Belief Without Evidence WTF?

Finshaggy said:
I wasn't "COMPARING" at all. I was saying that EVERY child won't believe EVERYTHING.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Click to expand...
i will for you!!! Bigfoots don even belive in santa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
lets forget santa anyone knows that a fat guy dressed in red does not go down every childs chimney , lets face the fact that there is no evidence for any god any human has ever invented .
 
Finshaggy said:
I wasn't "COMPARING" at all. I was saying that EVERY child won't believe EVERYTHING.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Click to expand...

The point being made was

a child will believe anything you tell it regardless of how insane the idea may be.
Click to expand...
To which you said "not true". The point was made in the context of religion, so if you were not comparing the two then you were taking the statement out of context and asserting a different point that is obvious to all, children wont believe everything all the time. In fact, children often disbelieve other children, giving rise to the playground chant "nu-uh". This really has nothing to do with the idea that which religion you choose is widely based on the geographical location a person grows up in, and the purposed explanation that children believe what they are told by parents/authority. This point was backed up by several good examples of adults creating and perpetuating absurd beliefs in children. I am not sure how your brother not believing you about the headboard has any bearing or in any way counters the explanation that people's certainty in god tends to be based on parental guidance. Why does a child eventually give up belief in Santa and the tooth fairy? It's because the belief is not shared by the adults. If your brother was having deep questions about the existence of the headboard, things he could not reconcile, and he came to you for answers and discovered these answers were believed by all of the adult authority figures around him; if these answers were laden with logical tricks and subtle manipulations and included a total refusal of dispute, AND he had no way to test or verify these answers by simply seeing for himself, it would then be a proper comparison to religion.
 
Thats the point you "educate your son with sortz of things". D
Click to expand...

I meant science things, just incase you misunderstood me... My point is, your assumption about believers is your opinion and you have all the right to say it...

Doesn't he take what you are telling him to be true as truth?
Click to expand...

yes, but my step son is not of age to be taught things about our beliefs yet. You see, that is what makes this "indoctrination" crap that tsh loves... his small brain does not understand that most christian believers are chill people and understand that teaching them about Jesus Christ at their young age is not suitable... Once he is of age and able to think for himself and understand things for what they are, then at that point, i will let him know about the things i have been taught and he wishes to know them, all he has to do is ask... I do not force things on people, that is not fair for anyone and demonstrates poor people skills.

simple example you tell him the color blue is the color blue and he just accepts that as true).
Click to expand...

listen man, my step son is very intelligent for his age and cannot be fooled easily. I do not know what point you are trying to make

Did you teach him about santa or the easter bunny, or the tooth fairy?
Click to expand...

I did not have to teach about that because he was able to decipher it on his own... It your problem if you were let down by your parents about those fair figures you speak of. You see, if the tooth fairy or the boogie man were the same as Jesus, then i think there would have been plenty of extensive books on them.
 
what are you talking about dude, santa is for real yoooo!!! just go and watch the new harold and kumar kill santa movie, go, you will see with your own eyes he exists yoooo



ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:
lets forget santa anyone knows that a fat guy dressed in red does not go down every childs chimney , lets face the fact that there is no evidence for any god any human has ever invented .
Click to expand...
 
whatever you say dude is not valid amongst these sub forums.. you have tarnished your own image on here not only amongst us believers, but amongst your own atheists... many on here (atheists) wish that you would stop rambling your small brain around here till you learn to respect others... till then, no one will take you serious, if you have not noticed that by now...


ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:
including belief without evidence lol i feel sorry for your confuzed kids .
Click to expand...

[video=youtube;fmI9Kdgz6F4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmI9Kdgz6F4&feature=related[/video]


you are brian... the asshole

and really, how many volunteer hours have you done?
 
Finshaggy said:
I gave you a perfectly good example of a 4-5 year old not believing something.

Solids are liquids. He didn't believe it.

And Santa is a widely lied about subject, of course kids believe it. That's a given.
Click to expand...

And I gave you a perfectly good response and I thought you understood it because you even liked my comment. I guess it went over your head.

