Why are there religious people?

[TheBarrd]

Okay, kids....as much fun as we're all having, this ol' lady is gonna try to catch a few more zzzz's...
Later!

 

[quatona]

I'd have to say, yes...
I have faith....

Ok, so you hold the belief and have the faith that pink unicorns exist. I don´t hold that belief because I don´t have the faith required for that.

Out of interest:
Do you also hold the belief that my sister works as a nurse in Australia?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

By the way, depending on how the concepts are defined, I could potentially claim that there is no Greeble on Pluto. For instance, if a Greeble is defined as an organism that cannot exist beyond the orbit of Saturn, then I would be convinced that there is no Greeble on Pluto. What faith is required to make this statement?

 

[GrimKingGrim]

There are several sites of possible tombs of Jesus, one has a church built on top of it.

Are you aware of what ISIS is doing in Northern Iraq, destroying ancient artifacts deemed to be offensive to their religion? Cultures have done this for thousands of years, that's why it's so difficult to substantiate history at times because superstitious people destroy it or don't address it in their records. The Jews tried to eliminate Jesus and then his followers as well as discredit his teachings as Christianity was a small cult inside Judaism for a long time.

So your excuse for this is that ISIS or Jews may have destroyed it. Seriously?

 

[Colter]

So your excuse for this is that ISIS or Jews may have destroyed it. Seriously?

http://www.learningrx.com/reading-improvement-programs.htm

Reading Improvement Programs — The Proven Training System At LearningRx, our reading improvement program begins with the basics. We start with sound blending, segmenting, and analysis. Students are trained to segment words into isolated units (“phonemes”) and blend these isolated sounds into words. We use “nonsense words” in our training, so students don’t rely on their memory of known words. We then use encoding (spelling), decoding (reading), and writing exercises to make the reversibility of the sound/letter code clearer with practice. Within weeks, the LearningRx reading improvement program takes the student from simpler sound units to more complex sound sequences. After the student has learned the most probable spelling for each sound, the less probable, alternative spellings are introduced. Through training, the letter/sound patterns and the probability of their appearance are stored in the student’s long-term memory, rather than subject to unreliable usage rules. Finally, additional complexities are introduced, such as “overlaps” in the sound/letter code, and exercises are added to teach how these letters overlap with various sounds. Incredibly, students using this reading improvement program have averaged over four years of improvement in less than six months of training. - See more at: http://www.learningrx.com/reading-improvement-programs.htm#sthash.WQqfu3T0.dpuf​

 

[Archaeopteryx]

http://www.learningrx.com/reading-improvement-programs.htm

Reading Improvement Programs — The Proven Training System At LearningRx, our reading improvement program begins with the basics. We start with sound blending, segmenting, and analysis. Students are trained to segment words into isolated units (“phonemes”) and blend these isolated sounds into words. We use “nonsense words” in our training, so students don’t rely on their memory of known words. We then use encoding (spelling), decoding (reading), and writing exercises to make the reversibility of the sound/letter code clearer with practice. Within weeks, the LearningRx reading improvement program takes the student from simpler sound units to more complex sound sequences. After the student has learned the most probable spelling for each sound, the less probable, alternative spellings are introduced. Through training, the letter/sound patterns and the probability of their appearance are stored in the student’s long-term memory, rather than subject to unreliable usage rules. Finally, additional complexities are introduced, such as “overlaps” in the sound/letter code, and exercises are added to teach how these letters overlap with various sounds. Incredibly, students using this reading improvement program have averaged over four years of improvement in less than six months of training. - See more at: http://www.learningrx.com/reading-improvement-programs.htm#sthash.WQqfu3T0.dpuf​

Of course you would pick a brain training company that makes some dubious claims on its website.

 

[Colter]

Of course you would pick a brain training company that makes some dubious claims on its website.

Of course you would pick a brain training company that makes some dubious claims on its website.

There are other reading improvement sites on the internet that GrimKingGrim could take advantage of.

 

[TillICollapse]

An hour ago, I'd never heard of "balut". I still don't know what it is. However, I do know that something called "balut" does exist, because you told me that it does, and I have no reason to think you would lie to me. In other words, the only evidence I have that there is a type of food called "balut" is your word, but I accept that evidence as true. Now, if I want to find out more about this balut, I could ask you...or I could do some investigating on my own. I'm curious enough that tomorrow morning just might find me cruising the net looking for information about "balut". I may never be an expert...but I will know more than I did an hour ago...

So you'd never heard of balut. You didn't have a say one way or another, because you didn't even know it existed. Now that you know it *may* exist, you can choose to investigate it further or perhaps not care and continue to hold no thoughts on it one way or another.

