Why do some believe easily, others hardly at all?

[mikkel_the_dane]

The "we" is whoever is thinking about a situation and trying to make sense of it. "We" are the people (you, me and others), who are participating in this discussion. Usually in discussions like this "we" are trying to find some patterns in how people think or behave. The patterns we're discussing almost ALWAYS have exceptions (I called them "outliers" earlier). But we use patterns in many aspects of life, and we've learned to put some trust in patterns, even though they don't perfectly capture 100% of the events or beliefs that might happen.

I don't agree with your we as used in the previous post and as such, I am one of them. You confuse different usages of we.

 

[Audie]

And that's why it's not actually an explanation - it provides zero explanatory power to say "God did it." In other words, it tells us nothing.

Unsubstantiated rumours are the best you've got? That's not very convincing.

" Belief", and credulous acceptance of
any rumour or hearsay is more than good
enough for the gullible, or those otherwise
incapable or due diligence or critical thinking.

OTOH, the most hiphly detailed physical
evidence that can be cross checked and
repeated by anyone is just no good at all,
totally unconvincing to those who have
decided that they already have "the truth".

I wonder at what age the cement sets in such a brain.
They didnt start out that way.

 

[Soandso]

Actual?
Or is it a matter of degree /:subtlety.

Sometimes, but I don't think they can all be bunched up like that. I've seen both generally good churches and generally bad churches. I think it's better to save the crime accusations for when actual crimes are being observed. That's something different, altogether

Like when the southern baptist convention turns out to have hundreds of pages of people in positions of authority accused of sex crimes that they just hung onto and didn't release until that information was leaked... those kind of things

 

[Audie]

Sometimes, but I don't think they can all be bunched up like that. I've seen both generally good churches and generally bad churches. I think it's better to save the crime accusations for when actual crimes are being observed. That's something different, altogether

Like when the southern baptist convention turns out to have hundreds of pages of people in positions of authority accused of sex crimes that they just hung onto and didn't release until that information was leaked... those kind of things

No accusation of crime on my part,
nor is crime a necessary aspect of a scam.

Obviously some religions are pure scam, with
no other aspects or intent.

By definition a scam can be a fraudulent
OR deceptive practice. Scams can be harmless.

MO, and by all demonstrable evidence,
claims of a supernatural sort are simply false.
Promoting them as True is deceptive practice.

All religions rely on supernatural claims that are,
Inherently deceptive, and involve promises
that nobody is known to have received.

More, religions cannot all be true. At most, one is.
The rest are scams. Or all are.
The differences are in degree, not kind.

 

[Heyo]

What do you want it to "tell you" .. how G-d creates and maintains the universe?
Is it that you want to be G-d?

Well, in a sense ...
Since we know how lightning is created we are able to make our own. Are we gods now?

 

[icehorse]

I don't agree with your we as used in the previous post and as such, I am one of them. You confuse different usages of we.

Can you explain this, I'm not seeing your concern?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The "we" is whoever is thinking about a situation and trying to make sense of it. "We" are the people (you, me and others), who are participating in this discussion. Usually in discussions like this "we" are trying to find some patterns in how people think or behave. The patterns we're discussing almost ALWAYS have exceptions (I called them "outliers" earlier). But we use patterns in many aspects of life, and we've learned to put some trust in patterns, even though they don't perfectly capture 100% of the events or beliefs that might happen.

"Outliers" exist in almost any significant statistical sample you can name. We don't want the outliers to confuse us.

That said, from a philosophical perspective, I think we all have to "believe" a few things that we cannot prove in order to get along in the world. For me, I "believe" that things like logic and critical thinking are essential tools if we're to survive. I admit I'm imperfect in implementing these ideas, and I admit that I cannot prove their essential-ness. But at least I'm honest about those two points.

Can you explain this, I'm not seeing your concern?

Wrong order of post but you will figure it out.
For the bold one, I am not your we.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Well, in a sense ...
Since we know how lightning is created we are able to make our own. Are we gods now?

Well, we can all press the nuclear button in each country and destroy all life..
..IF G-D ALLOWS IT..

We certainly are not gods .. we are more often than not, complete and utter fools.

 

[icehorse]

Well, we have at least 2 non-believers who do that on this forum.

That's the sentence I was referring to when I first talked about "outliers".

So I would say that when it comes to questions like "what happens when we die?", religious people are far ore likely to make claims they can't prove, and non-believers are far more likely to say "i don't know". Of course there will always be exceptions (outliers), so my comment was meant to say something like "there are statistical patterns, and pointing to the outlying data points mostly just confuses the discussion".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's the sentence I was referring to when I first talked about "outliers".