"Well thats because your little brother had enough experience of his own to know the difference. How can someone have experience with something they can't see or feel (ie religion)."



ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:
lol its hillarious people are bringing santa into this thread lol
Click to expand...

Im bringing santa into this thread to prove my point that children will believe their parental figures no matter how insane the concept may be. And when you say things like 'I don't know what kinda stupid kids you know' your referring to all the children that believe in santa claus. Now Im comparing something like santa or the easter bunny to our modern day religions and if parents are reenforcing these ideas to their children then they're going to believe it. Is anyone beside Heisenburg actually competent enough to follow the point Im making?
 
BudDub said:
And I gave you a perfectly good response and I thought you understood it because you even liked my comment. I guess it went over your head.

"Well thats because your little brother had enough experience of his own to know the difference. How can someone have experience with something they can't see or feel (ie religion)."





Im bringing santa into this thread to prove my point that children will believe their parental figures no matter how insane the concept may be. And when you say things like 'I don't know what kinda stupid kids you know' your referring to all the children that believe in santa claus. Now Im comparing something like santa or the easter bunny to our modern day religions and if parents are reenforcing these ideas to their children then they're going to believe it. Is anyone beside Heisenburg actually competent enough to follow the point Im making?
Click to expand...

I understand what you're getting at, but not all religious people were forced religion down their throats at a young age. And of course little kids believe everything their parents tell them, who said the kids didn't believe everything their parents told them? < serious question, I don't feel like going back pages to find who said you were wrong, I'm assuming it was finshaggy.
 
humm, the middle east religions (those that survived (bhaal means the lord f.e, was a widely loved god back then (well mostly feared, so much they burned babies alive to him))

well..

here is god, alone.

he makes everything and then people (or something like that)

not to raise as his children.

no,according to the dominant version of this story here in the west.

god makes humans as a crop.

some fall into barren ground, some into good soil and others into rocks.

so, to take this logically, someone that made everything perfectly, then just took a bunch of seeds and threw them into the wind, knowing full well that some would perish, others would be choked by weeds (that he created) some would become weeds and some would grow poorly.

each seed being actually made by this guy who knew exactly what he was doing.

and what it meant to be thrown into rocky ground or choked with weeds.

and then he made the crop to have sentience, feelings and free will.

and then he commanded the crop, "obey me or burn forever!"

(so, instead of being just burned and gone, actually needs to suffer forever)

as a grower its bit difficult to understand this "god"

and actually this story is boring me too much to go on writing about it lol
 
Heisenberg said:
The point being made was

To which you said "not true". The point was made in the context of religion, so if you were not comparing the two then you were taking the statement out of context and asserting a different point that is obvious to all, children wont believe everything all the time. In fact, children often disbelieve other children, giving rise to the playground chant "nu-uh". This really has nothing to do with the idea that which religion you choose is widely based on the geographical location a person grows up in, and the purposed explanation that children believe what they are told by parents/authority. This point was backed up by several good examples of adults creating and perpetuating absurd beliefs in children. I am not sure how your brother not believing you about the headboard has any bearing or in any way counters the explanation that people's certainty in god tends to be based on parental guidance. Why does a child eventually give up belief in Santa and the tooth fairy? It's because the belief is not shared by the adults. If your brother was having deep questions about the existence of the headboard, things he could not reconcile, and he came to you for answers and discovered these answers were believed by all of the adult authority figures around him; if these answers were laden with logical tricks and subtle manipulations and included a total refusal of dispute, AND he had no way to test or verify these answers by simply seeing for himself, it would then be a proper comparison to religion.
Click to expand...

You were right in your assumption. I was removing religion from it, and saying that "Children won't believe EVERYTHING" That's what I was saying.

And they don't give up belief because it isn't shared by adults. That's STUPID, we would believe in Santa and the toothfairy until we were 18 if that was true. They figure out that it IS the parents, not that the parents don't believe. We DISCOVER it when we are still children. It's not when we learn what adults know.

You must have thought Santa was real till you were like 20 huh?
 
