Why do some believe easily, others hardly at all?

[Audie]

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.



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.

You did not show there are "such things these
days". You just showed you believe in them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Yeah, so I am an outlier. I am neuro diverse.
And now you watch yourself, because you have to catch yourself, if you are subjective.

We are playing morality. There are outliners among humans (true) and we ought to treat that in the following manner. It goes to the other thread. For that we ought to... I have never seen any objective evidence for that. I have never even seen that we as objective. For some policies question about groups of people you get 40% want to help in X manner, 40% want to help in Y manner and 20% don't know.
The problem is this. If you take we as a standard, you can't do that in case where there is no we, because there might not be that we for a standard.

In sociological terms for the difference between we as a species and a local cultural we as a subculture of the species you have a tendency to conflate those 2 cases of we. Do you understand, what you are doing? We are doing sociology for the in-group of we and the out-group of them. They are outliners. The problem is that you are talking to an outlier and in that sense you and I are not we. You are a normie and I am neuro diverse.

 

[icehorse]

Yeah, so I am an outlier. I am neuro diverse.
And now you watch yourself, because you have to catch yourself, if you are subjective.

We are playing morality. There are outliners among humans (true) and we ought to treat that in the following manner. It goes to the other thread. For that we ought to... I have never seen any objective evidence for that. I have never even seen that we as objective. For some policies question about groups of people you get 40% want to help in X manner, 40% want to help in Y manner and 20% don't know.
The problem is this. If you take we as a standard, you can't do that in case where there is no we, because there might not be that we for a standard.

In sociological terms for the difference between we as a species and a local cultural we as a subculture of the species you have a tendency to conflate those 2 cases of we. Do you understand, what you are doing? We are doing sociology for the in-group of we and the out-group of them. They are outliners. The problem is that you are talking to an outlier and in that sense you and I are not we. You are a normie and I am neuro diverse.

We have conversations going in two different threads right now. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought it was the other thread where we were talking about morality?

In this thread, I thought we were talking about patterns?

Assuming we're talking about patterns: We're all members of many different groups. Sometimes we're in a majority group, sometimes we're in a smaller group, depending on the context. I'm more or less an atheist, that puts me in a small group. I follow a keto diet and do intermittent fasting - also a very small group. I don't own a TV, small group.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

There's a more important question than how? What is it?

How do you know God can suspend natural laws? Where is the evidence for this? Which god? How? When? How did you demonstrate God(s) did anything?

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.

Why would I believe you? You've provided no examples. You basically said you "heard" some stuff somewhere. That's called hearsay. And it's not convincing to me. Why are unsubstantiated and vague rumours convincing to you?

We hear about all kinds of things that aren't true all the time. Trump actually won the last election. I mean, that's what I've "heard" from some people anyway.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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?

Yeah. Saying "God did it" tells us absolutely nothing at all.

 

[Soandso]

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.

Some good points. Just because people believe positively about a pyramid scheme, like amway or mary kay, doesn't mean it's still not a scam. Despite the intent of those who sell the product, the people at the top are still trying to decieve people

That said, i don't think i've seen enough to come to the conclusion that all supernatural based religions formed this way since people can be mistaken too - there doesn't have to be deception involved. That's the problem with having brains hard wired to solve every pattern it sees. An unexplainable thing happens, people assume things about those events based on their world views, and voila. I've experienced this too myself back when I was religious

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yeah. Saying "God did it" tells us absolutely nothing at all.

It tells you nothing .. it tells me a great deal.
..but you don't want to know .. you just play your denial games.

I don't expect to be told how to create a universe .. it is beyond mankind's ability.
They know how to destroy it, that's for sure.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It tells you nothing .. it tells me a great deal.
..but you don't want to know .. you just play your denial games.

Feel free to tell us what it tells you anytime.

I don't expect to be told how to create a universe .. it is beyond mankind's ability.
They know how to destroy it, that's for sure.

I don't expect to be told how to create a universe either.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't expect to be told how to create a universe either.

..so what do you want to know, about G-d creating the universe?

 

[Brian2]

There's a more important question than how? What is it?

How do you know God can suspend natural laws? Where is the evidence for this? Which god? How? When? How did you demonstrate God(s) did anything?

