|
|
Post by Huxley on Oct 13, 2019 9:34:46 GMT
Evidence? if you have evidence then you know it. Faith believes it with out seeing it. Faith is the evidence of things not seen.  Copout. That way you can believe whatever you want and perhaps think you can get away with whatever you want too.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Oct 13, 2019 10:14:04 GMT
I am honestly not sure what point you're trying to make exactly, but simply put, if something has not been demonstrated, then there is no valid reason to claim such a thing is true whether that thing is a god or the loch ness monster. Believing it in spite of the lack of evidence makes it an irrational belief. I don't hold irrational beliefs myself and I would advocate against it. I'm not debating your argument. I'm saying those with a religious inclination won't accept it while those who lack that inclination probably wouldn't see much of an issue with it. Belief (or lack thereof) seems to generally come first rather than be founded by argumentation. I see what you mean. What I would say is that I’m confident very few people would believe religious ideas if they were taught them after that were 20 for instance. Whereas almost everybody would believe any sort of discovery based in math/physics/chemistry/biology because you could present them with the findings. Religion IMO, largely only survives due to constant childhood indoctrination, so I don’t consider it something people are inclined to believe so much as they are tricked into accepting early on, and once their worldview is set, many of them will not allow themselves to be talked out of it. There is a principle for that but I can’t remember what it’s called right now. It’s the same thing as remembering a song lyric incorrectly for instance and being sure you are right even when somebody shows you the real lyrics. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Oct 13, 2019 10:14:48 GMT
Copout. That way you can believe whatever you want and perhaps think you can get away with whatever you want too.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1
Faith is an excuse when you have no evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 13, 2019 10:33:35 GMT
I'd say that certainly plays a very large part, yes. I would hesitate to say it wholly explains the phenomenon though. What else 'could' explain it? I imagine the following circumstances could perhaps play a part: Genetic predisposition Upbringing (not necessarily of a religious nature but might leave you more susceptible to religious thought from other sources) Intellectual interests (some might be drawn to theology) Personality (eg would a kind child be more drawn to certain aspects of Christianity?) Existential despair Trauma Urge to belong Urge to reject the status quo Reaction to oppression (eg "in the next life things will be better") Reinforcement of oppression, (eg "I am clearly meant to be at the top of society") If you look at it just as a case of indoctrination, that alone wouldn't explain the varieties of ways people react to that indoctrination. Some people buy into it as adults, some modify the belief, some don't think all that much about it, some reject it completely, some discard one set of religious beliefs but take up another (eg imagine a girl raised in a Christian household who becomes a Wiccan in her late teens). Then you have people who were not indoctrinated but become religious as adults. Of course cultures will often dictate the nature of that religious belief. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 13, 2019 11:53:59 GMT
Copout. That way you can believe whatever you want and perhaps think you can get away with whatever you want too.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1
I am not into hope, that is a copout too. It is neither directive, nor pro-active. Faith is in the mind of beholder and is not real, nor is it rationale.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2019 12:15:12 GMT
Copout. That way you can believe whatever you want and perhaps think you can get away with whatever you want too.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1
Faith is gullibility, and nothing more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 13, 2019 13:42:08 GMT
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1
Faith is gullibility, and nothing more. Isn't it funny how they don't believe you though?
