Why do some people

[Heyo]

Who say they can't believe what they do?

Nobody (I know of).

Its their beliefs

Yep.
Science doesn't condemn or condone belief. Science explains why we believe. (Which was your original question.)

 

[Audie]

No the self will disappear one day

Gather ye indulgences whilst ye may, then.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Gather ye indulgences whilst ye may, then.

Ohhh yey

 

[Audie]

Heh...I chuckled.
There's some truth to this in some cases, but I don't think it's often the case, to be honest. Entirely opinionative, and I might be somewhat coloured by my own thoughts. Just because I'm an atheist doesn't make me representative of atheists. But still...

Atheists are entirely not operating as 'naturalists' at all times. I know one who believes in ghosts and an afterlife (don't ask me...makes no sense in my mind).
I operate more as a 'standard' atheist, but dislike reductionism, and think that breaking things down into component parts misses the point. I love my kids...working out what chemical or neuron is firing strikes me as missing the point.

So, in the realm of love, I'm not a naturalist of the type you seem to be implying. Perhaps it's more that an absence of love appears easier to discern that an absence of God. But I think, actually, it's the specific and contradictory belief claims made about God that are the real impacting item here.

Not all claims made about God are correct. I know that to be true. So I am deciding which to believe. I'm measuring them against one another. And that is what leads me to rationalisation. Not really science, of course, but some attempt to measure these beliefs off against each other.

Again...just my opinion.

Its not just a opinion that stereotyping
"Always / never " yeilds bad results

 

[Audie]

And it's odd (not usual) that Paul had a rather stunning vision of the Lord Jesus Christ.

He said he did.
Didnt he also say he was immune to viper bite?

 

[firedragon]

Science explains why we believe.

Which study is this? Interesting.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@Lain did not do or say anything wrong....

Well, he actually did imo.

Stuff was being discussed as that stuff was defined in the OP.
He swooped it and argued about that stuff, while defining said stuff differently without acknowledging that.
This then puts a fog on the conversation where people talk past each other due to using terms that are defined differently by both parties.
That's confusing.

But anyway.....

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Its not just a opinion that stereotyping
"Always / never " yeilds bad results

There's a fine line between stereotyping and generalising, I think.
Generalisations can be useful in sorting the world around us. We just need to remember that they're not specifically applicable.
I can state the indigenous Australians have poorer health outcomes than non-indigenous, and this might drive research, funding, or regional improvments. But when I meet an Aboriginal, that doesn't tell me how healthy he/she is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Who say they can't believe what they do? Its their beliefs

I don't think he said anything about what people can and can not believe.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Well, he actually did imo.

Stuff was being discussed as that stuff was defined in the OP.
He swooped it and argued about that stuff, while defining said stuff differently without acknowledging that.
This then puts a fog on the conversation where people talk past each other due to using terms that are defined differently by both parties.
That's confusing.

But anyway.....

So maybe it is time for you to stop hunting for arguments of "wrong" in others. Just because you disagree does not mean others are wrong.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I don't think he said anything about what people can and can not believe.

You do!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So maybe it is time for you to stop hunting for arguments of "wrong" in others.

Why would I do that?
Not just in others by the way, in my own self also.

Why would we just ignore things that are wrong?
What good could possibly come from that?
Why would we not question things and scrutinize them?

Just because you disagree does not mean others are wrong.

Whenever I claim something is incorrect, the reasoning I offer to support my claim never amounts to "because I disagree".

Like in the very post you are responding to.
I explained step by step.

That's not "you're wrong because i disagree".
That's rather "you're wrong and here's why"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You do!

I never did.

I challenge you to quote me a single time where I told people what they can and can't believe.


Don't forget to retract your accusation when you fail to do so.

 

[Audie]

There's a fine line between stereotyping and generalising, I think.
Generalisations can be useful in sorting the world around us. We just need to remember that they're not specifically applicable.
I can state the indigenous Australians have poorer health outcomes than non-indigenous, and this might drive research, funding, or regional improvments. But when I meet an Aboriginal, that doesn't tell me how healthy he/she is.

Um yes. I actually used the wrong word,
"generalize" is better.

 

[Suave]

Why do some people think that using science to "explain" any form of theism is a right way to understand belief in a God?

In discussion of theism science are useless since science do not "know" the unseen, so they can not verify a "result" if religion or spiritual teaching is discussed it has to be done by the teaching of each spiritual teaching. Not by use of science.

