Everyone thinks that what they think is right.
They also think the evidence that proves it right is unbiased and untampered.

So how do you know that what you think is right?

My beliefs on a lot of things have changed in the last 10 years.
I use to believe in god
I use to think the US government was the "good guys"
I use to think drugs were bad
the list goes on

10 years ago I thought I was right then I believed those things, and now I think that I'm right when I don't believe them. So how can you tell.

One way I thought of was to look at the flow of converts.
How many Christians become atheists?
How many atheists become Christians?

I'd say the flow is in the direction towards atheism.
Hardley any atheists become Christians. The converse is not true.
The cliche of "seeing the light" is far overused, but I think it applies here. What you realize the true truth, its difficult to go back.

The other test I thought of was to look indoctrination.
Does the person hold the same beliefs as their parents (or government/media)?
If the beliefs you hold true are things that you were taught to believe since you were born then you need to seriously consider that they are wrong. If you develop your own opinion about something then its far more likely to be true then if its something you were just told to believe all your life.

I was told all my life that drugs are pure evil. Now I believe that smoking weed and doing some other drugs is ok. Sure, there are still plenty of drugs that are bad for you. But I decided those drugs were dangerous on my own by doing independent research with sources such as erowid.

The third test is that you must hold some beliefs with uncertainty
I have no idea what economy would be best. I used to be a capitalist, then a socialist, then a communist, then I favored anarcho-capitalism, and right now I have no idea what would be best, just a few thoughts that would make the current state better.
My thoughts of drug legalization is also undecided. If everything is legal then of course it will cause problems. Look at alcohol, tobacco, and food. All three are legal, and all three kill more people then any other drug. But if everything is illegal then there will be a huge black market industry of violence and people will get the drugs anyways. Drug legalization is an odd thing to me. I use DXM safely every now and then and want it to stay legal so I can keep using it. At the same time other people use it and kill themselves. They probably shouldn't be using it or should be required to undergo some sort of education of it. But if they don't undergo the education they're still going to get it anyways. So where do we draw the line? Point is, you can't know everything and you have to keep an open mind

The fourth and final test is that you must understand that there is no good or evil.
A substance can't be inherently evil, and neither can a person, country, government, ect. Hitler didn't wake up each morning and ask himself how he could be as evil as possible. Its a very post modern idea and I think its one of the most important. In america everyone hates everyone else in the middle east. In the middle east everyone hates everyone in america. A broad generalization, I know. But still. Its just never a good idea to think of something as being an absolute evil, thats just a method of control. To have a war or drugs, or a war or terror, or a war or anything is just stupid. A war for oil is more understandable, or a war for power, or control. That's was war is really about, obtaining something, not getting rid of something.

not everyone thinks like that.

a lot of people know that their opinion may be flawed, or influenced by certain factors, and will acknowledge them.

you just have to always keep the thought in the back of your mind i guess

Congratulations OP, you've had life experiences that have shaped how you view the world.

It is very interesting how you brought up the topic of the religious indoctrination of children. Its very strange how people who grew up with almost no religion in there life are 'atheist' but have almost no interest in the idea of religion or even grasp the concepts.

contrasted with kids who broke free from the religious indoctrination of there religions when they were younger. these people tend to be more concerned with 'atheism' and the god concept even if they dont believe it to be correct.

While both the above parties do not believe in religion, it is clear that the latter has a more through idea of what is right, because they grew up immersed in what is wrong. For you to 'believe' in something you need to actually experience through primary or secondary sources why what you believe is right or wrong. much like how these born again atheists feel more strongly about religious ideas.

The way you think and how you were brought up has a very big influence on how you determine what is right and what is wrong. and it is also true, (evident by these born again atheists) that over time you take experiences from life, and apply them to your 'idealogy of how life works'

How do I know what I believe is right?

I do as Terrence McKenna tells me, "Deal with the raw data and trust myself."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMNAOk1bMDw

I'm sure you could find that just a little bit helpful. Just open your mind to all the view points and critique them, then make your decision.

faith. i dont KNOW my beliefs are right, but i have faith that they are no more wrong than another belief.

Semantically, this is an odd question. If you believe x, you are not claiming that x is truth or knowledge, only that you believe it. This means you are more confident than not in x, based on some evidential chain. For instance - "I believe I'll make it to school alive today." This is not a claim to knowledge, as obviously you can't speak of knowing truth of something that is yet to happen, but based on inductive reasoning, you have good reason to believe in your claim. A better question would be "How do you know if what you accept as knowledge/truth corresponds with reality?" You would also have to change what you are questioning, for example I would throw out such value-laden claims such as "drugs are good/bad" or "the U.S. gov't is good/bad" as these claims need a lot of contingencies, such as good/bad for who, etc.

Because I can't be wrong.

I believe that 2+2=4, that there are no square circles, and that there is no god. One of the best things I could have done for myself in 2008 was dump moral relativism. Math is objective, science is objective, and while more complicated, you can hold human ideas to the same standards. It's all optional of course. The scientific method does not exist, neither does math, so you can choose to half-ass it, just know that you're wrong if you do. Christians are objectively wrong, so are Muslims, so are nationalists, so are liberals, and conservatives, and libertarians, and strong nihilists, etc. May the best combination of evidence and deductive reasoning win.

