That Religion Thing?

Pygmalion

What led you to feel that the gold digger's love was genuine? Did you delve in to their minds and find evidence of the emotion they claimed to feel for you? No. You had faith in their outward displays and their words. The purely rational mind does not love, it does not feel. It is a machine that is cold and inhuman.

Not really true.

It wasn't just faith that led the person to believe this, it was years of evidence.
Every heartfelt talk you've had and every outward display is "evidence" that they loved you.
The fact that they've been with you for 10 years and never hurt you a large extent is "evidence" that they won't hurt you in the future.

The conclusion the man came to was a rational one based on evidence, it just happened to be wrong.
The "evidence" in this case was carefully constructed, and there is an explanation that explains it far better than the man's conclusion, but the man doesn't have access to any evidence for this (since presumably any evidence is kept from him by his wife, and perhaps exists only in her mind anyway), so unfortunately cannot be expected to come to a better conclusion.

Evidence is not necessarily complete proof though, they're just commonly used interchangeably.
The man believed without "proof" (as in, solid, 100% unrefutable evidence, which really doesn't exist for anything), but he didn't believe irrationally or on faith alone.

This is a good example for the limitations of the scientific approach.

Love as a feeling is created by the levels of oxytocin in the body.

Love as a reality is meaningful. It is about the bond between two people it is about a profound attachment to the very being of another person. It is about sharing in the life of another person.

Are both true? - Yes.
Are both explaining the same thing? - Yes.
Are both valid? - Yes.
Are both applicable to the subject? - Yes.

I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this?

Edit: Just saw this now, I think I covered it above but might as well reply separately

partyatmygaff wrote: »

That is not the point. The point is that you do not have rational evidence to believe any man or woman's claims of love for you. There is no undeniable evidence.

Rational evidence existed everywhere.
Undeniable evidence is different to rational evidence.
It's possible to have a lot of "evidence" of something, but not necessarily be 100% sure.
Perhaps there are two possible explanations that fit the evidence, but one is much more common/likely than the other.

If my keys aren't where I left them it could be because:
a) I misplaced them, which I do often.
b) Thieves broke in, stole nothing but my keys, and left, without disturbing anything else.

The "missing keys" is evidence for both, it would be the case in either situation, but it would be more rational to believe the first one.

Namlub

philologos wrote: »

Skepticism is only useful where it is well placed. It would be also possible for me to be highly skeptical about Australia's existence because I've never been there. Some people might say that they have pictures, but why should I believe that they weren't doctored? I could presumably find some people who claim to live in Australia on these boards, but couldn't they be lying. So on and so on and so on.

I agree that skepticism is a powerful and useful tool for discerning truth from falsity, but it can also mean a lot of truth can be ignored because people don't want to consider it.

Theoretically you could be skeptical of anything, yes. But considering there is concrete proof of Australia's existance, it would be far more foolish to doubt its existance than to doubt the existance of god, of which no such proof exists. But these hypotheticals are getting rather tiring and don't add an awful lot to the dabate (if this is even a debate anymore), I'm going to make tea.

Jackobyte

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Sorry for my use of "hypothetical".

Let me give you a real world example from a thread I posted in on AH. It came from a completely different thread so it may be a tad irrelevant with regard to this specific thread but the general idea is still the same.

Jesus, you are bad at this.

You couldn't have just used something simple like: "The universe is expanding" rather than two long-winded, far-fetched stories.

I don't have proof that the universe is expanding but I believe it. Belief without proof. Yay!

philologos

Namlub wrote: »

Theoretically you could be skeptical of anything, yes. But considering there is concrete proof of Australia's existance, it would be far more foolish to doubt its existance than to doubt the existance of god, of which no such proof exists. But these hypotheticals are getting rather tiring and don't add an awful lot to the dabate (if this is even a debate anymore), I'm going to make tea.

What proof? (Proof is only in mathematics)
You mean evidence, but that can be readily denied as I've said already. If I don't want to believe that Australia exists I can do a lot to ensure that I don't believe it.

