached, does the fact that there is no life there NOW mean that there never was or never will be? Given the age of our planet, solar system, galaxy, and universe the timeline for human existence barely registers. And I wouldnt even be surprised if we didnt exist in a couple more thousand years... all the while destroying earths ability to sustain life. Then in a million years a spaceship from a planet weve yet to discover flies by and see's the dead planet earth and concludes they are and have been the only life in the universe.

So I reject your question as you havent even the slightest bit of information to make the claim. Unlike your god which is easily dismissed based on the wealth of information we actually do possess.

Nor do you have the information, so there is no need to dismiss the question. If you honestly "believe" life some where else is possible state that, because that's all I'm asking. My thought is if everything, solar system, other planets started around the same time, with roughly the same material, then the theory of evolution should be able to exist on planets that we can reach. and so I am curious as to why there may not be, as I suppose those that live in reality maybe as well.

[Dante]

My thought is if everything, solar system, other planets started around the same time, with roughly the same material, then the theory of evolution should be able to exist on planets that we can reach. and so I am curious as to why there may not be, as I suppose those that live in reality maybe as well.

Short answer? Yes, the ToE should be applicable in extraterrestrial situations as well. That's not to say that any life forms would evolve exactly as life on earth did, obviously, but there will be evidence of adaptations and mutations. Should we find higher life that hasn't evolved, at all, we would likely have to rethink the theory.

[The Gawd]

Nor do you have the information, so there is no need to dismiss the question. If you honestly "believe" life some where else is possible state that, because that's all I'm asking. My thought is if everything, solar system, other planets started around the same time, with roughly the same material, then the theory of evolution should be able to exist on planets that we can reach. and so I am curious as to why there may not be, as I suppose those that live in reality maybe as well.

I wasnt the one that said there was or wasnt life anywhere else, you were. Your question is dismiss-able because its a fatally flawed question. I dont have to "believe" that life is possible, that question has been answered, by our own existence. Whether it is elsewhere now, in the past or in the future is irrelevant to whether it is possible or even probable. And again you are assuming roughly the same material. Each planet in our solar system is different, thus expecting them to be the same is unrealistic, dont you think?

And again, what is there or isnt there now does not show what has been there or may be there in the future. Youre looking at a tiny slice of time... our 80 +/- years on this planet in comparison to the 4.5 billion years of the planets in our solar system. Humans have only been around for a tiny fraction of that time. Ask yourself if it is possible that in 4.5 billion years there may have been life on Venus that is not there any longer.... similar to how there used to be dinosaurs here, but arent any longer.

I'm not saying there was or wasnt. But its certainly not out of the question.

[bertatberts]

  My thought is if everything, solar system, other planets started around the same time, with roughly the same material, then the theory of evolution should be able to exist on planets that we can reach. and so I am curious as to why there may not be, as I suppose those that live in reality maybe as well.

That would all be dependent on the conditions being right on all the those planets, for life to take hold and then evolve. Or at least life as we know it.
Are the planets we can reach applicable for life to evolve? And if so how so? And how do you know whether they are or are not?
We have a few possibilities regard the moons round some planets, but we won't know whether they can or could have supported life for a long time.

[jaimehlers]

Nor do you have the information, so there is no need to dismiss the question. If you honestly "believe" life some where else is possible state that, because that's all I'm asking. My thought is if everything, solar system, other planets started around the same time, with roughly the same material, then the theory of evolution should be able to exist on planets that we can reach. and so I am curious as to why there may not be, as I suppose those that live in reality maybe as well.

It isn't that difficult to figure out why other planets in our solar system don't support Earth-type life.

Mercury is too close to the Sun for most kinds of life to survive, let alone prosper.

Venus is just barely too close and is suffering from a runaway greenhouse effect.  The surface temperature there is hot enough to melt lead.  As with Mercury, it's simply too hot to support most kinds of life.

Mars is just barely too far and is too cold.  Despite that, it's possible that some forms of life exist there.  At least, it's our best shot in this solar system.

Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are all gas giants that cannot support Earth-type life.  Some of their moons might be able to, but as they are also considerably further out than Mars, it's unlikely that most kinds of life could survive there.

And Pluto is simply much too far.  It gets so little energy from the Sun that it's very difficult to imagine any kind of life being able to survive there (except in some kind of spore form).

Now, if you want to talk about other solar systems, that's a different story.  Indeed, I have very little doubt that we'll find life of some kind orbiting another star sometime down the road.

[Mrjason]

Now, if you want to talk about other solar systems, that's a different story.  Indeed, I have very little doubt that we'll find life of some kind orbiting another star sometime down the road.

Just to add to this; we are already finding potential candidates for planets that could contain life - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22200476
Which is pretty good since the Kepler telescope was only launched in 2009.
Admittedly we do have a long way to go before we can confirm life but at least scientists are of the opinion that finding a habitable world outside of the solar system is indeed possible http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15863549

[naemhni]

Now, if you want to talk about other solar systems, that's a different story.  Indeed, I have very little doubt that we'll find life of some kind orbiting another star sometime down the road.

Just to add to this; we are already finding potential candidates for planets that could contain life - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22200476
Which is pretty good since the Kepler telescope was only launched in 2009.
Admittedly we do have a long way to go before we can confirm life but at least scientists are of the opinion that finding a habitable world outside of the solar system is indeed possible http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15863549

And to expand a bit further, just for kicks:

The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics says that there are "probably at least 17 billion" earth-sized exoplanets in our own galaxy.  It is also currently estimated that there are at least 170 billion galaxies in the observable universe.  If we assume that all galaxies, on average, have about the same number of earth-sized planets as our own, which is not a very risky assumption to make, that makes for a total of 2.9x10²¹ earth-sized planets in the observable universe.  By way of comparison, the total number of grains of sand on all the world's beaches is about 7.5x10¹⁸.

In sum, unless the conditions required for the creation of life are extremely rare, then the existence of life elsewhere in the universe is all but certain.

[jdawg70]

Jdawg First[/color]

Believe First and You will See
<snip>
Some say, Trust or Confidence is what you give in Business and Not Belief.
How do you trust something or have confidence in something you absolutely dont believe in?
Would you really put your money out on a business you dont believe would work?
I wont

Your business analogy is lacking.  You are describing belief in a manner that is synonymous with 'confidence' or 'trust'.  What you are talking about in your analogy describes a situation of believing in the value proposition of widget x and believing in the business model behind selling widget x.

I ask - does widget x exist?  You then proceed to tell me all of the great things widget x does, and how great your business of selling widget x is going to do.  Alright...but does widget x exist?

I believe that a ray gun that cured cancer would be wonderful.  I believe that a business selling this ray gun could make a fortune with even a poorly defined business plan.  Does any of that matter if the ray gun that cured cancer doesn't exist?

First of all its not being synonymous that im saying here but, belief first, then comes trust and confidence. Thats why my question is;
How do you trust something or have confidence in something you absolutely dont believe in?

Sorry - I think I'm just really unclear on what you mean when you use the word 'believe'.  Because the way I'm using it, the existence or non-existence of widget x is completely, unabashedly independent of whether or not I believe it.  Widget x's existence does not give a damn about how I feel about it.  At all.

I've made no determination as to whether I 'trust' or 'have confidence' in this thingie (god) you're talking about.  I'm wondering if it/he/she exists.  Once existence is established then I can start to make judgment calls as to whether or not I 'trust' the thingie.

[jdawg70]

Another postulated that before you enter a business, you study it first, gather data, etc. And the moment you do that, youre already past the Believing Before Seeing part.

Please tell me how on Earth you convinced a bank to loan you money with this 'no need to do due diligence' plan of yours.  Please tell me who this bank is, and let me know if they are looking for new customers.

