How do cherry-picking believers decide what to believe?

[chakka35]

One would think that a person who could think rationally would be consistent about it. But this seems not to be so. Below is a thread about a chap who rejects God but believes in an afterlife, even though both beliefs have a similar irrational status.

How many other cases are there? People who, for example, reject astrology but believe in Tarot cards; who reject dowsing but accept ouija boards; who reject crystal balls but accept ESP; who reject weeping statues but accept alien abductions; who reject fairies but accept angels…..and so on. How do they discriminate between one lot of nonsense and another? What criteria do they use?

I anticipate one possible answer: a believer (naomi perhaps?) might say that she believes in ghosts because she has seen one. But this cannot always be the answer, surely. What is?

[Ankou]

not true jake. on offering to buy mrs kou any car she liked, within reason of course, she plumped for 'a red one'.

[naomi24]

Mibs, //If the truth is not there patiently waiting to be revealed then why believe anything?//

How can someone who has experienced that which you and Chakka deny exists do anything but believe it?

//It is only through reason that the truth of any claim can be established, no less the claim that “…no one knows…”.//

Not true. 'No one knows' isn't a claim the needs to be established as a fact by the application of reason - it is a fact.

[Ankou]

"how can someone who has experienced that which you and Chakka deny exists do anything but believe it" ?

precisely what i said to mrs kou about my alien abduction last week. she thought i was in the pub.

[jomifl]

It's decided for them...

[mibn2cweus]

//How can someone who has experienced that which you and Chakka deny exists do anything but believe it? //
It's not the experience that I question, it's your conclusion as to the precise nature of that experience that I cannot reconcile with my understanding of what is possible within the framework of reality. Explanations, especially the lack thereof, must always be open to investigation, no less then the phenomenon they are intended to explain.

//'No one knows' isn't a claim the needs to be established as a fact by the application of reason - it is a fact.//
A 'fact' that hasn't been established is only as good as a hunch. And if not established by reason, then how?

[naomi24]

Mibs, I have never determined the precise nature of my experiences - and much less offered a conclusive judgement. I call them 'ghostly' only for want of a more appropriate term - if indeed a more appropriate term exists. I know what happened and the effect those occurrences had upon me and upon my friends and family. I can't explain the cause - but I did, without doubt, experience the effect.

And as for 'reason' in this instance - don't be facetious! You don't know and Chakka doesn't know because no one knows - and if you claim the need to acknowledge the requirement to employ 'reason' to come to that clear conclusion, then you are indeed as big a monkey as Chakka with his claim to bogus 'claims'. :o)

[mibn2cweus]

Naomi, In determining what something might be, knowing what it can't be can go a long way in the quest to make such a determination by eliminating ineligible suspects and narrowing our focus on possible causes. While I don't expect you to take my word for it that someone might know something more about something related to your experience than you do, I don't understand why you would refuse to even entertain the possibility.

But if you're unable to distinguish the monkey from the organ grinder then perhaps that too goes a long way towards explaining your dilemma.

[mike11111]

How bloody rude and pompous! This is why (apart from this occasion) that I never post on this thread.

[Andyvon]

Here's another log then!

I would like to ask mibn how he explains telepathy or hypnotism as I mentioned in tmy post. It has been demonstrated so many times that those are very real phenomena there surely can't be many people who would deny they exist. Yet science is still confounded for even the most basic of explanations.

[mibn2cweus]

mike11111, Would you care to explain the basis for you assessment because I honestly don't have a clue what your referring to . . . not that I believe you do either.

[mibn2cweus]

Andyvon, Please present your case and I'll give it my thoughtful consideration.

[mibn2cweus]

Chakka! You got me into this mess . . . now you get me out of it! ;o)

[starone]

I would love to believe in all of this. It would make life definitely more interesting. Angels, fairies, weeping statues, ouija boards that actually tell the truth, - yes, everything, bring them all on. I think I might draw the line at alien abductions though, a bit too frightening.

[Andyvon]

Just that really mibn.

Hypnosis is a very real state that is accepted by almost everyone who sees or experiences it. It's the same with telepathy. However, science is stumped when offering an explanation for how those phenomena act or exist. With a spirit world (I'm not talking about God or gods) I venture a similar point - that many people know and accept the existence of a spirit world because they have had contact with it. However, as with hypnosis and telepathy, science has yet to offer any explanation for how it can exist.

(I've got my tin hat on ready!)

[starone]

Have you noticed that they are advertising free tarot cards at the top of this thread. Might take them up on it.

[starone]

And at the side there is a famous french psychic who will reveal all for free (don't believe that) and a "make a wish". I love how they match up the ads with the threads.

[mike11111]

No ads at the top of my thread. Have Firefox adblock add-on. Apart from no ads, everything loads much more quickly. Definitely to be recommended.

[mibn2cweus]

Andy, I don't see a problem with hypnosis being a verifiable phenomenon in as far as being a willingly induced state of consciousness. What manifestation does it exhibit outside of a physical body? What's the mystery? I've never been hypnotized myself but I think I might be a potential candidate as I remain highly suggestible. In fact I think I might have hypnotised a chicken before, although I'm not prepared to offer proof of that.

Telepathy, Some alternative means of thought transfer? Where has this been demonstrated and experimentally confirmed? I find it difficult not generating enough confusion just by opening my big mouth. ;o)

I'm really not nearly as stubborn as I might appear. In fact it's my gullibility that makes me particularly cautious with regards to choosing what I should believe.

[starone]

I don't normally take any notice of the ads mike, but it just caught my eye and I thought it was apt. Isn't that how the editors pay for this site - with ads? I don't think I will block mine, I like the idea of somebody else paying for my fun.

[Andyvon]

I've never considered myself gullible either mibn. I have great love and interest in science, especially cosmology, biology, life, earth sciences etc. My rationality has never permitted me to believe in the long list of phenomena that was mentioned earlier - there are always rational explanations for me. However, I have had several exeriences in the past which I didn't dream, invent or imagine that have forced me to accept that the spirit world does exist. That is against my every instinct and I feel uncomfortable admitting it - but I know it exists. People who have experienced the spirit world have no doubts - despite the absence of a logical explanation.

Telepathy certainly exists between dogs and their owners as any owner will attest. Also there are so many people who have claimed telepathic contact with others that there has to be something there that shouldn't be immediately dismissed. I did see a while back that it's now thought most animals communicate telepathically and that the ability was essential for survival. We still have those abilities although our modern life has masked them.

I'm most interested in this chicken by the way!