My point is that not all skepticism is by definition wise or logically sound.

Slow Show

partyatmygaff, it's like you're writing a movie script at this stage tbh. If you need any help with the soundtrack just let me know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpYeekQkAdc

partyatmygaff

Pygmalion wrote: »

Not really true.

It wasn't just faith that led the person to believe this, it was years of evidence.

Evidence that was falsified. Why did you implicitly trust the falsified evidence produced by the other party?

Every heartfelt talk you've had and every outward display is "evidence" that they loved you.
The fact that they've been with you for 10 years and never hurt you a large extent is "evidence" that they won't hurt you in the future.

To quote Hamlet... "One may smile and smile and still be a villain"

This "evidence" you speak of is nothing more than you taking their outward expressions of love to be a true reflection of their emotions. That relies a great deal on you trusting the other person's sincerity. In essence, having faith in the person's outward expressions.

The conclusion the man came to was a rational one based on evidence, it just happened to be wrong.

How could they not have foreseen that? Why did they trust this "evidence" implicitly?

Pygmalion

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Evidence that was falsified. Why did you implicitly trust the falsified evidence produced by the other party?

To quote Hamlet... "One may smile and smile and still be a villain"

This "evidence" you speak of is nothing more than you taking their outward expressions of love to be a true reflection of their emotions. That relies a great deal on you trusting the other person's sincerity. In essence, having faith in the person's outward expressions.


How could they not have foreseen that? Why did they trust this "evidence" implicitly?

Because we have nothing else to go on, and it's impossible to read someone's mind, which is necessarily if we want to get all of the information required for a decent decision.
It's a choice between looking for evidence and examining it as well as we can, or flipping a coin, and I assure you that flipping a coin for every decision in your life will generally get you worse results overall.

Do you have a proposal to solve this problem?
I'd prefer if the solution involved mind-reading rather than shutting myself away and never contacting humans again, but I guess I can't be picky.

Jackobyte

partyatmygaff wrote: »

How could they not have foreseen that? Why did they trust this "evidence" implicitly?

Because the odds that this person you meet can feign love well enough that you decide to marry them and is willing to spend 10 years of their life playing you to get half your money are astronomical at best. Come on, ffs!

Jaafa

How about instead of criticizing each others beliefs in this thread we use it more to learn about other beliefs? An idea anyone?

Theres no point in this arguing as none of us is going to convert the other so stop wasting your time. Believe me I've wasted enough of my own trying to do the same.

partyatmygaff

Pygmalion wrote: »

If my keys aren't where I left them it could be because:
a) I misplaced them, which I do often.
b) Thieves broke in, stole nothing but my keys, and left, without disturbing anything else.

The "missing keys" is evidence for both, it would be the case in either situation, but it would be more rational to believe the first one.

That's not a great analogy.

Your keys are not sentient and are incapable of deceiving you or indeed doing anything of their own accord.

Both you and another person are sentient and both of you are equally capable of deceiving the other.

Pygmalion

partyatmygaff wrote: »

That's not a great analogy.

Your keys are not sentient and are incapable of deceiving you or indeed doing anything of their own accord.

Both you and another person are sentient and both of you are equally capable of deceiving the other.

The thieves would be out to deceive me though, that's why they make sure not to move anything else in my house.
It's definitely in their best interests for me to believe I've simply misplaced them too, they don't want me reporting a break-in.

philologos

Jaafa wrote: »

How about instead of criticizing each others beliefs in this thread we use it more to learn about other beliefs? An idea anyone?

The learning happens a lot using means like this. It's interesting, and it helps people to be better able to explain why other than they just are.

partyatmygaff

Pygmalion wrote: »

Because we have nothing else to go on, and it's impossible to read someone's mind, which is necessarily if we want to get all of the information required for a decent decision.
It's a choice between looking for evidence and examining it as well as we can, or flipping a coin, and I assure you that flipping a coin for every decision in your life will generally get you worse results overall.

When you are presented with evidence of love by another you will do either one of two things.