|
|
|
|
Post by Huxley on Oct 13, 2019 15:07:38 GMT
Faith is gullibility, and nothing more. Isn't it funny how they don't believe you though? Are they saying God is a liar?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Oct 13, 2019 15:45:29 GMT
I am honestly not sure what point you're trying to make exactly, but simply put, if something has not been demonstrated, then there is no valid reason to claim such a thing is true whether that thing is a god or the loch ness monster. Believing it in spite of the lack of evidence makes it an irrational belief. I don't hold irrational beliefs myself and I would advocate against it. I'm not debating your argument. I'm saying those with a religious inclination won't accept it while those who lack that inclination probably wouldn't see much of an issue with it. Belief (or lack thereof) seems to generally come first rather than be founded by argumentation. Atheism is a conclusion many former believers come to. It’s not like we have not thought about the existence of God. I’ve spent many years thinking about the question and have realized I cannot justify believing in something that has no evidence of being true or false. There may be an intelligence at the center of creation, but so far science has yet to detect it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Oct 13, 2019 16:01:35 GMT
What else 'could' explain it? I imagine the following circumstances could perhaps play a part: Genetic predisposition Upbringing (not necessarily of a religious nature but might leave you more susceptible to religious thought from other sources) Intellectual interests (some might be drawn to theology) Personality (eg would a kind child be more drawn to certain aspects of Christianity?) Existential despair Trauma Urge to belong Urge to reject the status quo Reaction to oppression (eg "in the next life things will be better") Reinforcement of oppression, (eg "I am clearly meant to be at the top of society") If you look at it just as a case of indoctrination, that alone wouldn't explain the varieties of ways people react to that indoctrination. Some people buy into it as adults, some modify the belief, some don't think all that much about it, some reject it completely, some discard one set of religious beliefs but take up another (eg imagine a girl raised in a Christian household who becomes a Wiccan in her late teens). Then you have people who were not indoctrinated but become religious as adults. Of course cultures will often dictate the nature of that religious belief. Religion is a cultural condition and social tool. This is why modern right wing Evangelical Christians have radically and recently changed their theology to compliment and justify their particular brand of American nationalism. Many Christians fervently believe Trump is an active agent of God who is helping them change the nation into a theocracy. If this means the destruction of the Constitution in order to halt “godless” abortion and gay rights, then that’s God’s will. They believe this as much as many Muslims believe Saudi Arabia is a holy land and jihad is Allah’s means bring the world to the True Faith. And who’s to say their wrong? They both have as good of a case of being right as the Christians or Muslims who do not believe in these doctrines.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Oct 13, 2019 17:08:17 GMT
doom metal turned me from hansel into gretel
in my early thirties
i started
to analyze the insides
of the
popular music i was consuming
and came
to the forgone conclusion
that
i might be better off as a pole dancer in a strip club
then chasing after
this ever illusive one true love
revolving around
who gets to wear the dog mask
as they pretend to be
madly in love.
i'm not saying
that beethoven didn't have
his moments
of unrequited love
but at least
he knew the difference between
push
and an
all out shove.
sjw 10/13/19 inspired at this very moment in time by whatever was i drinking.
from the 'benevolent series' of poems
|
|
|
|
Post by fatpaul on Oct 13, 2019 18:57:14 GMT
Belief (or lack thereof) seems to generally come first rather than be founded by argumentation. Even though I don't adhere to his philosophy, I like F. H. Bradley's quote - 'Metaphysics is the finding of bad reasons for what we believe upon instinct; but to find these reasons is no less an instinct.' ( Appearance and Reality: A Metaphysical Essay) I'd just like to say something though about the difference of having a belief and lacking a belief. Belief is a cognitive faculty that we have and to have no belief is to not have a cognitive faculty. To be cognitively aware of something is to have mental content of something. Lets call this something p: I lack a belief of something is not the same as I have a belief of no thing. I lack a cognitive faculty of p is not equivalent to I have a cognitive faculty of no p. I lack a cognitive faculty of pigs flying is not equivalent to I have a cognitive faculty of no pigs flying. I lack a belief of pigs flying is not the same as I have a belief of no pigs flying. I lack a cognitive faculty of deity existing is not equivalent to I have a cognitive faculty of no deity existing. I lack a belief of deity existing is not the same as I have a belief of no deity existing. I'm not implying that you don't understand this, albeit subtle, difference (I actually think you do) but people of the mentality that atheism is a belief system, or a religion even, tend to not understand the difference and by using the connective 'or' in your statement, people of this mentality tend to read it as belief and disbelief being two sides of the same coin when in fact is more a case of two separate coins.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 13, 2019 19:58:36 GMT