Please read the first 3 words... "Another postulated that..." ...then tell the guy who postulated that with that reply you gave me. Thanks

Ummm...yes, another postulated that you do your due diligence.  I'm under the impression that you reject that postulate.  My snide comment was in response to your rejection of it.  If I misunderstood that I apologize and we can drop that - but please clearly state that you agree that, yes, before you enter a business, you should study it first and gather data.

I'll wait for your explanation of what you mean when you say 'believe' before commenting on the 'Believing before Seeing' part of your post.

[median]

RESPONSE TO OwnLogic - PART I

Nope, I say "it works" meaning "my business works" and im not talking about the "business proposition" is what one would be believing before seeing but the business itself. A proposition or business model is all words and numbers, its not a business yet, so you cant really see the business yet because it isnt there yet, but would you believe the business?

You really need to stop changing the definition of the term "believe" b/c here you are talking about faith - believing even though you have no good reason to. That's what you're talking about right? You want the people you approach to just believe they can "earn" and start working, right?

Secondly, what is a business without numbers, propositions, models, databases, or information? You can say to me, "It sells itself!" all day long and it would be utterly foolish to believe (and invest $10k) without having seen any results or demonstrable evidence.

Would you do it if you dont believe it will ever work?(question unanswered)
If you would still do it despite the fact that you dont believe it would ever work out then thats weird. Really?

As Ive said "If you dont believe you can, You cant coz you wont"

As I said before, testing is different than believing - and you keep switching the definition of "believe" midstream (which is a logical fallacy). On one hand you keep referring to believing something when you have no good reason to, and on the other you are referring to placing tentative trust in something (one's self, the evidence, etc).

Testing is already the act of doing it, still comes around the question would you waste your time testing something you believe wont ever work?

Once again, stop using two different definitions for the same term "believe". It is irrational and therefore invalid.

Second, IF (and only if) I somehow became interested in your business proposition, AND I had not been given sufficient reason to move forward with a preliminary trial of the model (ex - XYZ multi-level-marketing-scheme) then no, I wouldn't waste my time. This is what you are missing. Placing tentative trust in a specific phenomena, or merely having an hypothesis, (such as a business model) and then TESTING that hypothesis (with the willingness to drop it quickly should it fail scrutiny) is NOTHING like the faith (believing before seeing) you keep talking about. They are entirely different, and that is your fallacy.

Actually, In my way, dont propose the business, i just explain the system and what the result would be, the guy sees the system and asks if he could be part of it and how, if he doesnt ask that, i wont bother asking him if he wants to be part of it. Its easier and much more productive to work with people who are interested, faster results.

HAHA, of course it's easy to sell people when they're gullible and don't do their homework. Duh! But these people to which you are selling the business model would be fools if they didn't ask questions and gain some accurate information regarding the model (and it's success rate, or lack thereof). Now, if you are selling a business model that doesn't require an initial investment (i.e. - the stakes aren't that high) then SO WHAT! But this now has nothing in common with your Jesus analogy. There's nothing to put your trust in (no person), except an old book you believed from the outset (not like your business model which requires placing trust in the demonstrable business and persons). And your religion requires full-commitment from the outset (life altering dedication) without of which there is the threat of eternal torture. Are you threatening to torture people if they don't accept your business proposition? Again, you have a false analogy. You are not comparing apples to apples here.

Then dont put their money at risk in the first place, when they put out their money, give them products and services that is Value For Their Money, so ROI is immediate, no risk, not Foolish.

Now when it comes to Jesus, i wonder why your reply is so Jesus-centric, what do you have against the man really?

Because that is the analogy you are trying to draw!! You are trying to argue that your "believing before seeing" in business is just like your "believing before seeing [evidence]" in Jesus, but they are nothing alike. Are you giving your business proposition to people via the avenue of a mere written document? Are you requiring that they accept it, or reject it, through telepathy? Are you claiming that your business model is the ONLY WAY that works? Are you threatening torture if they reject it? No?