So I would say that when it comes to questions like "what happens when we die?", religious people are far ore likely to make claims they can't prove, and non-believers are far more likely to say "i don't know". Of course there will always be exceptions (outliers), so my comment was meant to say something like "there are statistical patterns, and pointing to the outlying data points mostly just confuses the discussion".

Yeah, they just argue over political and truth. But that is outliers. We just become you and all outliers are gone.

You are glossing away the differences and in effects saying, if we, as I want, overlook the differences there are no differences.

 

[icehorse]

Yeah, they just argue over political and truth. But that is outliers. We just become you and all outliers are gone.

You are glossing away the differences and in effects saying, if we, as I want, overlook the differences there are no differences.

I'm sorry, I'm confused by all the promouns you used here. Can you restate this by replacing the "theys" and "wes" and "yous" and such with specific examples? thanks

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm sorry, I'm confused by all the promouns you used here. Can you restate this by replacing the "theys" and "wes" and "yous" and such with specific examples? thanks

Okay, ask a lot of people including secular ones what a good life is and you will get a lot of different answers. Then ask what good behavior and misbehaving are and you will get a lot of different answers. Then ask a lot of politics priority questions and you will get a lot of different answers.
So how do you know as know which ones are the correct ones?

 

[icehorse]

Okay, ask a lot of people including secular ones what a good life is and you will get a lot of different answers. Then ask what good behavior and misbehaving are and you will get a lot of different answers. Then ask a lot of politics priority questions and you will get a lot of different answers.
So how do you know as know which ones are the correct ones?

I want to talk only about the idea of outliers. The broader question you seem to be asking here is worthy of its own thread, if not an entire college degree

When I talk about "outliers", I'm not talking about right or wrong. I'm talking about whether an individual fits into a bigger pattern or not. It's common to make claims like:

- it's common for religious people to claim to know what happens when we die.
- it's common for atheists to say they don't know what happens when we die.
- it's common for scientists to be good at math.
- it's common for brick layers to be men.

none of these things are always true. there are always exceptions. But they're all mostly true. So when we're discussing brick layers for example, focusing on the few brick layers who are women might not be that useful.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I want to talk only about the idea of outliers. The broader question you seem to be asking here is worthy of its own thread, if not an entire college degree

When I talk about "outliers", I'm not talking about right or wrong. I'm talking about whether an individual fits into a bigger pattern or not. It's common to make claims like:

- it's common for religious people to claim to know what happens when we die.
- it's common for atheists to say they don't know what happens when we die.
- it's common for scientists to be good at math.
- it's common for brick layers to be men.

none of these things are always true. there are always exceptions. But they're all mostly true. So when we're discussing brick layers for example, focusing on the few brick layers who are women might not be that useful.

So those examples are relevant in all other cases? How do you know that?

Take 2 secular atheists. The one is a socialist, the other is capitalist. Then you scale up for numbers and those in the minority are the outlier, right?

 

[Heyo]

Well, we can all press the nuclear button in each country and destroy all life..
..IF G-D ALLOWS IT..

We certainly are not gods .. we are more often than not, complete and utter fools.

So, you have just answered your question.

 

[icehorse]

So those examples are relevant in all other cases? How do you know that?

Take 2 secular atheists. The one is a socialist, the other is capitalist. Then you scale up for numbers and those in the minority are the outlier, right?

Humans are pattern matching animals. We find patterns everywhere. We've always needed to find patterns in order to survive. So by definition, when we have enough examples (or data), to establish a pattern, then the examples that do not fit are referred to as "outliers". There is no "right" or "wrong" here, it's simply that most of the examples will fit the pattern, and a few will not. It's just the nature of patterns.

In any given situation, if there are a lot of outliers, then there really is no pattern, that situation is random.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So, you have just answered your question.

"it provides zero explanatory power to say 'God did it'. In other words, it tells us nothing."

..but it doesn't answer mine..
What do you want it to "tell you"?

 

[Heyo]

"it provides zero explanatory power to say 'God did it'. In other words, it tells us nothing."

..but it doesn't answer mine..
What do you want it to "tell you"?

How it works (in an applicable way). Just as I said, as soon as we knew how lightning worked, we made our own.

 

[muhammad_isa]

How it works (in an applicable way). Just as I said, as soon as we knew how lightning worked, we made our own.

..so you want to know how to make a universe?
Poof ... what a joker!

 

[Brian2]

And that's why it's not actually an explanation - it provides zero explanatory power to say "God did it." In other words, it tells us nothing.

It answers the more important question. Once we know God did it then the question "how" is not significant since God can suspend the natural laws.

Unsubstantiated rumours are the best you've got? That's not very convincing.

I did not think you would believe me. I said it to show that we hear about such things these days and not just in the pages of ancient scriptures.