Why do some believe easily, others hardly at all?

[Colt]

No such thing as a "loving" father who demands a human sacrifice.

Wow! Where in the heck did I say anything about a sacrifice? Jesus never taught human sacrifice nor did he teach that he was to be a sacrifice!

 

[Brickjectivity]

Was it easy for Jesus to live according to the will of his loving Universal Father?

There was childhood, and there was adulthood. Jesus was moving from one to the other. He learned from his suffering in the furnace of affliction. There was some kind of transformation he had to undergo, and his obedience had to be proven by his own death. He also had to agree that he was deserving of death or he would have been required to protest against it. The elusive explanation for this was only mentioned in scripture once to my knowledge in Hebrews 5:9 which said he was made perfect only after death. Paul's letters also seemed to allude to the same when discussing why an obedient person had to be condemned, speaking about it as if it were evidence in a court, evidence in humanity's favor. The court was to find that humanity was salvageable. Even though Jesus suffered, and even though he prayed and cried to be saved from death; he went through it for the joy set before him which joy was us. So was it easy? No, it was not easy; but he was highly motivated.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yet another post by a member asking whether they believe so-and-so (and of course admitting that they do) led me to ask myself why is it I find it so difficult to believe claims without evidence, while others appear to accept almost any claim absolutely uncritically.

I'm old enough to have been exposed to all the strange stuff: spontaneous human combustion, ghosts, religion (of every kind), conspiracy theories, Elvis-lives, auras, astral travel, psychokenesis, ESP, parapsychology, alien abductions (usually with penetrating body probes!), yeti and sasquatch and chupacabra, Edgar Cayce, resurrections (of Christ and many others), YEC, -- oh, my this list could go on forever. Humans have believed (and do believe) so many strange things.

But what I've noticed is this: there seemn to be people (like me, and other skeptics and critical thinkers in the Forum) who find it difficult to near-impossible to believe strange claims for which we see no real evidence ---- but there are others who seem predisposed, almost programmed, to believe almost anything at all, no matter how unlikely.

Michael Shermer wrote a book called "Why Do People Believe Weird Things" and it got a pretty good reception -- but only from the usual skeptical thinkers. The "Woo" crowd hated it.

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

Thank you for another thoughtful post. Lately I've been reflecting a lot on the diversity of the planet, including the human species, and how certain folks are just so completely unaware of it, due to the nature of the subconscious mind. (What goes into the mind is the sum total of the mind.) For example, if they speak a single language. although they know intellectually the planet has 1000+ languages, they only FEEL one. The tendency for a person to feel that the entire world must perceive, think, feel, just like they do is absolutely false, and when they encounter something very far away from how they perceive, it's puzzling.

So my answer to your question is that it's just a reflection of the diversity that is this planet.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And some believe an intelligent designer or life giver magically existed where there is no existence whatever, and had the power (where the absence of anything at all implies the absence of power, too) -- and how likely is that?

It is unknown, unless you are the first human, who have solved what objective reality really is as independent of the mind.
You are a cultural product of in effect naturalism and you don't question that and thus you don't even know, that you are a believer.

 

[Brian2]

And some believe an intelligent designer or life giver magically existed where there is no existence whatever, and had the power (where the absence of anything at all implies the absence of power, too) -- and how likely is that?

Where do you get your facts? Certainly not from science. Science cannot say that God did not or does not exist where nothing else exists.
So your conclusion is a leap of faith beyond what science can say.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Where do you get your facts? Certainly not from science. Science cannot say that God did not or does not exist where nothing else exists.
So your conclusion is a leap of faith beyond what science can say.

I did not claim science said anything of the kind -- I asked "how likely is that?", in response to a member asking me how likely is it that the universe just popped into existed without a creator. So I ask what many of us think is an entirely logical and justified question, "where do you think this intelligent designer and creator comes from?", to which no theist ever provides any answer than, "it was always there."

I recall Christopher Hitchens telling a parable about a young naval office standing for promotion and the captain quizzing him. It goes something like:

“What will you do if you are on a leeward shore with a very strong wind driving you towards the rocks?

“I’d cram on more sail and steer to starboard, hard down on the tiller!”

“Fine, and if the wind increases again”

“Go harder on the tiller and cram on more sail!”

“And the wind increases yet again?”

“Go harder still on the rudder and cram on more sail!”

“Young man, where are you getting all this sail?”

”With all due respect, sir, the same place you are getting all the wind!”

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I did not claim science said anything of the kind -- I asked "how likely is that?", in response to a member asking me how likely is it that the universe just popped into existed without a creator. So I ask what many of us think is an entirely logical and justified question, "where do you think this intelligent designer and creator comes from?", to which no theist ever provides any answer than, "it was always there."
...