This is why you are have a false analogy and should just drop it now, b/c it fails miserably to accurately reflect how your religion (which was once my religion for nearly 20 years) operates. It is nothing like a demonstrable business. It makes extraordinary supernatural claims (nothing like a business) and requires dedication for life (not like business).

The Bibles words i treat as a system for my life to follow, i believe it so i do it and it works.
Some would go all too philosophical and ask if "would you kill your son if god asks you to?"
Im saying that kind of remark shows they just dont get it. Its simply an extreme example of obedience.

Let me ask you something. If I joined your business but only followed part (less than half) of the things I was supposed to be doing in the business, would I still be considered as a "true believer" in the business? What if I just ignored things in the business that were inconvenient to me, things that seemed irrational or too difficult (like cold calling, cold selling, or email spamming, etc)? Would I still be all good in the business?

This is what you are doing with Christianity. Do you practice slavery? Do you stone your unruly children? Do you stone homosexuals? Have you sold all of your possessions to follow Jesus? Do you love your enemies and do good to those who persecute you? The bible is not your guide. Only part of the bible you choose to follow (the bits you find convenient and that make you feel comfortable), but that is cherry-picking, not truly following. If you did that in business, your business would fail. But the most interesting part about it is that you have no Jesus, around here, telling you what to do. You just have an ancient book that a bunch of other people in your family/society believe, and that you assumed was true without checking it out first. Again, that is nothing like good business.

Is it a good thing to be gullible and practice credulity?

[median]

RESPONSE TO OwnLogic - PART II

People tend to concentrate on the details of the story and forget all about the things that could be learned from it.
I have proven this in actuality here in this thread. I gave an extreme example and the replies came with Personal Attacks, but the guy who seems to be master of Logical Fallacies dare not say anything against it. Why? because he too is so into the details of the story and not at the idea being conveyed.

So, let's see if your words actually line up with your actions. To keep with your analogy, how about if I presented you with a business opportunity but wouldn't give you any details of "the story"? "Don't concentrate on the details", I say. "Your initial investment would have to be your entire life savings but you would gain wealth beyond your wildest dreams afterward!" Would you accept the offer and give me your life savings? This is, again, why your analogy fails.

As the old saying goes, "The devil's in the details." So no, you can't ignore the details regarding your religion - especially when there's so much at stake. Do you think Warren Buffet ignores the details? I'm sorry, but you are just flat out wrong here.

Based on your sentence:  "I believed wholeheartedly that my business would succeed, but it failed."

Question: Did that person Believe or Not?

Have you also heard of people who Believed they will succeed and they did gain Success later on?
Theres more people like that.

You are quite mistaken, again. There are more businesses that fail then those that succeed (in numerous categories).

http://www.statisticbrain.com/startup-failure-by-industry/

Secondly, the person in my scenario who said, "I believed the business would succeed" was doing what you are advocating - which I reject (i.e. - having "faith" in a business instead of doing the hard work and analysis from the beginning). What's more, businesses are demonstrable. Yahweh/Jesus is not. We can demonstrable successful/unsuccessful businesses. You cannot demonstrate your deity god thing. So they are nothing alike.

Here's some:
***Believe you can and you're halfway there.
-- Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore "T.R." Roosevelt, Jr. was the 26th President of the United States.

***If you believe you can, you probably can. If you believe you won't, you most assuredly won't. Belief is the ignition switch that gets you off the launching pad.
-- Denis Waitley
Denis E. Waitley (born 1933), is an American motivational speaker and writer, consultant and best-selling author.

Now maybe they're wrong and you are right, is that it?

So you think people are right just because of who they are - or what is attached to their name? That is called an Argument from Authority. It's a logical fallacy and it fails. If something is right, it's right regardless of who said it. The term "believe" that you keep using above is, once again, an equivocation and doesn't accurately describe the type of "believing" you are talking about. Again, you keep using this term "believe" with two different meanings.

Try this on for size, "If you believe 2+2=5, then if probably is." Sound good? How about this one, "Believe that right and wrong mean the same thing, and they probably do" Right?

