Motoring1 min ago
How do cherry-picking believers decide what to believe?
168 Answers
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?
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?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The presence of aliens, poltergeists and ghosts is the simplest explanation for everything that is not easily understood. It is a very powerful tool and saves a lot of time and effort being wasted on rational thought. We also get to retain our childlike sense of awe and wonder. What could be better?
Everyone on this thread should look in the science section from time to time. It's an eye opener, because in there you will find all the same beacons of rationality that are on here - the ones who define nonsense as 'any theory there's no evidence for' discussing loads of things that there's no evidence for, as if they were serious possibilities.
That's good Theland - it shows we've moved on from a religious mentality (where they would be burned at the stake for heresy) to a scientific one, where debating the current understanding of things is welcomed. It's a bit cheeky of the same people though to put on their atheist hats and come into the religious section to ridicule anything 'paranormal' on the grounds that there's no evidence for it and it's all ghoulie and ghostie nonsense.
That's good Theland - it shows we've moved on from a religious mentality (where they would be burned at the stake for heresy) to a scientific one, where debating the current understanding of things is welcomed. It's a bit cheeky of the same people though to put on their atheist hats and come into the religious section to ridicule anything 'paranormal' on the grounds that there's no evidence for it and it's all ghoulie and ghostie nonsense.
//It's a bit cheeky of the same people though to put on their atheist hats and come into the religious section to ridicule anything 'paranormal' on the grounds that there's no evidence for it and it's all ghoulie and ghostie nonsense.//
Ludwig, I suppose if that's the only criteria on which to base a conclusion you have at your disposal then you really don't have the option to see it any other way.
Perhaps like Naomi, any other possibility that doesn't support your prejudice is automatically excluded from consideration.
Ludwig, I suppose if that's the only criteria on which to base a conclusion you have at your disposal then you really don't have the option to see it any other way.
Perhaps like Naomi, any other possibility that doesn't support your prejudice is automatically excluded from consideration.
Oooo .... now come on. Resorting to unjustified accusations is the last death throe of the floundering argument. You know full well that if a truly rational explanation is offered I welcome it - and I'm prepared to wager that Ludwig does too. Can't speak for Theland of course - and I have my doubts on that account - but nevertheless, shame on you. That is truly unworthy of you.
LazyGun, I too explore all the rational explanations for things I am unsure of that may zoom over my head while walking outside in the night. But if you see or experience something that defies all my known possibilities then I would ask others opinion first before jumping at the UFO conclusion but I know what I experienced and investigation into different modes of flying object hasn't even begun to shine a light (pun intended) on what I witnessed. As for ghosts, I'd love to rationalise everything and say it's this or that but sometimes people experience things they can't explain and not saying they never will be but if you weren't there and didn't experience it for yourself then until you do can really try to explain it away with no knowledge of such things. Yes it's easy to shout ghost or UFO but until all sightings or experiences can be resolved scientifically then there is still much we don't know and maybe never will.
Oh and incidentally, I wasn't talking about hoovering or moving furniture. There was nothing in the room (due to moving home and everything was packed away) and just one ornament was left on the window sill. A member of my family went to clean the windows, moved the ornament to the floor so as not to break it, turned to pick up a bucket of water and the ornament had reappeared on the window sill again.
So which mind trick was that?
Oh and incidentally, I wasn't talking about hoovering or moving furniture. There was nothing in the room (due to moving home and everything was packed away) and just one ornament was left on the window sill. A member of my family went to clean the windows, moved the ornament to the floor so as not to break it, turned to pick up a bucket of water and the ornament had reappeared on the window sill again.
So which mind trick was that?
Ludwig, I apologise if that statement did not apply to me but it did appear rather inclusive. Perhaps if you would show me an example of where I've used the approach you’re referring to we'd have something to discuss. That is if your willing to consider the possibility that there just might be other approaches of which you're not aware. I'm not asking, like others here, that you accept point blank any assertion that comes to mind, or that I know something you might not, even if I do. I might not even be able to present a persuasive case if I’m right. Obviously I haven’t yet. But just because I have the courage to put my own credibility on the line and challenge the prevailing ‘wisdom’ I don't think that alone is justification to deny me my day in court and pronounce sentence without a hearing, especially when I'm not guilty of the charges that have already been levied against me or of that for which I've already been accused and convicted without a fair trial by an impartial jury.
But if you’re going to include reality, truth and reason in your definition of prejudice, forget it, I confess to the ‘crime’ and accept the verdict, guilty as charged.
But if you’re going to include reality, truth and reason in your definition of prejudice, forget it, I confess to the ‘crime’ and accept the verdict, guilty as charged.
Naomi, between the two of us, who’s been unjustly accused?
//Upon what do you and the Chakkas base their conclusions? "I haven't seen it, therefore it can't possibly exist". //
If I’ve ever taken that stance then I owe you an apology, otherwise . . . guess what?
