Why are most religious followers irrational?

[painted wolf]

Well of course, morality is subjective and different to all living things.

Within reason, but there are some broad patterns among social species. The morality of Chimps is not that far from our own.

wa:do

 

[Oden]

You could say this, but it was really God that helped you.

A rose by any other name...

:no: your prove is nowhere.

 

[Willamena]

So we're decided that religious followers are irrational for the same reasons most people are irrational?

 

[Peacewise]

So we're decided that religious followers are irrational for the same reasons most people are irrational?

Can we firm it up any Willamena and put a direct name to the "same reasons"...
mine is - that would be because they are human.

To be purely rational requires training and discipline and as everyone can attest when discussing religion and politics (and often sport ) encourages emotional response and hence often leads to irrational discussion.

 

[Orias]

Within reason, but there are some broad patterns among social species. The morality of Chimps is not that far from our own.

wa:do

Well maybe thats because we share 98% of the gene pool with them.

Though smile at one, and get your arms ripped off

 

[Orias]

:no: your prove is nowhere.

Thank you

 

[Peacewise]

Why didn't the thread close down after this truly insightful post appeared?

Because people disagree .

So would that be an example of irrational disagreement?

 

[Orias]

So would that be an example of irrational disagreement?

It all depends on the person. I would agree that it is.

 

[Hawkins]

You say you believe in science, yet you believe in a god which has yet to influence your life. I see arguments like "God did this for me or God did that", that Is a terrible argument to proving any gods existence. I could say that a unicorn gave me my great job and helped me through tough times. Obviously you would not believe it since you cant see, hear, touch, or examine this unicorn. So why do god believing religious groups so aggressively peruse validation for something they cannot validate? Trust me if you were to show me even a tiny shred of the existence for a supernatural all knowing being, I would change my mind.

Do you want me to show you your own irrationalty here?!

Truth is evidence independent. Evidence is for a human brain (or rather human belief system) to recognise a truth. There's always a gap between what's inside a human's brain (belief system) and what the truth itself is. When the gap is reduced to 0, our brain hits a truth, yet we can never be sure about if it's truly a 0. That's where the Matrix advocate is coming from.

Because each and every human belief system is unique, that's why what's evident to someone may not be evident enough to another.

Science is a bit special. Science is about the discovery of existing natural rules. These natural rules can predict precisely for your brain (belief system) to reckon them as the truth. For example, water will decompose into oxygen and hydrogen. You can use this rule to predict that water everywhere inside this universe will decompose so. Before each and every experiment you can expect that the result is so, or to say that no experimental results can falsify your prediction, no experiments can falsify this rule.

As a result, the so-called empirical evidence is actually an imaginary evidence which possesses the effect of fooling a certain mass of people's belief systems to belief in something is a truth.

God is to give tailored evidence to everyone's belief system to allow it to choose to believe that whether He's a truth or not. He will not give the so-called non-existing 'empirical proof' to a mass of atheists, as people will not need the required faith this way. And without the required faith they can't be saved.

Now assuming that you've met with God personally and are 100% sure about His existence, and how will you be able to show others that it is true that God exists?!?!?! You will find that there's not any efficient way for such a kind of truth to be conveyed among humans. Even when you are 100% sure about it, others will have to need faith either to accept or to reject what you said. To simply put, witnessing and testimony are already of the most efficient way for your truth to be conveyed. And coincidently this is what Christianity is, witnessing and testimonies.

Moreover, your red unicorn may not be red unicorn at all if 1/3 human beings buy into your story, including the most intelligent ones such as Issac Newton. To that extent, a skeptic deserves human efforts to dig up the truth behind it.

 

[Orias]

Do you want me to show you your own irrationalty here?!

I don't he actually sounds quit intelligent.

Truth is evidence independent. Evidence is for a human brain (or rather human belief system) to recognise a truth. There's always a gap between what's inside a human's brain (belief system) and what the truth itself is. When the gap is reduced to 0, our brain hits a truth, yet we can never be sure about if it's truly a 0. That's where the Matrix advocate is coming from.

Truth? How could you possibly know the truth? What makes your God any more believeable than all of the others? Creation Advocate...hmm going to continue that statement? What about it? What will it do? Make us 'see' the truth?

Because each and every human belief system is unique, that's why what's evident to someone may not be evident enough to another.

So your truth is not truth to others. I am glad you admit to fallacy.

Science is a bit special. Science is about the discovery of existing natural rules. These natural rules can predict precisely for your brain (belief system) to reckon them as the truth. For example, water will decompose into oxygen and hydrogen. You can use this rule to predict that water everywhere inside this universe will decompose so. Before each and every experiment you can expect that the result is so, or to say that no experimental results can falsify your prediction, no experiments can falsify this rule.

Actually there is five different levels of ice and each on is thicker and more dense than the other. Some of them will only be broken down when they fly into a star. There is only natural rules, for you cannot exceed the unatural.

As a result, the so-called empirical evidence is actually an imaginary evidence which possesses the effect of fooling a certain mass of people's belief systems to belief in something is a truth.

Hahaha, ding dong! Sounds like you. Again, I am glad you admit to such a fallacy.

God is to give tailored evidence to everyone's belief system to allow it to choose to believe that whether He's a truth or not. He will not give the so-called non-existing 'empirical proof' to a mass of atheists, as people will not need the required faith this way. And without the required faith they can't be saved.

Faith (believeing in something with no prove of it's existence). Would you give a stranger your credit card, and 'hope' that he doesn't mess your life up?

Now assuming that you've met with God personally and are 100% sure about His existence, and how will you be able to show others that it is true that God exists?!?!?! You will find that there's not any efficient way for such a kind of truth to be conveyed among humans. Even when you are 100% sure about it, others will have to need faith either to accept or to reject what you said. To simply put, witnessing and testimony are already of the most efficient way for your truth to be conveyed. And coincidently this is what Christianity is, witnessing and testimonies.

Simple, people mistake their conscience for a 'God' it is nothing new, rather a primitive way to give name and define what is, nature.

Moreover, your red unicorn may not be red unicorn at all if 1/3 human beings buy into your story, including the most intelligent ones such as Issac Newton. To that extent, a skeptic deserves human efforts to dig up the truth behind it.

Anyone can claim to know the truth. There is nothing, we just are.

 

[Ethos88]

Anyone can claim to know the truth. There is nothing, we just are.

Internet high five, sir.