You are falling prey to irrational thinking. You aren't being critically minded when it comes to your religion (where you would be critically minded elsewhere) and that is the problem. You are being inconsistent, and that shows that you have a double standard.

So if you are pennyless and say you have a great business idea, you're going to start a business and i'd be the financier, you tell me that your business would earn me millions if i finance it, you are saying that I should be asking you to show me the millions first as evidence that it would indeed earn me millions before i release you the money to start it up? Thats irrational.

What you just described is irrational. But that is not what I said. So you are misrepresenting my argument. What I said was, if you bought into a business model without investigating it (i.e. - "believing without seeing") then you would be a fool. Let's say (as you said) that I'm poor but I have a business model, however the model sounds completely irrational (like the one I gave above - or worse), would you buy in? Would you buy into a business model if you discovered it was irrational? We're not just talking about pure utility here, because if all you are arguing (as pertaining to your religion) is that you follow your belief in Jesus b/c it brings you comfort (and that you don't really care if it's true), then fine. But I care what is actually true and not just what feels good.

Now, the only sound way I can tell if a business model is rational or not is by analyzing it! Would you buy into my model if you couldn't analyze it first? I have both believed and analyzed your bible and have discovered it to be irrational - just like I have done so with some business proposals. Are you honest enough with yourself to admit when something is irrational? See, I don't have a pre-committment to my business like you do with your religion. If I discovered that my business was irrational I would dump it. Would you dump your belief in Jesus if you discovered your theology was irrational?

Found this on the internet; Theres a small businessman, trying to earn a few hundreds a day. He had the idea of a feasible business and decided to borrow around $300,000 to start it up. Now he is a Multimillionaire approx 140 Million Dollars Net Worth as of June last year. His name, Edgar Sia II.

If the person he borrowed from didnt believe his idea and asked for evidence(that it will earn) first, which he cant supply, i wonder where he would be now.

Or maybe this guy's story is Wrong and your idea of "But you don't do that, and neither does nearly any successful business person." is Correct, is that it?

For every example you can give of an investor who made millions I can give you 10 who lost it all. So this point is moot. Did the investor do his homework? Did he research the claims being made? Did he ask questions and attempt to discover if he was being sold snake oil (i.e. - being ripped off)? Smart investors don't invest in business proposals they know are irrational. And they certainly do not keep putting money in to a failing business.

Are there investors who didn't do their homework and still got lucky? Sure. But again, if all you care about is being comfortable in your religion, or feeling good and not caring about what is actually true (i.e. - utility), then why should I care? "I go to church only b/c it makes me feel good." Good for you! My concern is in discovering what is actually true (like a good investor), not just feeling comfortable in what my parents taught me. That is the difference.

[Samothec]

First of all its not being synonymous that im saying here but, belief first, then comes trust and confidence. Thats why my question is;
How do you trust something or have confidence in something you absolutely dont believe in?

No, belief does not come first. You have trust or confidence because you see it work. You were shown that when you flip a light switch the light comes on and when you flip it back it goes off. You now have confidence that a light switch works because you saw it work. Belief NEVER comes into it and DOES NOT MATTER.

You have raised up Belief to be your god and attribute everything to it. I'm guessing that an amazing coincidence happened at a crucial point in your life when you just put your faith into something and it worked even though you thought it wouldn't. So you have faith in Belief, and God is secondary.

We have been making multiple points (me, about fusion needing to be self-sustaining) which you have ignored, instead twisting everything into an opportunity by you to preach about the benefits of your god Belief. Stop it. Preaching gets you reported and you are so very, very close to being reported which I do so very rarely.

[DT]

  My thought is if everything, solar system, other planets started around the same time, with roughly the same material, then the theory of evolution should be able to exist on planets that we can reach. and so I am curious as to why there may not be, as I suppose those that live in reality maybe as well.