It is unknown and how we got methodological naturalism and not philosophical naturalism.
The psychology of being certain is the same for all 3 here as they all act in the everyday world:
#1: The world is natural as a fact.
#2: The world is supernatural as a fact.
#3: It is unknown.

Your version as per likelihood is unknown.

 

[Heyo]

Was it easy for Jesus to live according to the will of his loving Universal Father?

The easy part was to wait for Paul and others to make up stories about him.

 

[Soandso]

Yet another post by a member asking whether they believe so-and-so (and of course admitting that they do)

I mean... is that such a bad thing? Yeesh

 

[Koldo]

Yet another post by a member asking whether they believe so-and-so (and of course admitting that they do) led me to ask myself why is it I find it so difficult to believe claims without evidence, while others appear to accept almost any claim absolutely uncritically.

I'm old enough to have been exposed to all the strange stuff: spontaneous human combustion, ghosts, religion (of every kind), conspiracy theories, Elvis-lives, auras, astral travel, psychokenesis, ESP, parapsychology, alien abductions (usually with penetrating body probes!), yeti and sasquatch and chupacabra, Edgar Cayce, resurrections (of Christ and many others), YEC, -- oh, my this list could go on forever. Humans have believed (and do believe) so many strange things.

But what I've noticed is this: there seemn to be people (like me, and other skeptics and critical thinkers in the Forum) who find it difficult to near-impossible to believe strange claims for which we see no real evidence ---- but there are others who seem predisposed, almost programmed, to believe almost anything at all, no matter how unlikely.

Michael Shermer wrote a book called "Why Do People Believe Weird Things" and it got a pretty good reception -- but only from the usual skeptical thinkers. The "Woo" crowd hated it.

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

I used to be a person that would be willing to believe in pretty much anything, until I heard of skeptcism in my early twenties. Then it rang a bell and I never looked back. Considering this experience, I would say there is definitely a 'nurture' aspect to it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I used to be a person that would be willing to believe in pretty much anything, until I heard of skeptcism in my early twenties. Then it rang a bell and I never looked back. Considering this experience, I would say there is definitely a 'nurture' aspect to it.

Well, yes, but even skepticism is not just one version.

 

[Soandso]

"Unlikely" seems to be in the eye of the beholder.
Some people see it as likely that this universe and the life and consciousness in it came into existence without any intelligent design or life giver.
How likely is that?

I'd say the probability right now is sitting at 100%. Unfortunately we don't have another universe that was created by an intelligent design and life giver to compare our universe to, and everything we can see and study appears to form naturally, so why should anything else form differently when it comes to the natural world's deepest history?

That could change if we actually find and discover a life giver and intelligent designer, but until we find one, the intelligent designer and life giver theory is not looking too concrete, imo

 

[Colt]

The easy part was to wait for Paul and others to make up stories about him.

Or for atheists to make up stories about Paul making up stories.

 

[Brian2]

I'd say the probability right now is sitting at 100%. Unfortunately we don't have another universe that was created by an intelligent design and life giver to compare our universe to, and everything we can see and study appears to form naturally, so why should anything else form differently when it comes to the natural world's deepest history?

That could change if we actually find and discover a life giver and intelligent designer, but until we find one, the intelligent designer and life giver theory is not looking too concrete, imo

I found a life giver and intelligent designer but I don't think you would agree.

 

[Soandso]

I found a life giver and intelligent designer but I don't think you would agree.

Why wouldn't I agree?

 

[Brian2]

I did not claim science said anything of the kind -- I asked "how likely is that?", in response to a member asking me how likely is it that the universe just popped into existed without a creator. So I ask what many of us think is an entirely logical and justified question, "where do you think this intelligent designer and creator comes from?", to which no theist ever provides any answer than, "it was always there."

What's wrong with saying that God has always been there?

 

[Brian2]

Why wouldn't I agree?

Because you said " the probability right now is sitting at 100%."

 

[Heyo]

I found a life giver and intelligent designer but I don't think you would agree.

Pics or it didn't happen.

 

[Audie]

Pics or it didn't happen.

Eze- peezy

Redirect Notice

images.app.goo.gl

 

[Soandso]

Because you said " the probability right now is sitting at 100%."

Right now it's sitting at 100% in the absence of anything else that can stand up to the rigors of falsifiable testing. That can change if something else concrete were presented, such as a good case for an intelligent designer and life giver

Until then though, if everything is natural, and everything natural forms naturally, where does the supernatural part fit in?