Come now, we both know better than that. Let’s try a simple example. Mr A believes 2+2=4, Mr B believes 2+2=5. Mr C believes 2+2=6. Each of them thinks “Most people don’t know Math.” That’s all I’m saying.
My point is everyone on this planet “casts most people of faith as being incorrect”. See post about Mr A, Mr B, and Mr C and their beliefs about 2+2.
To benefit does not mean to be correct and rational. Let us say Mr Ed believes the moon is made of green cheese, and the craters are bites God took from this cheese. He feels great comfort in his belief, for he has proven to his satisfaction the existence of God [who else could take such a big bite from that cheese up there?]. Is he wrong? Yes. Is he irrational? I think so. Does he benefit? Yes.
I already addressed the second q in an earlier post. But there might be a deeper thing here. A fellow called Dewey [I believe] came up with a philosophy i think called Utilitarianism, which states "If a person benefits from believing Statement X, that should be the definition of Statement X being “True”, because all that really matters about Statement X is do people benefit from believing it.
I agree with Bertrand Russell [in his History of Western Philosophy] that such a philosophy has too many things wrong with it to list in a short post. I’m sure you can find the book.
As for "who cares’, in this particular instance, I care. I was defending my impugned reputation. LS accused me of some wickedness, of falsely accusing people of faith of being wrong and irrational. I merely pointed out that he thinks the same thing, and everyone who ever lived thinks it true of most of humanity.
Now, you might be redefining “wrong” and “irrational” to have new unconventional meanings, that they both mean “are of no benefit”. Of course in other contexts you would not use them that way. If I said “All your money is mine,” you would say I am wrong, despite the fact that it brings me benefit to believe it.
I’m tired of you making unsupported claims about me. Where?
You’ve also been asked twice before in this thread, to explain statements you’ve claimed about me.
You don’t have the knowledge to make this statement, true or false.
I see Smiling Dave has still not responded to his false claims about me. I wonder why?
Maybe, because he can’t support them?
I stand by my earlier posts. The support for them lies in a careful reading of the dialogue here.
I have not responded because I would rather invest my time here learning from those I see as more knowledgable than me, and imparting to others what little I have to offer.
This is my last post in this thread, and my last post in response to something you say anywhere unless directly addressed to me in a friendly fashion. Our methods of communication are too divergent for mutual profit, in my opinion.
Best of luck and success to you, LS
No careful reading is necessary unless you are claiming things which cannot be proven.
You made several false claims. I have no problem defending what I have said (and owning up to being wrong if I am). When you make a false claim like this
when in fact I replied to posts made on a blog, by another poster who posted here for critique, that’s just dishonesty on your part.
Your professing to want to move on, and then again attacking me with false claims, then your latest claim that you somehow have the high ground, seems completely dishonest to me. You don’t have to like me, you don’t have to respond to me. But if you’re going to post claims about me, you better be a big boy and back them up. That’s only fair, and it is only responsible. And I don’t think those are unreasonable standards for a forum community.