//“Why talk about truth and reason? Since no one knows the truth you can hardly claim that your ability to reason has provided you with the truth…”//
Oh, I see how it works then, if you don’t know it than nobody does, especially not me, but if you know something I don’t, I don’t dare question it, am I right?
//I don't have a dilemma - but you and Chakka do simply because you continue to refuse to consider the possibility that something may exist in this world that doesn't fit comfortably into your ideal where everything works as you think science says it should.//
My dilemma is that I’ve never said that and you apply your own interpretation to my meaning without seeking explanations for that which you don’t understand. I don’t even know what that means. And if you don’t keep lumping my views in with Chakka’s you’ll never be able to discriminate between us. Please, let Chakka speak for himself . . . yeah right, fat chance of that happening anytime soon . . . Hello? Anybody home?
“Rather than investigate and try to find a reason for it, which is something I would expect from a truly enquiring mind, you conclude that I'm deluded, mistaken, or for all I know, just plain nuts.”
That is your conclusion, not mine, not that you haven’t raised my suspicions. It is your own conclusions and your refusal to consider the most obvious explanations, if only for the sake of ruling them out, that make any conclusion untenable. In excluding reason as a means to investigate you’ve essentially slammed the door on the investigative pr
//Upon what do you and the Chakkas base their conclusions? "I haven't seen it, therefore it can't possibly exist". //
If I’ve ever taken that stance then I owe you an apology, otherwise . . . guess what?
//“Why talk about truth and reason? Since no one knows the truth you can hardly claim that your ability to reason has provided you with the truth…”//
Oh, I see how it works then, if you don’t know it than nobody does, especially not me, but if you know something I don’t, I don’t dare question it, am I right?
//I don't have a dilemma - but you and Chakka do simply because you continue to refuse to consider the possibility that something may exist in this world that doesn't fit comfortably into your ideal where everything works as you think science says it should.//
My dilemma is that I’ve never said that and you apply your own interpretation to my meaning without seeking explanations for that which you don’t understand. I don’t even know what that means. And if you don’t keep lumping my views in with Chakka’s you’ll never be able to discriminate between us. Please, let Chakka speak for himself . . . yeah right, fat chance of that happening anytime soon . . . Hello? Anybody home?
“Rather than investigate and try to find a reason for it, which is something I would expect from a truly enquiring mind, you conclude that I'm deluded, mistaken, or for all I know, just plain nuts.”
That is your conclusion, not mine, not that you haven’t raised my suspicions. It is your own conclusions and your refusal to consider the most obvious explanations, if only for the sake of ruling them out, that make any conclusion untenable. In excluding reason as a means to investigate you’ve essentially slammed the door on the investigative pr
process or any possibility of finding any explanation of any kind.
So what would you like me to say? "Chakka and Mibs say it can't be so, so I must be wrong"?
I don’t know what “it” is. You don’t know what “it” is. So what is there for anyone to be right or wrong about?
Why would I do that when my intellect is certainly no less than either of yours and I've no doubt whatsoever that what I experienced was real?”
And that’s that! I’ve never questioned that you experienced something. But before anyone can find a reason for it one needs to know what it is their trying to find a reason for. There’s simply no way to determine a cause for an unknown effect.
So what would you like me to say? "Chakka and Mibs say it can't be so, so I must be wrong"?
I don’t know what “it” is. You don’t know what “it” is. So what is there for anyone to be right or wrong about?
Why would I do that when my intellect is certainly no less than either of yours and I've no doubt whatsoever that what I experienced was real?”
And that’s that! I’ve never questioned that you experienced something. But before anyone can find a reason for it one needs to know what it is their trying to find a reason for. There’s simply no way to determine a cause for an unknown effect.
//Actually, I might put a question up inviting people to challenge you to rationally explain their experiences.//
And given the kinds of experiences I’m anticipating and the reluctance and opposition I expect I’ll be forced to contend with, my answer is likely to be, “There’s simply no way to determine a cause for an unknown effect.”
But I’d much prefer doing this with someone else rather then someone who I care about and in most other circumstance respect and highly regard. This whole process has pained and saddened me deeply but you’ve painted me into a corner without so much as a window to crawl out of. I don’t know why you’ve insisted in making this so difficult but I obviously can’t help you under the circumstances.
//Chakka has already failed to explain one that I've offered him a couple of times, and if memory serves you haven't fared any better, so that could be interesting.//
If you want answers, and I’m not saying you do, then stop drawing conclusions and start asking questions.
And given the kinds of experiences I’m anticipating and the reluctance and opposition I expect I’ll be forced to contend with, my answer is likely to be, “There’s simply no way to determine a cause for an unknown effect.”
But I’d much prefer doing this with someone else rather then someone who I care about and in most other circumstance respect and highly regard. This whole process has pained and saddened me deeply but you’ve painted me into a corner without so much as a window to crawl out of. I don’t know why you’ve insisted in making this so difficult but I obviously can’t help you under the circumstances.