1. Reject said evidence as being insincere
2. Accept said evidence as being sincere

A gold digger who is adamant will do their best to fool you. Discerning between them and someone who genuinely loves you is nigh on impossible without delving in to their minds.

Even so, you will more than likely accept their evidence. Why? You are trusting. You trust the evidence they provide you to be genuine. The reason you trust them is because that is the pragmatic option. You could be cynical but then you would die alone.

Jackobyte wrote: »

Because the odds that this person you meet can feign love well enough that you decide to marry them and is willing to spend 10 years of their life playing you to get half your money are astronomical at best. Come on, ffs!

How about you "Come on"?

I'm guessing you've never heard of gold diggers. They're not exactly unheard of, are they? I suppose you've also never heard of someone marrying someone only to take their money and divorce them?

partyatmygaff

Pygmalion wrote: »

The thieves would be out to deceive me though, that's why they make sure not to move anything else in my house.

The missing car would be a telltale sign...


But then again most people don't keep their cars in their house


I can imagine it now.

"Let's rob that M3, i'll crack the sitting room window and get the keys"
"Oh no! Don't do that, they'll notice the broken window. We have to deceive them! Let them think that they've just lost their keys".

Jackobyte

partyatmygaff wrote: »

How about you "Come on"?

I'm guessing you've never heard of gold diggers. They're not exactly unheard of, are they? I suppose you've also never heard of someone marrying someone only to take their money and divorce them?

Most gold diggers don't feign love for 10 years. The barely feign love at all. Most are 40 years younger than their husband and are married as a trophy wife/for sexual attraction or pleasure rather than the love the couple share. The scenarios you are offering to display that we believe without proof are off the wall. Surely you can come up with something more logical to display this?

Pygmalion

partyatmygaff wrote: »

When you are presented with evidence of love by another you will do either one of two things.

1. Reject said evidence as being insincere
2. Accept said evidence as being sincere

A gold digger who is adamant will do their best to fool you. Discerning between them and someone who genuinely loves you is nigh on impossible without delving in to their minds.

Even so, you will more than likely accept their evidence. Why? You are trusting. You trust the evidence they provide you to be genuine. The reason you trust them is because that is the pragmatic option. You could be cynical but then you would die alone.

Because experience dictates that one outcome is far more likely than the other.
You can't pretend that it's a 50/50 chance and that both options are equally (ir)rational or without evidence.

You can say that neither option is 100% likely, but that's completely different from saying there's no reason to believe one way or the other.
It's definitely not a reason to defend the least likely of the two options as being the rational belief.

partyatmygaff

Jackobyte wrote: »

Most gold diggers don't feign love for 10 years. The barely feign love at all.

Ten years, two years. It matters not a jot.

The scenarios you are offering to display that we believe without proof are off the wall. Surely you can come up with something more logical to display this?

You keep repeating that it's off the wall and/or extremely unlikely. You not yet actually given a coherent reason as to why it is unlikely. There is evidence all around us to support that the human mind uses both faith and reason in its decision making processes. You ignore all of this and then have the gall to ask me for something a bit more logical.

Jaafa

philologos wrote: »

The learning happens a lot using means like this. It's interesting, and it helps people to be better able to explain why other than they just are.

I don't know. From what I see here and in many other arguments I participated in, online, people seem to completely reject others opinions and views without considering them for very long. Perhaps some do take something from these debates.

However many of these threads seem to follow a pattern.
Person1 proposes the motion or makes a statement often without any backup and little explanation.
Person 2 asks why Person 1 believes this.
Person 1 responds.
Person 2 picks parts or a single part of persons 1 post to argue.
Person 1 does the same to person 2s argument.

The debate soon deteriorates until it is far from the OP post and with many others joining in and personal insults or insinuations being thrown in for good measure.

You must admit it is a familiar occurance.

Insect Overlord

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Great. Two people throw hissy fits, completely miss the point and then get all high and mighty and leave the thread.

No great loss by all means.

