RE: Believers, put yourself in my place.
November 23, 2016 at 1:35 am
(This post was last modified: November 23, 2016 at 8:51 am by robvalue.)
I got that the wrong way round, knowledge is a subset of belief. You believe all the things you think you know, but not vice versa. Knowledge, on an individual level, is just an extreme form of belief. It's about levels of certainty. Saying you know something doesn't make it true; it just means you're highly convinced it is true. So a belief may represent a 70% or even 90% confidence level, whereas something you know might feel like 99.9% confidence level. Someone may tell me they have 100% confidence in something. Still doesn't make it true. I would never state I have that much confidence in anything; I always allow for user error.
I've had that degree of confidence before (>99%) and been wrong. We probably all have. Humans are very fallible. Each time it's happened, I've taken a good look at why that is, to try and avoid it happening in the future.
Not all evidence is equal. It's not like there's only no evidence or absolute proof. There are varying degrees of quality. So I may base a belief off some moderately convincing evidence, if I'm not overly concerned if my belief turns out to be wrong. But if it's of real importance to me, I'll seek out further evidence to try and confirm or deny this.
My initial claim is that one cannot choose, at any time, to switch one's beliefs based on nothing. It's not generally humanly possible, if the beliefs were based on anything other than guesswork. All the scenarios people talk about are when new evidence comes to light. Or of course, thinking things through may highlight errors. But you can't simply switch your brain between states. That's my claim; if anyone wants to dispute that, go ahead. And as I said, until there's a falsifiable definition for "God", there can be no evidence. It's a moot point. I don't know what people are talking about. If it's a simple intelligent creator, then I have no opinion and I don't see how I could ever tell the difference.
Absolutely, yes, it's up to each person if they go do research, or plug their ears and repeat the same mantras. It's up to them whether they really dig up their beliefs and analyse what the real reasons are behind them, or put up barriers and scoff at anyone who disagrees with them. They can employ logic, or cling to emotion. It's my opinion that most religious beliefs are based on emotion (it feels like it must be true) and then logic is used to rationalise. And deeply held beliefs protect themselves. I've experienced this myself, it is scary in its power. Emotion can trump logic any day of the week. It takes a lot of work and bravery to really challenge these rooted beliefs.
And I agree, when it comes to religion, we've seen it all. The "evidence" has been presented. It hasn't changed in 2000 years. All that has changed is that the arguments people use have become more desperate and semantic. Some theists seem to think they're presenting us with "new evidence", when all they're doing is rehashing an argument we've seen a hundred times before. It didn't convince us then, and it won't now. Logical fallacies don't go away by repitition, and story books don't become true no matter how much conviction people have. I accept that (most) theists honestly believe what they say. The evidence is good enough for them. It's just not good enough for me.
And, of course, I don't give a shit, ultimately. I'm only involved in these debates because of the effect religion is having worldwide and the harm being caused. Not by all theists, I hasten to add. I have no vested interest in "God" either way, so why people think I would "reject" it, I don't know. Whatever it thinks of me, I couldn't care less. I'll use the brain it supposedly gave me and figure out how best to act.
I've had that degree of confidence before (>99%) and been wrong. We probably all have. Humans are very fallible. Each time it's happened, I've taken a good look at why that is, to try and avoid it happening in the future.
Not all evidence is equal. It's not like there's only no evidence or absolute proof. There are varying degrees of quality. So I may base a belief off some moderately convincing evidence, if I'm not overly concerned if my belief turns out to be wrong. But if it's of real importance to me, I'll seek out further evidence to try and confirm or deny this.
My initial claim is that one cannot choose, at any time, to switch one's beliefs based on nothing. It's not generally humanly possible, if the beliefs were based on anything other than guesswork. All the scenarios people talk about are when new evidence comes to light. Or of course, thinking things through may highlight errors. But you can't simply switch your brain between states. That's my claim; if anyone wants to dispute that, go ahead. And as I said, until there's a falsifiable definition for "God", there can be no evidence. It's a moot point. I don't know what people are talking about. If it's a simple intelligent creator, then I have no opinion and I don't see how I could ever tell the difference.
(November 22, 2016 at 4:57 pm)operator Wrote:
True but one can choose to do certain things to keep their beliefs alive. One can choose to ignore certain lines of evidence or choose to remain uneducated on certain subjects because they believe in believing. Lacking a belief in a god is different because I would argue most atheists have reviewed the "evidence" that religion has presented and have seen the logical fallacies therein.
Absolutely, yes, it's up to each person if they go do research, or plug their ears and repeat the same mantras. It's up to them whether they really dig up their beliefs and analyse what the real reasons are behind them, or put up barriers and scoff at anyone who disagrees with them. They can employ logic, or cling to emotion. It's my opinion that most religious beliefs are based on emotion (it feels like it must be true) and then logic is used to rationalise. And deeply held beliefs protect themselves. I've experienced this myself, it is scary in its power. Emotion can trump logic any day of the week. It takes a lot of work and bravery to really challenge these rooted beliefs.
And I agree, when it comes to religion, we've seen it all. The "evidence" has been presented. It hasn't changed in 2000 years. All that has changed is that the arguments people use have become more desperate and semantic. Some theists seem to think they're presenting us with "new evidence", when all they're doing is rehashing an argument we've seen a hundred times before. It didn't convince us then, and it won't now. Logical fallacies don't go away by repitition, and story books don't become true no matter how much conviction people have. I accept that (most) theists honestly believe what they say. The evidence is good enough for them. It's just not good enough for me.
And, of course, I don't give a shit, ultimately. I'm only involved in these debates because of the effect religion is having worldwide and the harm being caused. Not by all theists, I hasten to add. I have no vested interest in "God" either way, so why people think I would "reject" it, I don't know. Whatever it thinks of me, I couldn't care less. I'll use the brain it supposedly gave me and figure out how best to act.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