That would all be dependent on the conditions being right on all the those planets, for life to take hold and then evolve. Or at least life as we know it.
Are the planets we can reach applicable for life to evolve? And if so how so? And how do you know whether they are or are not?
We have a few possibilities regard the moons round some planets, but we won't know whether they can or could have supported life for a long time.

Very true but am I wrong in my thinking that the external environment of any planet should not be able to stop the evolution/mutation process? Meaning chemical X on Venus is stopping life...no worries we got a mutation for that. Granted life may not be in the form as we know it, but given what ever is stopping life from developing should be over come by  billions of years of mutations and evolution. Please don't take my rationale as making lite of evolution and mutations but I would think that if everything had the same start, the process of evolution should or has the ability to be apparent elsewhere.

[DT]

I'm not ashamed of what I believe.

Similarly, the faith you have demonstrated is in the face of a mountain of evidence indicating your beliefs are completely wrong.  That is blind faith.  And it is turning your back on reality. 
 
I wrote an essay on faith:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,10690.msg240850.html#msg240850

Screwtape. Read your essay, you have a lot of good questions I'd like to respond too, should the post be in this form, the original or should I email them?


edit - fixed quotes

[Betelnut]

  My thought is if everything, solar system, other planets started around the same time, with roughly the same material, then the theory of evolution should be able to exist on planets that we can reach. and so I am curious as to why there may not be, as I suppose those that live in reality maybe as well.

That would all be dependent on the conditions being right on all the those planets, for life to take hold and then evolve. Or at least life as we know it.
Are the planets we can reach applicable for life to evolve? And if so how so? And how do you know whether they are or are not?
We have a few possibilities regard the moons round some planets, but we won't know whether they can or could have supported life for a long time.

Very true but am I wrong in my thinking that the external environment of any planet should not be able to stop the evolution/mutation process? Meaning chemical X on Venus is stopping life...no worries we got a mutation for that. Granted life may not be in the form as we know it, but given what ever is stopping life from developing should be over come by  billions of years of mutations and evolution. Please don't take my rationale as making lite of evolution and mutations but I would think that if everything had the same start, the process of evolution should or has the ability to be apparent elsewhere.

In order for something to mutate/evolve it has to exist in the first place so...yes, you are wrong in your thinking.

[bertatberts]

My thought is if everything, solar system, other planets started around the same time, with roughly the same material, then the theory of evolution should be able to exist on planets that we can reach. and so I am curious as to why there may not be, as I suppose those that live in reality maybe as well.

That would all be dependent on the conditions being right on all the those planets, for life to take hold and then evolve. Or at least life as we know it.
Are the planets we can reach applicable for life to evolve? And if so how so? And how do you know whether they are or are not?
We have a few possibilities regard the moons round some planets, but we won't know whether they can or could have supported life for a long time.

Very true but am I wrong in my thinking that the external environment of any planet should not be able to stop the evolution/mutation process?

No. However that doesn't say that life can and will evolve of every possible planet, it only says that it probable.

Meaning chemical X on Venus is stopping life...no worries we got a mutation for that.

Life on Venus may not have evolved as yet due to it not finding that mutation. Why would you think it would all work in the same time frame? What if the chemical to make said mutation hasn't developed yet. it may happen in the future.

Granted life may not be in the form as we know it, but given what ever is stopping life from developing should be over come by  billions of years of mutations and evolution.

And it could be billions more before life evolves on Venus. You make the painfully wrong assumption that life will or should have evolved everywhere at the same time. Why!

[William]

Very true but am I wrong in my thinking that the external environment of any planet should not be able to stop the evolution/mutation process? Meaning chemical X on Venus is stopping life...no worries we got a mutation for that.

This is an excellent question DT  - it contains a very reasonable proposition.  The issue is that there is an earlier hurdle to overcome before that kind of molecular evolution process can apply.  Before "mutations" can play any role whatsoever, the earlier conditions must cater for formation of monomers (such as nucleotides) that are capable of spontaneously polymerising into the kinds of polymers that can self-catalyse their own replication with some sequence fidelity.  The sorts of things that help are an aqueous environment, availability of suitable chemical elements, and an energy source.  Those types of early conditions are rare in individual solar systems but highly likely to exist on many planets given the VAST number of solar systems out there similar to ours.