You're a condescending little chap, aren't you! Making everyone leave by annoying them doesn't count as winning an argument. Neither does tagging along with the one poster on Boards who is actually informed, patient and gracious enough to discuss his faith maturely. You're coming across as Jakkas' lap-dog, which would be kinda funny if it wasn't so annoying.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Sorry for my use of "hypothetical".

Let me give you a real world example from a thread I posted in on AH. It came from a completely different thread so it may be a tad irrelevant with regard to this specific thread but the general idea is still the same.

Ironically enough, your hypothetical situation rang through for me. For about ten years I believed I was loved absolutely by someone who cared for me and looked out for me. Then I started to question things. I began by questioning my primary school teachers and the books they used to teach us religion. I still did my Confirmation though, admittedly. When I was a little bit older I began to question the religion itself. Eventually I was questioning religion in general, and I felt that I'd been cheated for many years by a love that wasn't true.

And now, for comic relief:
http://i.imgur.com/0v8Ws.jpg

philologos

Pygmalion wrote: »

It's definitely not a reason to defend the least likely of the two options as being the rational belief.

In the case of God, is it really the least likely of the two options? I don't see how it is to be honest with you.

Pygmalion

Jaafa wrote: »

Person1 proposes the motion or makes a statement often without any backup and little explanation.
Person 2 asks why Person 1 believes this.
Person 1 responds.
Person 2 picks parts or a single part of persons 1 post to argue.
Person 1 does the same to person 2s argument.

That's just how the internet works.
I'm pretty sure it's an official part of the HTTP standard.

philologos

Jaafa wrote: »

The debate soon deteriorates until it is far from the OP post and with many others joining in and personal insults or insinuations being thrown in for good measure.

You must admit it is a familiar occurance.

It is unfortunately. I post on this subject primarily to test to see if peoples ideas of Christianity are based around misconceptions or around real issues. In most cases they are the former and where they are of the latter it produces interesting discussion.

I'm only interested in civility. If I ever get out of line I hope people would tell me, because people deserve respect in any argument. I am only interested in an intelligent thrashing around of ideas, if people aren't capable of this then that won't make for a good discussion. In terms of discussing this subject there need to be terms set down at the beginning as to what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. I have my own terms for discussion because I want this to be something enjoyable rather than something cumbersome.

partyatmygaff

Jaafa wrote: »

I don't know. From what I see here and in many other arguments I participated in, online, people seem to completely reject others opinions and views without considering them for very long. Perhaps some do take something from these debates.

However many of these threads seem to follow a pattern.
Person1 proposes the motion or makes a statement often without any backup and little explanation.
Person 2 asks why Person 1 believes this.
Person 1 responds.
Person 2 picks parts or a single part of persons 1 post to argue.
Person 1 does the same to person 2s argument.

The debate soon deteriorates until it is far from the OP post and with many others joining in and personal insults or insinuations being thrown in for good measure.

You must admit it is a familiar occurance.

Internet debates are by and large a lot of rubbish. There may be the a few fruitful debates but for the most part they only start fights between people who just cannot remain civil.

Insect Overlord wrote: »

You're a condescending little chap, aren't you!

I'm the condescending one? Have you actually read the posts that I replied to?

Pygmalion

philologos wrote: »

In the case of God, is it really the least likely of the two options? I don't see how it is to be honest with you.

I actually wasn't intending for that part to be about God, because it's obviously a much more open question, whereas the situation he proposed isn't all that difficult to come to a conclusion on.

Now that you've brought it up, I do believe the existence of a god to be less likely than his non-existence.
Obviously I can't provide solid proof (and if I could it would probably be hand-waved away by most), but I have seen nothing that suggests the existence of a sentient creator as being the most likely explanation.

Jackobyte

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You keep repeating that it's off the wall and/or extremely unlikely. You not yet actually given a coherent reason as to why it is unlikely. There is evidence all around us to support that the human mind uses both faith and reason in its decision making processes. You ignore all of this and then have the gall to ask me for something a bit more logical.