Copout. That way you can believe whatever you want and perhaps think you can get away with whatever you want too.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1
In other words 'faith is an irrational belief'.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 13, 2019 20:04:29 GMT
What else 'could' explain it? I imagine the following circumstances could perhaps play a part: Genetic predisposition Upbringing (not necessarily of a religious nature but might leave you more susceptible to religious thought from other sources) Intellectual interests (some might be drawn to theology) Personality (eg would a kind child be more drawn to certain aspects of Christianity?) Existential despair Trauma Urge to belong Urge to reject the status quo Reaction to oppression (eg "in the next life things will be better") Reinforcement of oppression, (eg "I am clearly meant to be at the top of society") If you look at it just as a case of indoctrination, that alone wouldn't explain the varieties of ways people react to that indoctrination. Some people buy into it as adults, some modify the belief, some don't think all that much about it, some reject it completely, some discard one set of religious beliefs but take up another (eg imagine a girl raised in a Christian household who becomes a Wiccan in her late teens). Then you have people who were not indoctrinated but become religious as adults. Of course cultures will often dictate the nature of that religious belief. Everything except genetic disposition comes under the broad brush of nurture. There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith, despite someone's claim ( a theist) on here recently.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 13, 2019 20:33:16 GMT
I imagine the following circumstances could perhaps play a part: Genetic predisposition Upbringing (not necessarily of a religious nature but might leave you more susceptible to religious thought from other sources) Intellectual interests (some might be drawn to theology) Personality (eg would a kind child be more drawn to certain aspects of Christianity?) Existential despair Trauma Urge to belong Urge to reject the status quo Reaction to oppression (eg "in the next life things will be better") Reinforcement of oppression, (eg "I am clearly meant to be at the top of society") If you look at it just as a case of indoctrination, that alone wouldn't explain the varieties of ways people react to that indoctrination. Some people buy into it as adults, some modify the belief, some don't think all that much about it, some reject it completely, some discard one set of religious beliefs but take up another (eg imagine a girl raised in a Christian household who becomes a Wiccan in her late teens). Then you have people who were not indoctrinated but become religious as adults. Of course cultures will often dictate the nature of that religious belief. Everything except genetic disposition comes under the broad brush of nurture. There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith, despite someone's claim ( a theist) on here recently. Of course the nature of that religion will be cultural
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 13, 2019 20:38:57 GMT
Everything except genetic disposition comes under the broad brush of nurture. There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith, despite someone's claim ( a theist) on here recently. Of course the nature of that religion will be cultural Citation{S} required. Remember that correlation does not imply causation. There may be many genetic tendencies shared by people of religious 'persuasion'.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 13, 2019 22:28:06 GMT
Citation{S} required. Remember that correlation does not imply causation. There may be many genetic tendencies shared by people of religious 'persuasion'. There is a citation in the link I provided. A quick google search will show you that this is not as cut and dried as you think, there exists evidence that religion may be genetically influenced.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 13, 2019 23:21:40 GMT
Citation{S} required. Remember that correlation does not imply causation. There may be many genetic tendencies shared by people of religious 'persuasion'. There is a citation in the link I provided. A quick google search will show you that this is not as cut and dried as you think, there exists evidence that religion may be genetically influenced. I don't accept that type of research because it is impossible to isolate the genetic component from the nurture, even in twins.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Oct 13, 2019 23:26:19 GMT
I'm lazy...
It's easier not to:
You can only roll the dice so many times praying for a 6... and realizing that you get a 6 once every six times, regardless.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 13, 2019 23:28:08 GMT
There is a citation in the link I provided. A quick google search will show you that this is not as cut and dried as you think, there exists evidence that religion may be genetically influenced. I don't accept that type of research because it is impossible to isolate the genetic component from the nurture, even in twins. Cool, be aware though that qualified scientists who specialise in this field DO accept this type of research. Basically you are doing what you accuse religious people of and that is dismissing something simply because it does not fit YOUR narrative.
|
|