According to my religion of Christian Matrixism, founded by yours truly, God is the controller of simulations. There is actually a way indeed to determine if we are likely part of a simulated universe with an underlying grid being controlled by a simulator ( a.k.a. - God )

There is actually a way indeed to determine if we are likely part of a simulated universe with an underlying grid being controlled by a simulator ( a.k.a. - God )

Some physicists have proposed a method for testing if we are in a numerical simulated cubic space-time lattice Matrix or simulated universe with an underlying grid.
[1210.1847] Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation

Based on the assumption that there'd be finite computational resources, a simulated universe would be performed by dividing up the space-time continuum into individually separate and distinctive points. Analogous to mini-simulations that lattice-gauge theorists conduct to construct nuclei based on Quantum Chromodynamics, observable effects of a grid-like space-time have been studied from these computer simulations which use a 3-D grid to model how elementary particles move and collide with each other. Anomalies found in these simulations suggest that if we are in a simulation universe with an underlying grid, then there'd be various amounts of high energy cosmic rays coming at us from each direction; but if space is continuous, then there'd be high energy cosmic rays coming at us equally from every direction.

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology
Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation
Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi, Martin J. Savage
(Submitted on 4 Oct 2012 (v1), last revised 9 Nov 2012 (this version, v2))

 

[Suave]

You can't know the unseen either.

By definition, anything you see is not "the unseen."

What if cosmic rays are observed travelling predominately along the axes of the lattice of our simulated universe/Matrix in contrast to being observed emanating in all directions of unconstrained space of a base reality, then would you still doubt the existence of our simulator ( a.k.a. -God) ?

 

[YoursTrue]

He said he did.
Didnt he also say he was immune to viper bite?

Yes, he said he did. And his experience was recorded. The persons with Paul are said to have heard a voice but did not see what Paul saw. "Now the men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing, indeed, the sound of a voice but seeing no one." (Acts 9:7)
I won't say he was "immune," but apparently God protected him. Back to Acts, this time chapter 28. The people he was going to first considered him first to be a murderer because of the viper, but when he did not die from the viper, they erroneously considered him to be a god.
"But when Paul collected a bundle of sticks and laid it on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat and fastened itself on his hand. 4 When the foreign-speaking people caught sight of the venomous creature hanging from his hand, they began saying to one another: “Surely this man is a murderer, and although he made it to safety from the sea, Justice did not permit him to keep on living.” 5 However, he shook the creature off into the fire and suffered no harm. 6 But they were expecting him to swell up or suddenly to drop dead. After they waited for a long time and saw that nothing bad happened to him, they changed their mind and began saying he was a god.

 

[Audie]

Yes, he said he did. And his experience was recorded. The persons with Paul are said to have heard a voice but did not see what Paul saw. "Now the men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing, indeed, the sound of a voice but seeing no one." (Acts 9:7)
I won't say he was "immune," but apparently God protected him. Back to Acts, this time chapter 28. The people he was going to first considered him first to be a murderer because of the viper, but when he did not die from the viper, they erroneously considered him to be a god.
"But when Paul collected a bundle of sticks and laid it on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat and fastened itself on his hand. 4 When the foreign-speaking people caught sight of the venomous creature hanging from his hand, they began saying to one another: “Surely this man is a murderer, and although he made it to safety from the sea, Justice did not permit him to keep on living.” 5 However, he shook the creature off into the fire and suffered no harm. 6 But they were expecting him to swell up or suddenly to drop dead. After they waited for a long time and saw that nothing bad happened to him, they changed their mind and began saying he was a god.

Terrif. I know the story too.
Its like a slice of swiss cheese
full of holes.
Start with -no poisonous snakes on the island.

So theres a critical part of the story that is false.

Theres lots more

 

[YoursTrue]

Terrif. I know the story too.
Its like a slice of swiss cheese
full of holes.
Start with -no poisonous snakes on the island.

So theres a critical part of the story that is false.

Theres lots more

I don't believe that, but ! if you do, that's up to you. Where did you get the idea that there were no poisonous snakes on the island? Or is that what you meant to say? "no poisonous snakes on the island," you said. If you want to, perhaps you can elaborate as to what you mean about that.

 

[Audie]

I don't believe that, but ! if you do, that's up to you. Where did you get the idea that there were no poisonous snakes on the island? Or is that what you meant to say? "no poisonous snakes on the island," you said. If you want to, perhaps you can elaborate as to what you mean about that.

Its super simple.
There are no poisonous snakes in antarctica.
None on the island where paul claims viper bite.
If you think i am making it up, google for yourself.