ChatterBank1 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.
Possibly you mean me Chakka. I agree with Pasta that your analagies are rather extreme - all black and white. I don't believe in any God or gods but I have no doubt there is an existence after this one. As I said in my previous post, the existence of a god and the afterlife are two separate things.
There are many phenomena that science has yet to explain. Good examples are telepathy and hypnosis. Science has never discovered how hypnosis works but there can't be many people who reject that hypnosis is very real. Presumably your black-and-white views would say that telepathy and hypnosis are nonsense as they don't fit with modern laws of physics nor can they be scientifically explained.
There are many phenomena that science has yet to explain. Good examples are telepathy and hypnosis. Science has never discovered how hypnosis works but there can't be many people who reject that hypnosis is very real. Presumably your black-and-white views would say that telepathy and hypnosis are nonsense as they don't fit with modern laws of physics nor can they be scientifically explained.
Way to win friends and influence people, eh Chakka? Welcome to the real world. What do you say we throw some kindling on this fire?
The fact of the matter is you're all wrong. But just like everyone else here, I can't be bothered to substantiate my claim right now, not that something as silly as a rational discussion is likely to change the minds of people who have never learned to use it, that is if they haven’t completely forgotten that they have one. Objectivity is a choice, one of the few remaining choices that haven't been denied to a society that has surrendered most of its other freedoms to the fatherland that promises to relieve them of the responsibility of independence. Obviously the overwhelming choice is not to think but rather cling tenaciously to that one other remaining freedom, to believe whatever the hell you want to regardless of what the consequences of abandoning truth and reason might be . . . simples!
So much for pretending there’s a potential for a meaningful rational discussion here . . . what’s on the telly then?
Apologies to seadogg who got it in one.
By the way Chakka, Since when is rationality a prerequisite for not believing in God? Perhaps you should reevaluate your definition of atheism before you make us all look silly. As one who been there, I’m telling you it’s a long treacherous road leading from disbelief to knowing why something is simply not possible.
The fact of the matter is you're all wrong. But just like everyone else here, I can't be bothered to substantiate my claim right now, not that something as silly as a rational discussion is likely to change the minds of people who have never learned to use it, that is if they haven’t completely forgotten that they have one. Objectivity is a choice, one of the few remaining choices that haven't been denied to a society that has surrendered most of its other freedoms to the fatherland that promises to relieve them of the responsibility of independence. Obviously the overwhelming choice is not to think but rather cling tenaciously to that one other remaining freedom, to believe whatever the hell you want to regardless of what the consequences of abandoning truth and reason might be . . . simples!
So much for pretending there’s a potential for a meaningful rational discussion here . . . what’s on the telly then?
Apologies to seadogg who got it in one.
By the way Chakka, Since when is rationality a prerequisite for not believing in God? Perhaps you should reevaluate your definition of atheism before you make us all look silly. As one who been there, I’m telling you it’s a long treacherous road leading from disbelief to knowing why something is simply not possible.
Mibs, //to believe whatever the hell you want to regardless of what the consequences of abandoning truth and reason might be . . .//
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 and your statement is as likely to apply to the Chakkas of this world as it does to those who believe in ghosts. In fact the latter usually have a better reason for believing as they do. Upon what do you and the Chakkas base their conclusions? "I haven't seen it, therefore it can't possibly exist". That isn't exactly rational is it.
You want a fire? Forget the kindling - bring in the logs.
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 and your statement is as likely to apply to the Chakkas of this world as it does to those who believe in ghosts. In fact the latter usually have a better reason for believing as they do. Upon what do you and the Chakkas base their conclusions? "I haven't seen it, therefore it can't possibly exist". That isn't exactly rational is it.
You want a fire? Forget the kindling - bring in the logs.
How do people make any decision. Buying a car perhaps?
They compare makes and models, facts and figures and look at prices and availability?
Wrong!!!!
They are influenced by friends and family, things they see in the media, start to talk about a few things, start thinking more about one, and slowly become emotionally invested in that.
They compare makes and models, facts and figures and look at prices and availability?
Wrong!!!!
They are influenced by friends and family, things they see in the media, start to talk about a few things, start thinking more about one, and slowly become emotionally invested in that.
Naomi, If the truth is not there patiently waiting to be revealed then why believe anything? But I must admit, the only truth I’m seeing here is excuses given for the refusal to seek it and the reluctance to find it.
“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 . . . ”
I, like everyone else here, can claim whatever I want to. It is only through reason that the truth of any claim can be established, no less the claim that “…no one knows…”.
Beautiful log, (as always), by the way, but not worth much more than sitting on without a flame to ignite it. ;o) Our absentee instigator owes us both . . . big time.
“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 . . . ”
I, like everyone else here, can claim whatever I want to. It is only through reason that the truth of any claim can be established, no less the claim that “…no one knows…”.
Beautiful log, (as always), by the way, but not worth much more than sitting on without a flame to ignite it. ;o) Our absentee instigator owes us both . . . big time.
Latest Posts
Motoring2 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Crosswords6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 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.