BudDub said:
"Well thats because your little brother had enough experience of his own to know the difference. How can someone have experience with something they can't see or feel (ie religion)."
Click to expand...
By having been to a chruch. That's how I stopped being Christian. We started going to Synaygogs and stuff for "Confirmation".
I asked "Do Jews go to Hell"

And the answer I got was :"No"

But that contradicted the Bible. So started my unfaith.

You CAN have experience with religion. YOU just must not.
 
Finshaggy said:
And they don't give up belief because it isn't shared by adults. That's STUPID, we would believe in Santa and the toothfairy until we were 18 if that was true. They figure out that it IS the parents, not that the parents don't believe. We DISCOVER it when we are still children. It's not when we learn what adults know.

You must have thought Santa was real till you were like 20 huh?
Click to expand...

I did not say children give up on Santa when they reach legal adult age. I am saying at some point a child develops enough critical thinking skills to question Santa et all, and a parent generally does not discourage this. I myself and many people i've asked all attempted to apply the same critical thinking skills to God as well and the difference was we found belief in God to be nearly universal in the authority figures around us. Questions are answered with confusing nonsense and a strong discouragement of dispute. If belief in Santa was shared by adults who donate money to him and worship him on Sundays far less children would give up the belief.

The initial point was that the particular God someone worships tends to have a great deal to do with the geographical and chronological location you were born in. This is a point that has been demonstrated quite conclusively. When and where you were born very much shapes the specific certitude you are likely to have in God. Since circumstances of birth are random, this strongly suggests a significant if not key component to the idea of God is culture. Virtually all cultures have creation myths, resurrection myths, flood myths, ect. It seems likely that the idea of God is simply our brains tendency to apply intentional agents to what we perceive as meaningful patters. Intentional agents are also something we can demonstrate and document fairly conclusively. The particulars of those agents are shaped by culture and passed down through history from parents to children. It doesn't matter how absurd the belief is, if the authority figures back it up most of the children will believe it. All of this represents several strong lines of evidence to suggest that man created God, or more aptly the specifics of God, rather than the other way around.

Now how does your example of your brother and the liquid headboard have any bearing on this theory? You claimed it was a perfectly good example of why the explanation is not true. It seems it was simply an example of how children are not blank hard drives unquestionably awaiting programming, which was never a position anyone took.
 
Heisenberg said:
I did not say children give up on Santa when they reach legal adult age. I am saying at some point a child develops enough critical thinking skills to question Santa et all, and a parent generally does not discourage this. I myself and many people i've asked all attempted to apply the same critical thinking skills to God as well and the difference was we found belief in God to be nearly universal in the authority figures around us. Questions are answered with confusing nonsense and a strong discouragement of dispute. If belief in Santa was shared by adults who donate money to him and worship him on Sundays far less children would give up the belief.

The initial point was that the particular God someone worships tends to have a great deal to do with the geographical and chronological location you were born in. This is a point that has been demonstrated quite conclusively. When and where you were born very much shapes the specific certitude you are likely to have in God. Since circumstances of birth are random, this strongly suggests a significant if not key component to the idea of God is culture. Virtually all cultures have creation myths, resurrection myths, flood myths, ect. It seems likely that the idea of God is simply our brains tendency to apply intentional agents to what we perceive as meaningful patters. Intentional agents are also something we can demonstrate and document fairly conclusively. The particulars of those agents are shaped by culture and passed down through history from parents to children. It doesn't matter how absurd the belief is, if the authority figures back it up most of the children will believe it. All of this represents several strong lines of evidence to suggest that man created God, or more aptly the specifics of God, rather than the other way around.

Now how does your example of your brother and the liquid headboard have any bearing on this theory? You claimed it was a perfectly good example of why the explanation is not true. It seems it was simply an example of how children are not blank hard drives unquestionably awaiting programming, which was never a position anyone took.
Click to expand...