Well there is no universal consensus by people on who/what God is ... and the different qualities and things attributed to God can be so wide ranging, it sometimes seems there are almost as many "gods" as there are people who claim there are. For some, just hearing the word "God" doesn't really give them anything to consider. They may have little to no preconceived notions, biases, concepts, etc. They may lack belief, even when presented with the term. Give them a definition to consider, and they may continue to lack belief for any number of reasons. With balut for example, you did not have faith that it didn't exist ... you didn't even know what it was. Perhaps you've already chosen to believe it exists based only on my word. If I asked what your opinion on apwdgv;kjnawiue was, you may be more skeptical. It's a nonsense word with no definition as of yet, amongst other things which already stand out about it. I'm not saying the word "God" is a nonsense word, but there are so many different descriptions it has almost lost it's own meaning and can become "whatever the person wants it to become". So even then, being presented with the word "God" or even "Christian God" or "Biblical God" ... it's just too vague. It may not take a concentrated effort to disbelieve, or place one's belief elsewhere ... again, "no ballot".

 

[TheBarrd]

not being convinced of God's existence doesn't mean being convinced of God's non-existence.

not being convinced someone is guilty doesn't mean you think he's innocent.
not being convinced someone is telling the truth doesn't mean you think he's lying.
not being convinced I have a million dollars doesn't mean you think I don't have a million dollars.
I could go on and on.

Yes, but none of that is the point.

If I say that I do not hold a belief that you have a million dollars, it is the exact same thing as saying that I do not believe that you have a million dollars.
Now, if I were to say that you might have a million dollars, but I see nothing to convince me that you have it...that is not the same thing as me saying I do not believe you have a million dollars or that I do not hold a belief that you have a million dollars. It's not the same thing as "I am not convinced that you have a million dollars.
How 'bout you lend me a couple of grand? You'll never miss it...

 

[Colter]

 

[TheBarrd]

So you'd never heard of balut. You didn't have a say one way or another, because you didn't even know it existed. Now that you know it *may* exist, you can choose to investigate it further or perhaps not care and continue to hold no thoughts on it one way or another.

Well there is no universal consensus by people on who/what God is ... and the different qualities and things attributed to God can be so wide ranging, it sometimes seems there are almost as many "gods" as there are people who claim there are. For some, just hearing the word "God" doesn't really give them anything to consider. They may have little to no preconceived notions, biases, concepts, etc. They may lack belief, even when presented with the term. Give them a definition to consider, and they may continue to lack belief for any number of reasons. With balut for example, you did not have faith that it didn't exist ... you didn't even know what it was. Perhaps you've already chosen to believe it exists based only on my word. If I asked what your opinion on apwdgv;kjnawiue was, you may be more skeptical. It's a nonsense word with no definition as of yet, amongst other things which already stand out about it. I'm not saying the word "God" is a nonsense word, but there are so many different descriptions it has almost lost it's own meaning and can become "whatever the person wants it to become". So even then, being presented with the word "God" or even "Christian God" or "Biblical God" ... it's just too vague. It may not take a concentrated effort to disbelieve, or place one's belief elsewhere ... again, "no ballot".

Sure if you're talking about someone who has never heard of God. I doubt very many such folks live in the US, though. If I ever do stumble on such a person, I'll tell him the whole story from the beginning, and see to it that he has a Bible so that he can read for himself.
Let each one decide for him/herself, is what I say. No one should be pushed to accept or reject God...

 

[bhsmte]

Sure if you're talking about someone who has never heard of God. I doubt very many such folks live in the US, though. If I ever do stumble on such a person, I'll tell him the whole story from the beginning, and see to it that he has a Bible so that he can read for himself.
Let each one decide for him/herself, is what I say. No one should be pushed to accept or reject God...

I doubt, there are many people the world over, that have not heard of Gods.

 

[TheBarrd]

I doubt, there are many people the world over, that have not heard of Gods.

I doubt that myself...however I was referring to the Christian God.

Have some balut?

 

[bhsmte]

I doubt that myself...however I was referring to the Christian God.

Have some balut?

Still applies.

In this day and age, very few the world over, have not heard of the Christian God.

 

[TillICollapse]

Sure if you're talking about someone who has never heard of God. I doubt very many such folks live in the US, though. If I ever do stumble on such a person, I'll tell him the whole story from the beginning, and see to it that he has a Bible so that he can read for himself.
Let each one decide for him/herself, is what I say. No one should be pushed to accept or reject God...

But I think you missed part of my point: whatever definition which you put forth, is just one of many possible definitions that could be put forth. Telling the whole story from the beginning is just one of many such stories and furthermore, one of many takes on the same story others will reference. Without a referent, a coherent definition that can be demonstrated or has supporting evidence, etc ... a person who is examining the concepts critically for example, may still lack belief without actively rejecting or disbelieving anything.

 

[zippy2006]

So you'd never heard of balut. You didn't have a say one way or another, because you didn't even know it existed. Now that you know it *may* exist, you can choose to investigate it further or perhaps not care and continue to hold no thoughts on it one way or another.