[median]

Nor do you have the information, so there is no need to dismiss the question. If you honestly "believe" life some where else is possible state that, because that's all I'm asking. My thought is if everything, solar system, other planets started around the same time, with roughly the same material, then the theory of evolution should be able to exist on planets that we can reach. and so I am curious as to why there may not be, as I suppose those that live in reality maybe as well.

Why would you just assume that (given the big bang model etc) life, and evolution, should be found on other planets that "we can reach"? Where did you get this idea and why do you think it's true?

Secondly, even if it were true it wouldn't mean that we can reach those planets right now. Perhaps we will have the technology in the future. So, instead of jumping to a mystical, magical, deity as your explanation why not just admit that you don't know what happened and start researching - Ya know, actually do some work in these fields of study? And no, I DO NOT just mean home study.

[median]

None of this talk about evolution has anything to do with whether some god exists. There are plenty of professing Christians who accept the evidence for common descent. So why does it keep getting brought up? B/c Christians operate upon the fallacious idea that in order for them to give up their religious faith they must first have something to replace it. In other words, they will believe their religious assumptions until proven otherwise. This idea is completely in error (and hypocritical). If an idea is false it should be rejected as such, and there is no requirement for a replacement (even if one prefers one). But more importantly, claims should be held as true ONLY when sufficient evidence has been presented - and not before. Do Christians just believe every ridiculous claim they hear until someone proves them wrong? They don't, do they? But this is what they are willing to do with the miraculous claims of their holy book - believe first and then filter all the evidence to suit their assumption.

[jaimehlers]

Very true but am I wrong in my thinking that the external environment of any planet should not be able to stop the evolution/mutation process? Meaning chemical X on Venus is stopping life...no worries we got a mutation for that. Granted life may not be in the form as we know it, but given what ever is stopping life from developing should be over come by  billions of years of mutations and evolution. Please don't take my rationale as making lite of evolution and mutations but I would think that if everything had the same start, the process of evolution should or has the ability to be apparent elsewhere.

Life has to exist before evolution (or rather, natural selection) can take effect.  It isn't magic.

[screwtape]

Screwtape. Read your essay, you have a lot of good questions I'd like to respond too, should the post be in this form, the original or should I email them?

post 'em.  That's what the forum is for. 

My participation here is winding down, so I apologize in advance if I do not respond to your post over yonder.

[SkyWriting]

Very true but am I wrong in my thinking that the external environment of any planet should not be able to stop the evolution/mutation process? Meaning chemical X on Venus is stopping life...no worries we got a mutation for that. Granted life may not be in the form as we know it, but given what ever is stopping life from developing should be over come by  billions of years of mutations and evolution. Please don't take my rationale as making lite of evolution and mutations but I would think that if everything had the same start, the process of evolution should or has the ability to be apparent elsewhere.

Life has to exist before evolution (or rather, natural selection) can take effect.  It isn't magic.

An interesting theory has the entire earth as one very complex organism to start with.

[William]

An interesting theory has the entire earth as one very complex organism to start with.

Whose theory? 
Do you think it's the "entire earth" that was a single complex organism?

[SkyWriting]

An interesting theory has the entire earth as one very complex organism to start with.

Whose theory? 
Do you think it's the "entire earth" that was a single complex organism?

Here is a poor version of the theory.  I haven't found the good one again.
http://lewismicropublishing.com/Microblogishing/index.php?/archives/38-The-Earth-as-a-Macro-Biotic-Organism.html
I like the theory because it fits with the laws of nature found here:
http://www.rationality.net/entropy.htm


 

[nogodsforme]

Sounds like Gaia. Hippie feel-good ideas, but with an apocalyptic ending when the earth cleanses all the humans off to save the rest of the planet...