There are a million possible answers to the "how" question. The more important questions in this case are "who" and "why".
But if you put your hands over your ears and say it's all lies then none of the questions are important.

Why would I believe you? You've provided no examples. You basically said you "heard" some stuff somewhere. That's called hearsay. And it's not convincing to me. Why are unsubstantiated and vague rumours convincing to you?

We hear about all kinds of things that aren't true all the time. Trump actually won the last election. I mean, that's what I've "heard" from some people anyway.

I guess religious people are naive and liars.

 

[icehorse]

..so what do you want to know, about G-d creating the universe?

Did he get to the scale of constructing each quark by hand?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

..so what do you want to know, about G-d creating the universe?

What could you tell us about God creating the universe? From your own knowledge, I mean.

 

[Audie]

There are a million possible answers to the "how" question. The more important questions in this case are "who" and "why".
But if you put your hands over your ears and say it's all lies then none of the questions are important.



I guess religious people are naive and liars.

Good guess

 

[Heyo]

I guess religious people are naive and liars.

I guess religious people are naïve or liars.
There are always those who deceive and those who are deceived.

 

[wellwisher]

Why is it, do you think, that some people are willing to believe pretty much anything, while others hold out for evidence?

There are two basic ways to orientate oneself to reality; introversion and extroversion. Extroversion makes more proportional use of the five senses to verify reality, while introversion is more about using internal sensory systems; imagination and intuition. The innovator, sees the invention before it is tangible in sensory reality, using an internal matrix of thought, imagery; feelings. The extrovert will doubt the claim of the innovation, until they can see, smell, taste, touch or hear it. But it already existed before the extrovert came online; becomes fully conscious.

Politicking, for example, is easier for extroverts. In company politics, there is often someone who will suck up to the boss. This may not be real or genuine, affection, but rather it makes use of a compound sensory signal strategy, to tip the scale. This approach will give a nice full ego massage, which may count a lot at the sensory level, thereby overriding the primary senses, that should be used to draw correct conclusions. The introvert, using internal senses, can make this distinction easier.

Prestige is often important when it comes to believing. One can see the high social status of someone, in terms of what is considered valuable in culture; money or fame. They may become the spokesman for a cause, even if this not they're real forte'. This is also based on sensory ambiguity. The introverts thinks more and since their senses are secondary, they don't get caught up in the same group prestige think, unless they choose. Hollywood can make a star, who then shines for the senses. This is important for marketing and sales; create sensory ambiguity or amplification.

 

[Audie]

There are two basic ways to orientate oneself to reality; introversion and extroversion. Extroversion makes more proportional use of the five senses to verify reality, while introversion is more about using internal sensory systems; imagination and intuition. The innovator, sees the invention before it is tangible in sensory reality, using an internal matrix of thought, imagery; feelings. The extrovert will doubt the claim of the innovation, until they can see, smell, taste, touch or hear it. But it already existed before the extrovert came online; becomes fully conscious.

Politicking, for example, is easier for extroverts. In company politics, there is often someone who will suck up to the boss. This may not be real or genuine, affection, but rather it makes use of a compound sensory signal strategy, to tip the scale. This approach will give a nice full ego massage, which may count a lot at the sensory level, thereby overriding the primary senses, that should be used to draw correct conclusions. The introvert, using internal senses, can make this distinction easier.

Prestige is often important when it comes to believing. One can see the high social status of someone, in terms of what is considered valuable in culture; money or fame. They may become the spokesman for a cause, even if this not they're real forte'. This is also based on sensory ambiguity. The introverts thinks more and since their senses are secondary, they don't get caught up in the same group prestige think, unless they choose. Hollywood can make a star, who then shines for the senses. This is important for marketing and sales; create sensory ambiguity or amplification.

Everyone does a combination of those.

"Believers", though, ignore "external" evidence
when it does not suit them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Everyone does a combination of those.

"Believers", though, ignore "external" evidence
when it does not suit them.

And believers in "external" evidence can ignore, when there is none. So they are both subjective. As one ignores evidence and the other ignores when there is none.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There are a million possible answers to the "how" question. The more important questions in this case are "who" and "why".