How do I know what I believe is right?

I do as Terrence McKenna tells me, "Deal with the raw data and trust myself."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMNAOk1bMDw

I'm sure you could find that just a little bit helpful. Just open your mind to all the view points and critique them, then make your decision.

Holy crap.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLMRDDlID24&feature=related

How many liters of acid do I have to guzzle to become so enlightened?

Holy crap.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLMRDDlID24&feature=related

How many liters of acid do I have to guzzle to become so enlightened?

Thanks, that shit is more effective than nyquil and hydrocodone.

screw this shit guys...

if the universe is infinite=X

and our logic and reasoning are evolutionary advances constructed around our environment which is relatively finite=Y

Then Y cannot possibly fathom X

But that conclusion itself is but conjured up by my subjective thinking...:mad:
*pulls the trigger*
__________________________________________________ ____
One mans suicide is an others salvation.

You cannot think about what you don't comprehend, so humans are incapable of experiencing the universe through symbols, and thoughts. You can think about symbols and thoughts, but you can't think about what you don't yet understand, therefore thinking about the universe is pointless. You can only think about thoughts, that is not looking at reality, that is filtering reality through a thought, a reality tunnel.

To truly think the unthinkable you have to learn how not to think.

I don't. That's why I try to reach conclusions with objective fact checking and always leave my worldview(s) open to change.

That question is contradictory because it uses both 'know' and 'believe'.

You can know that 2+3=5.

You can suspect that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.

But you can believe in Santa Claus.

People say believe when they know and know when they believe. Sloppy language begats sloppy thinking. And endless sloppy conversations.

DT

Ask yourself what tells you 2+3=5 ?
Technically anything can be proven.
Because Santa never been proven not to exist. Maybe your parents just started buying you presents when they found out you were on the naughty list. Through that assumption, That can be enough evidence to anyone that he does in fact exist. So Santa clause's existence is proven through an assumption.

Just like the assumption that the human skill of mathematics is concrete thought of object. No one can even prove their own damn existence.
So what makes you think you know that the basic means thoughts for processing the problem i just proposed to you.

Get this jackass if you stare at three dead dogs for a couple of hours and toss two dead dogs on top of them, you will be able to count, get this, FIVE FUCKING DOGS. It will not be like that ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE FUCKING UNIVERSE. You cannot put in two and get six. It might take you a couple of hours though but keep staring and you'll get it.

2 oz. of matter + 3 oz. of anti-matter = BOOM

Of course maybe that is subtraction because anti-matter is negative.

minus one human

DT

I believe that 2+2=4, that there are no square circles, and that there is no god. One of the best things I could have done for myself in 2008 was dump moral relativism. Math is objective, science is objective, and while more complicated, you can hold human ideas to the same standards. It's all optional of course. The scientific method does not exist, neither does math, so you can choose to half-ass it, just know that you're wrong if you do. Christians are objectively wrong, so are Muslims, so are nationalists, so are liberals, and conservatives, and libertarians, and strong nihilists, etc. May the best combination of evidence and deductive reasoning win.

i dont see how you can subject human ideas under the same rigor as mathematics, or the scientific method. math and science is about taking observable truth ( in that it has not yet been disproven) and deducing that that truth (be it formula a, or scientific premise b) can be applied to other concepts.

for you to apply that kind of logical rigor to a concept as openly controversial as the morality of advanced interrogation techniques, or abortion, its absolutely, 100 percent, insane. In mathematics, you generally know that something is right i.e 2 + 2 = 4. because the idea of there being 2 of something being combined with 2 more of something equals a numerical representation that there is 2x more of that something, or four. That is somethign that makes sense logically. or the idea of ionization, you can empirically reduce that concept into sub atomic interaction.

how do you intend to empirically reduce a concept such as the morality of waterboarding. you cannot deductively reason such a thing (meaning that you cannot simplifly the concept of torture, until it became extremely simplistic, thus further honing the idea that something is truth)

there is no universal standard to what is right, it depends on the certain social , cultural, personal, or situtational circumstances (sometimes it really may be okay to abort (i.e in the case of rape) othertimes it may be horrible wrong). something as encompassing and complicated as ethical issues cannot have a standard as rigorous as mathematics.

although there may be some truth to your claim (as evident by the many specific laws and bylaws, that provide a 'standard' to morality) but at the same time the fact that there exists a "defense of necessity" clause in every law, that seems to decimate the only going point you have.

love comes from the latin word lavilius which means pertaning to the lips, and when we symbolize I love you, you draw a heart, but which human heart looks like this http://www.make-stuff.com/projects/images/heart2.gif.

Rather the heart looks like this
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/images/ency/fullsize/1097.jpg

The previous one looks like spread open vaginal lips, and is it curious that cupid shoots an arrow at the "heart"?

Love means
Lusting Over Vaginas Eternally, therefore rather than enslaving myself unknowingly like all the other jackassess in the world I prefer to give up on love and rather focus on Compassion, which comes from the words cum and passion.

I believe both men and women have a passion for cumming and therefore I do away with love and believe only in compassion as it is something we can both share, instead of lusting over vaginas eternally, and giving women power they don't really deserve.