Yes. It does have to do with that theory.
Based on the culture and religion and all that we came up with the scenario "Will children believe what is told to them, by authority figures in their lives"
Someone said, "A child will believe anything they are told."
I replied "They won't believe EVERYTHING" With that story as an example.
My point was simple, and slightly off topic. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
 
Finshaggy said:
By having been to a chruch. That's how I stopped being Christian. We started going to Synaygogs and stuff for "Confirmation".
I asked "Do Jews go to Hell"

And the answer I got was :"No"

But that contradicted the Bible. So started my unfaith.

You CAN have experience with religion. YOU just must not.
Click to expand...

Were you a child when this happened? Because I thought we were talking about children?
 
I've been physically healed before through faith by the power of god in a christian church and I'm not even 50% sure that Jesus was anything but a prophet... People always say that they want proof but then when presented with truthful testimony about peoples experiences with miracles they always dismiss it...
 
ChronicObsession said:
on a similar topic, go search my thread 'Gays, they are humans too'. It is just as master-debatable as this thread XD
Click to expand...

Lol, I see you like that master debater joke haha. When I was in elementary and up I would always piss off my teachers by saying that. Oh and I would scream "two stupid dogs" (cartoon).
 
Shannon Alexander said:
I've been physically healed before through faith by the power of god in a christian church and I'm not even 50% sure that Jesus was anything but a prophet... People always say that they want proof but then when presented with truthful testimony about peoples experiences with miracles they always dismiss it...
Click to expand...

"In all forms of anecdotal evidence, its reliability by objective independent assessment may be in doubt. This is a consequence of the informal way the information is gathered, documented, presented, or any combination of the three. The term is often used to describe evidence for which there is an absence of documentation, leaving verification dependent on the credibility of the party presenting the evidence."

 
I think this thread is the best place for this. This is something I think we all, including myself, should try to keep in mind.

there is a tendency to belittle, to condescend, to ignore the fact, that, deluded or not, supporters of superstitions and pseudoscience are human-beings with real beliefs, who, like the skeptics, are trying to figure out how the world works and what our role in it might be. Their motives are in many cases consonant with science. If their culture has not given them all the tools they need to pursue this great quest, let us temper our criticism with kindness. None of us comes fully equipped.

the chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is in its polarization: Us vs. Them&#8212;the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you&#8217;re sensible, you&#8217;ll listen to us; and if not, you&#8217;re beyond redemption. This is unconstructive. It does not get the message across. It condemns the skeptics to permanent minority status; whereas, a compassionate approach that from the beginning acknowledges the human roots of pseudoscience and superstition might be much more widely accepted. -- Mr Sagan
Click to expand...
Also keep in mind this does not describe every believer here. Some are not trying to figure out the world so much as control it and force it to conform to the ideas that give them comfort or power. But most of us are simply seeking answers.
 
Heisenberg said:
I think this thread is the best place for this. This is something I think we all, including myself, should try to keep in mind.

there is a tendency to belittle, to condescend, to ignore the
fact, that, deluded or not, supporters of superstitions and pseudoscience are
human-beings with real beliefs, who, like the skeptics, are trying to figure
out how the world works and what our role in it might be. Their motives are in
many cases consonant with science. If their culture has not given them all the
tools they need to pursue this great quest, let us temper our criticism with
kindness. None of us comes fully equipped.

the chief deficiency I see in
the skeptical movement is in its polarization: Us vs. Them—the sense that
we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in
all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you’re sensible, you’ll listen
to us; and if not, you’re beyond redemption. This is unconstructive. It does
not get the message across. It condemns the skeptics to permanent minority
status; whereas, a compassionate approach that from the beginning acknowledges
the human roots of pseudoscience and superstition might be much more widely
accepted. -- Mr Sagan
Click to expand...

Also keep in mind this does not describe every believer here. Some are not trying to figure out the world so much as control it and force it to conform to the ideas that give them comfort or power. But most of us are simply seeking answers.
Click to expand...

If I could rep you I would, but the Puff Puff Pass rule is Universal.

Outside the fact of me being raised by Carl Sagan as a kid watching PBS programs right before sesame street and Mr. Rogers..lol

I just simply admire everything about him still to this day.

His voice is forever stuck in my head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top