//Chakka has already failed to explain one that I've offered him a couple of times, and if memory serves you haven't fared any better, so that could be interesting.//
If you want answers, and I’m not saying you do, then stop drawing conclusions and start asking questions.
Ankou, rest assured I am not that 'someone' you speak of.
Mibs, //It is your own conclusions and your refusal to consider the most obvious explanations ....//
That isn't fair and it isn't true. I said a few posts ago I solved a 'ghostly' problem for someone on AB - and I had a personal one more recently to which you offered an acceptable solution - so where and when have I refused to consider the most obvious explanations?
//But before anyone can find a reason for it one needs to know what it is their trying to find a reason for. There’s simply no way to determine a cause for an unknown effect.//
Codswallop! The effect isn't unknown to you. You've been told. It's not my fault you have no explanation and your argument doesn't stand up.
The only reason I'm here is because I like debate and if I'm proven wrong then I'm happy to concede that I'm wrong. However, since by your own admission this discussion has pained and saddened you deeply, and I've no desire to upset anyone, I'll withdraw now and leave you good people to it.
If anyone wants to ask me any questions about this subject, please post them in a separate thread. I'll be happy to answer them if I can.
Mibs, //It is your own conclusions and your refusal to consider the most obvious explanations ....//
That isn't fair and it isn't true. I said a few posts ago I solved a 'ghostly' problem for someone on AB - and I had a personal one more recently to which you offered an acceptable solution - so where and when have I refused to consider the most obvious explanations?
//But before anyone can find a reason for it one needs to know what it is their trying to find a reason for. There’s simply no way to determine a cause for an unknown effect.//
Codswallop! The effect isn't unknown to you. You've been told. It's not my fault you have no explanation and your argument doesn't stand up.
The only reason I'm here is because I like debate and if I'm proven wrong then I'm happy to concede that I'm wrong. However, since by your own admission this discussion has pained and saddened you deeply, and I've no desire to upset anyone, I'll withdraw now and leave you good people to it.
If anyone wants to ask me any questions about this subject, please post them in a separate thread. I'll be happy to answer them if I can.
No, Ankou, that's just silly nonsense. You don't know me and therefore you can only possibly be talking about your unsubstantiated 'belief' - not my certain knowledge.
Now if you have anything else to say to me on this subject, please do it elsewhere. The thought of upsetting someone nice actually upsets me and therefore I've no intention of contributing any more to this thread.
Now if you have anything else to say to me on this subject, please do it elsewhere. The thought of upsetting someone nice actually upsets me and therefore I've no intention of contributing any more to this thread.
Oh dear, mib, so sorry, so sorry to leave you as almost the sole intellect fighting the dodgy thinkers. I've been away. Anyway, you've done a splendid job despite all the personal attacks.
For mysef I have to express very sad regret over naomi. I don't know what is happening to her but her attacks have become more and more ad hominem, calling my question daft, myself a monkey and so on. And to agree with Theland in saying that my question and general attitude means that I would once have been a flat-earthist means that she is losing something up there.
What is most disappointing about the posts is that most of them are merely continuing that perpetual debate about psychic phenomena, ground we have covered many times, rather than addressing my very precise question - which was:
When someone is prepare to reject one irrational idea for all the right reasons but is then happy to accept an equally irrational one what extra criterion are they using to justify that existence. It cannot always be that, like naomi, they think they have seen the irratioinal thing. No-one can have seena oroperl-validated case of ESP because there hasnever been one.
But we have a glimmer! pixi says that he/she dismisses weeping statues but accepts alien abductions. So, pixi, since both are irretaional ideas supported by no evidence, what criterion do you use to make the distinction? Phew, back on target.
For mysef I have to express very sad regret over naomi. I don't know what is happening to her but her attacks have become more and more ad hominem, calling my question daft, myself a monkey and so on. And to agree with Theland in saying that my question and general attitude means that I would once have been a flat-earthist means that she is losing something up there.
What is most disappointing about the posts is that most of them are merely continuing that perpetual debate about psychic phenomena, ground we have covered many times, rather than addressing my very precise question - which was:
When someone is prepare to reject one irrational idea for all the right reasons but is then happy to accept an equally irrational one what extra criterion are they using to justify that existence. It cannot always be that, like naomi, they think they have seen the irratioinal thing. No-one can have seena oroperl-validated case of ESP because there hasnever been one.
But we have a glimmer! pixi says that he/she dismisses weeping statues but accepts alien abductions. So, pixi, since both are irretaional ideas supported by no evidence, what criterion do you use to make the distinction? Phew, back on target.
Latest Posts
Food & Drink2 mins ago
Brexit Hit To Uk Trade Less Than...
News2 mins ago
Crosswords4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.