The reason I brand this as extremely unlikely is because I feel it is. As humans, we aren't emotionally stupid. We pick up vibes if someone is lying to us emotionally. We might try to ignore them but deep down we know the truth. We can't be fooled like that unless we deliberately ignore and block our instincts. We know when we are unwanted, but we may choose to ignore the feeling.

The reason I "have the gall to ask me for something a bit more logical" is because I don't believe we can be fooled so easily as you put out. We have to choose to be fooled in such scenarios.

partyatmygaff

Is that very rational? It certainly is not the most likely but it certainly is not extremely unlikely imo. I have heard countless stories of deception. Behind a smiling face can lie a mind of evil. (Sorry, i'm in the middle of a Hamlet essay at the moment...)

philologos

In many other ways we can be highly gullible. We can believe things which are lies. Actually from an atheistic point that is an argument that I have seen posed against the varying theisms at many points. We just lap it up without thinking (as Davidus has claimed using 'blind faith'). Gullibility can be applied to both sides of this discussion. It is possible that I am away with the fairies, but it is also possible that others may be rejecting God without due consideration, or by misinterpreting the nature of reality or indeed as I've said already by misplacing skepticism.

This opens up the delusion argument nicely. I could be deluded, but to be honest so could any atheist. I don't see how the argument pertains any more to me.

Turtwig

philologos wrote: »

In many other ways we can be highly gullible. We can believe things which are lies. Actually from an atheistic point that is an argument that I have seen posed against the varying theisms at many points. We just lap it up without thinking (as Davidus has claimed using 'blind faith'). Gullibility can be applied to both sides of this discussion. It is possible that I am away with the fairies, but it is also possible that others may be rejecting God without due consideration, or by misinterpreting the nature of reality or indeed as I've said already by misplacing skepticism.

This opens up the delusion argument nicely. I could be deluded, but to be honest so could any atheist. I don't see how the argument pertains any more to me.

You are deluded and so too am I.:D
Oh and this has a very strong validation by science.:)

Colm!

On an unrelated note, I hear a lot of "Atheists have the right to their opinions, but they should keep them privately and to themselves at all times". This attitude is one that I have a slight problem with, and allow me to explain why.
I generally don't try to push my (non-)beliefs on anyone. People seem to get offended if I say "I don't believe in God, I just don't see the evidence for it". People will try to defend what they believe in even though I've never made any attack against what they believe. (Apparently I'm not allowed to even debate my side of the story in a religion class in school anymore, but that's a different story entirely)

Here's what I believe: I'm an atheist, and I don't try to push what I understand upon anyone. I just don't see God, and I don't see how God fits into the universe. Some say the universe had to be created by something (ie. God), but that logic just means that something else had to create God. And so on, and so forth. I don't see reason to believe in the existence of God without evidence. And there is more than the simple assumption that God exists, there are a lot of assumptions. That's the key problem that I see with religion. It's just a hypothesis, a theory. I feel that life's too short to consider that. I don't see any reason to follow God, but I still respect a lot of what is Christian morality. (not all of, however. I think everyone can agree that the Catholic church is somewhat dubious, despite its overall good intentions). In this way, I see myself as a Humanist.

This is the way I see things. It is not objective truth and I am not trying to push it as objective truth. You have yours and I have mine. If you want to leave mine out of it, leave yours out of it. Here in Ireland, religion seeps into every part of society.
Quick example: When I graduate, I'll have to go to a graduation mass, as is school tradition. Apparently, in other, more secular parts of the world, that's a massive deal. Apparently in the USA, a school can be sued in violation of the constitution for a prayer at a high-school graduation.

partyatmygaff

Colm! wrote: »

On an unrelated note, I hear a lot of "Atheists have the right to their opinions, but they should keep them privately and to themselves at all times".

Not in this day and age certainly.

If an atheist walked around Dublin tomorrow with a banner saying "God doesn't exist" and a Christian walked around Dublin tomorrow with a banner saying "Jesus is God" you can be quite sure who will receive the less hostile response.