PureX
Veteran Member
Of course. Belief was never necessary for faith. In fact, it's antithetical to faith most of the time. And it's faith in God that gives the idea it's reality.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If No One Believed In God...
- Thread starter lukethethird
- Start date
Exists as an attribute?
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
There is something in humans to imagine monsters in the dark or that new and different things are dangerous. Those beliefs might even be beneficial to our survival (at least were historically) but that doesn't mean any of them are accurate. That humans have a tendency to believe in all sorts of entities (not just gods) more powerful than us isn't evidence that any specifically defined god actually exists.
Thank you for the bit I've highlighted. I think that often gets lost in the discussion around the reasons for the prevalence of religion.
What was beneficial historically doesn't dictate what's beneficial for us now. We can recognize how craving salt and sugar would have helped a hunter-gatherer while also recognize that consumption of these things today causes serious health issues.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Nothing funny or strange about that.
Humans clearly have a tendency to be superstitious (like most animals, in fact).
So why would it then be surprising to find out that most humans in fact hold superstitious beliefs?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Because it is an error. A cognition error.
Never heard of the "false positive"? You might want to look it up.
Which is irrelevant to the point, even if true.
If I have a terminal cancer, I'll also be happier if I believe that I'm healthy instead.
How a belief makes you feel, has no bearing on the accuracy of said belief.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Yes. And it's their tendency to hold superstitious beliefs as a direct result of a tendency to engage in Typ 2 cognition errors.
How many times have you had terminal cancer?
ppp
Well-Known Member
Unless you think that 'sour' and 'exists' have identical definitions, your question is not a response to the post to which it is purportedly a reply..
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I don't see how that's relevant as the point isn't about cancer, it's about believing something because it makes you feel better about whatever, while what you believe isn't necessarily true.
In fact, the accuracy of the belief takes a back seat. How it makes you feel becomes more important then if it's actually true or not.
All well and dandy, but when discussions center around if the belief is actually accurate or not, it's kind of clear that how it makes one feel is irrelevant.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
In this context, "sour" is just the label we have given to certain specific taste buds being triggered.
So the existence of "sour" is depended on the existence of those taste buds.
It's like the color "blue". That's just what our eyes translate a lightwave of certain length into.
The lightwave exists and it has a certain wavelength.
But "blue" is an interpretation of our eyes. Without our eyes to interpret the lightwave a certain way, "blue" doesn't exist.
It's entirely relevant.
You used your belief about the experience of having terminal cancer and how you believe you would feel about in an attempt to invalidate how belief makes one feel.
In essence, you invalidated a belief with a belief.
Is it your contention that "sour" and "blue" do not exist in your perceived reality?
Yes.
Newborns do not believe in the sun either....
firedragon
Veteran Member
Any evidence to this?
ppp
Well-Known Member
Just because it confuses you does not mean that it is double speak, @SalixIncendium.
As I said that sour is an attribute, it makes absolutely no sense to ask me "Exists as an attribute." Nor does it make any sense at all to accuse me of double speak when I point out the fact that the words are not interchangeable. If you are going to insist that something so basic and obvious is "double speak" let me know so I can stop wasting my time. Thanks!
firedragon
Veteran Member
Do you have any scientific evidence to this?
If it wasn't double speak, then it would appear that you intentionally misrepresented my position. I never said or even implied the two words were interchangeable.
Many refer to God as an experience, especially those who have had what are known as mystical experiences. I'm demonstrating that if 'sour' can exist as an experience, the there is no reason God cannot.
One who has never experienced 'sour' cannot know what 'sour' is or if it even exists. Just as one who has never experienced God cannot know what God is or if it even exists.