I disagree. You are assuming a "who" and you are assuming a "why." We don't know the answer to those.

The "how" part is the part that actually offers some explanatory power to the conversation. As we can see, just declaring that "someone" (aka a god) did it, doesn't tell us anything about that. Never mind that you haven't even demonstrated some god even exists in the first place. But look what you did when you declare that you know the "who." Suddenly now our "explanations" are even less explanatory because we can just posit magic, and poof, anything goes! Anything is possible even though you've still demonstrated absolutely nothing.

But if you put your hands over your ears and say it's all lies then none of the questions are important.

Why do you say that? I haven't done that at all. What I'm doing is the opposite of that - questioning your positions in an effort to understand them. I posted some questions to you that you didn't respond to:

How do you know God can suspend natural laws? Where is the evidence for this? Which god? How? When? How did you demonstrate God(s) did anything?

I guess religious people are naive and liars.

You've provided zero examples to this:

Why would I believe you? You've provided no examples. You basically said you "heard" some stuff somewhere. That's called hearsay. And it's not convincing to me. Why are unsubstantiated and vague rumours convincing to you?

We hear about all kinds of things that aren't true all the time. Trump actually won the last election. I mean, that's what I've "heard" from some people anyway.

What would you conclude from someone who didn't provide any examples whatsoever about things they've "heard?" (.e. Hearsay). Would you believe them, or would you, in an attempt to not just gullibly believe anything you hear, ask for an example or some sort of evidence?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There are two basic ways to orientate oneself to reality; introversion and extroversion. Extroversion makes more proportional use of the five senses to verify reality, while introversion is more about using internal sensory systems; imagination and intuition. The innovator, sees the invention before it is tangible in sensory reality, using an internal matrix of thought, imagery; feelings. The extrovert will doubt the claim of the innovation, until they can see, smell, taste, touch or hear it. But it already existed before the extrovert came online; becomes fully conscious.

Everyone does a combination of those.

"Believers", though, ignore "external" evidence
when it does not suit them.

Exactly, @Audie. And @wellwisher, surely you are aware that the "innovator," as you name her, him or it, sometimes :sees the invention" even when it may never be tangible to sensory reality. No doubt you are aware of writers like J.K. Rowling, who invented a whole wizarding world that will never exist, or H.G. Wells who "invented" a time machine that can never be realized.

 

[Brian2]

I disagree. You are assuming a "who" and you are assuming a "why." We don't know the answer to those.

The "how" part is the part that actually offers some explanatory power to the conversation. As we can see, just declaring that "someone" (aka a god) did it, doesn't tell us anything about that. Never mind that you haven't even demonstrated some god even exists in the first place. But look what you did when you declare that you know the "who." Suddenly now our "explanations" are even less explanatory because we can just posit magic, and poof, anything goes! Anything is possible even though you've still demonstrated absolutely nothing.

I have demonstrated nothing and to say that it did not happen demonstrates nothing.

Why do you say that? I haven't done that at all. What I'm doing is the opposite of that - questioning your positions in an effort to understand them. I posted some questions to you that you didn't respond to:

How do you know God can suspend natural laws? Where is the evidence for this? Which god? How? When? How did you demonstrate God(s) did anything?

I did not demonstrate that God did anything.

You've provided zero examples to this:

Why would I believe you? You've provided no examples. You basically said you "heard" some stuff somewhere. That's called hearsay. And it's not convincing to me. Why are unsubstantiated and vague rumours convincing to you?

We hear about all kinds of things that aren't true all the time. Trump actually won the last election. I mean, that's what I've "heard" from some people anyway.

What would you conclude from someone who didn't provide any examples whatsoever about things they've "heard?" (.e. Hearsay). Would you believe them, or would you, in an attempt to not just gullibly believe anything you hear, ask for an example or some sort of evidence?

How can I provide an example and/or evidence? It is just a case of I believe it happened and you believe it did not happen.
If I provide examples of miracles it would be the same thing. "That is hearsay, why should I believe?"
Well, don't believe.
Your way is to wait for extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims and to suggest that those who don't do that are naive and that the people who make the claims are liars.
That's fine, believe that if you want, and leave me in my gullibility.