Why theists think their irrational/fallacious beliefs are valid

[fr0d0]

Lots of stuff my friend. I was pro abortion, now I'm not. I used to think there was such a thing as free will, now I don't. This week my thinking has progressed on diets and the food industry, plus ideas on rationalising for Christianity from reality.. there's other stuff too. I love to progress in my thinking.

I was only joking with you anyway. Take it as you want.

---

Oh come on. Really? Five years of making up bullshit, and saying you already logically supported yours claims, and you think anyone believes you're capable of being honest or unbiased?

I mistook you for a second there for someone who knew what they were talking about!

My apologies.

[ManMachine]

but I can't quite see what concepts or thoughts you see as conflicting for theists in particular.

MM

I am uncertain what you are attempting to state here. Please elaborate.

Cognitive dissonance would suggest the presence of conflicting concepts or thoughts resulting in dissonance, I was wondering what concepts or thoughts in particular would a theist feel conflicted about.

MM

[Foxaèr]

I was wondering what concepts or thoughts in particular would a theist feel conflicted about.

The usual. The conflict between their faith and secular logic.

[ManMachine]

I was wondering what concepts or thoughts in particular would a theist feel conflicted about.

The usual. The conflict between their faith and secular logic.

But they are theists, which would seem to suggest they are not conflicted in their faith, or are you suggesting that despite their outward proclamations they are still dealing with internal conflicts?

I think there is some debate to be had on that point.

MM

[Statler Waldorf]

Certainly, cogintive dissonance plays a role.

Edit: but the above comment is more an aside. The actual focus is on peer validation below)

However, from having seen it first hand, I am also aware that peer validation also plays a major role.

Theists on their theistic forums are fond of spouting ill logic and congratulating themselves on the merits of each others silly beliefs more than they are of accessing the invalid arguments they view as on par with gospel.

That is why when they come here, they are confused that we cannot understand or accept their brand of logic, especially since their fellow theists think their thoughts are brilliant beyond the works of major philosophers.

Which supposedly irrational/invalid arguments are you referring to?

Other than crossing the streams, I'm shaky on the whole good/bad thing.
I'd rather go with adaptive or maladaptive which are contextual to the local environment for the individual.

Oops, gotta go to work. Bye.

Should people believe what is true or what is best for their survival?

[Foxaèr]

But they are theists, which would seem to suggest they are not conflicted in their faith, or are you suggesting that despite their outward proclamations they are still dealing with internal conflicts?

All I know is that you are confusing me, and I think it has to do with us being on two completely different pages.

I think it has more to do with your misunderstanding of cognitive dissonance than anything else, because you keep bringing it up as though it is an important part of the original post. It is not. Perhaps you need to refresh yourself on the definition of cognitive dissonance or address the original post as it should be addressed rather than bringing up points that make absolutely no sense.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Herd mentality is just as bad on either side. I won't pop your bubble and tell you how they sum up the atheist position

It is only bad if the ideals/beliefs within the herd are not based on reality.

Look in the mirror lately?