TheBarrd's case is more accurate. Someone testifying to some reality is evidence for that reality. It doesn't create an existence-neutral concept in your head. If in the face of testimony someone decided to "not care and continue to hold no thoughts on it one way or another" (without any reason to disbelieve) then they would be an irrational person.

For example, if you are driving and a stranger stops you and tells you that there has been an accident at the intersection ahead, you would believe them (all things being equal). In philosophy this is known as the Principle of Testimony, and is related to the Principle of Credulity.

 

[ranunculus]

If I say that I do not hold a belief that you have a million dollars, it is the exact same thing as saying that I do not believe that you have a million dollars.

This is just a straw man. Yes of course "not holding a belief" is the same as "not having a belief". No one is arguing that.

Again, it bears repeating, lack of faith is not the same as faith. You keep confusing the two. I don't know whether there is an alien named Greeble on Pluto. It's possible that there is, but I have no good reason to believe that is the case. What faith is required to not believe this claim?

The point you keep missing is that, unless you have some firsthand knowledge...you've been to Pluto and have explored every crevice in it...or you have some serious evidence, you cannot know what or who might live on Pluto. As ridiculous as it seems, your stance that no alien named Greeble lives there is based on faith.
Naming the alien doesn't change that.

You were twisting his words. I tried 3 times to explain why these statements are not the same.
So I'll try once more.
Not believing in Greeble is not the same as believing in no Greeble.
The first statement required absolutely no faith.

 

[TillICollapse]

TheBarrd's case is more accurate. Someone testifying to some reality is evidence for that reality. It doesn't create an existence-neutral concept in your head. If in the face of testimony someone decided to "not care and continue to hold no thoughts on it one way or another" (without any reason to disbelieve) then they would be an irrational person.

Consider the following two examples:

Example 1: Tell me what I believe concerning God.

Example 2: I have 20 different people telling me they've interacted with extraterrestrials in varying ways. All of their descriptions are different from one another. While I no longer have an existence-neutral concept that a being which they are attempting to describe as an other-worldy being exists according to them (that is to say, that I have a bare minimum attribute of such a being: their origins are not of earth), I do not have a coherent definition to believe or disbelieve in. I may remain neutral, or I may shelf it as "irrelevant" until more information comes in. Furthermore, there may be an extraterrestrial that does exist, which none of their descriptions come close to matching. I lack belief in such a thing, because I don't even know what that thing would be. Although in the case of "extraterrestrial" I at least have a bare minimum attribute.

Concerning "God" ... what is the bare minimum attribute which has been agreed upon by consensus ? The term itself may not be existence neutral ... but beyond that, a person may have no other attribute they link to such a concept other than the term itself. In that case, the term is essentially equivalent to a;sudtalksdugflkjalsk. Or snufflekyrts. I think a person can have a neutral or no-thoughts-whatsoever concepts of such a thing.

Now in the case of someone presenting a reality of God, for example ... with many more attributes, a person is now presented with a concept. It's not necessarily an existence-neutral concept, which is what I believe you are getting at. However it's not an either/or dichotomy either necessarily. It's not necessarily a believe/disbelieve ... a person may not care, or be neutral, etc. There could be any number of reasons for this. One such reason, as I've already stated, is taking into context the entirety of "God" in definition. If a person who is already aware of various definitions is now presented with yet another one, then which one does such a person choose in order to link it to the concept ? Suppose for example he simply looks at them all and continues to not make up his mind, or remain neutral, or not care, etc.

I believe there is disbelief where a person is aware of a concept, but does not believe in that concept. They may take those attributes that link to such a concept and believe it is something else for example. I think this is what is often described by believers and how they imagine an "unbeliever" is not accepting or believing their claim, or stating they lack belief concerning it, etc. However I also think it's possible for a person to lack belief, even when presented with a concept, especially if the concept is vague or perceived as incomplete, or irrelevant or meaningless. For example ... I have been presented with various definitions of "immaterial". I still find it meaningless or irrelevant to myself. I don't believe something could be immaterial, but I also don't disbelieve something could be immaterial. Depending on how a person uses the term, I often see it as superfluous. At other terms meaningless. But overall, I don't really believe or disbelieve when I look at the context as a whole. In parts or certain instances, I may disbelieve or have thoughts concerning such a term (obviously) however taken as a whole, the term "immaterial" and it's concept isn't something I really don't care about nor hold a complete thought on one way or another.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This is just a straw man. Yes of course "not holding a belief" is the same as "not having a belief". No one is arguing that.





You were twisting his words. I tried 3 times to explain why these statements are not the same.
So I'll try once more.
Not believing in Greeble is not the same as believing in no Greeble.
The first statement required absolutely no faith.

I'm beginning to suspect that she is deliberately obfuscating the issue.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm beginning to suspect that she is deliberately obfuscating the issue.

Not wanting to accept it, would be good motivation to do so.