(May 12, 2025 at 1:00 pm)Sheldon Wrote:

(May 12, 2025 at 12:13 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Sure, he's free to "suspect". And I'm free to point out how stupid it is to "suspect" anything about 1.2 billion others based upon talking to two -- count 'em, two! -- of them.

Indeed, and globally 1.2 billion wouldn't even cover the Catholics, this is assuming he was only talking about Christians alive today of course, and that wasn't at all clear to me, but perhaps plucking stats about billions out of thin air, from one anecdotal chat with a couple, who by his own admission had "not given their believes any thought" (priceless by the way), is something the finer university philosophy departments teach? Along with John knowing what most psychologists know, and all statisticians think, right off the cuff. 

What's most disappointing is that not once has anyone cited Aristotle.

OMFG, look what AI found...

"The first philosopher to cite what we now know as the hasty generalization fallacy was Aristotle. In his work "Sophistical Refutations" (De Sophisticis Elenchis), Aristotle identified various logical errors, including what he called "generalizing quickly and sloppily". This aligns with the modern understanding of hasty generalization, which is the act of drawing a conclusion about a larger population based on a small or unrepresentative sample."

K'innel...

(May 12, 2025 at 12:13 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: ...based upon talking to two -- count 'em, two! -- of them.

Okay, then how many would we need? (Hint: The average study uses around 20-30 participants.)

(May 12, 2025 at 4:34 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(May 12, 2025 at 4:24 am)The Valkyrie Wrote: Too broad a question.

It depends on the individual Christian why they believe, and why they accept some parts of the bible and reject others.

Well it took 84 pages, but we finally got the most sensible possible answer.

Can you say "Kiss Ass?"  I know you can.

A quantitative study aiming at drawing inferences about a much larger general population will require at least hundreds of participants to get a minimum reliability of 95%. The kind of study routinely done by Gallup or PEW.

(May 12, 2025 at 1:13 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 12, 2025 at 12:13 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: ...based upon talking to two -- count 'em, two! -- of them.

Okay, then how many would we need? (Hint: The average study uses around 20-30 participants.)

So not two then, and this wasn't a study, it was an anecdote, about a chat.

I also linked some info, but feel free to dismiss it out of hand, or ignore it, I used, whisper it...AI...

"For a demographic of billions, a representative sample would ideally be in the tens of thousands, potentially even hundreds of thousands, depending on the research goals and the level of detail required. While the exact number would vary, a simple random sample of a few thousand might be sufficient for understanding general trends, but larger samples are needed for more specific or nuanced analyses."

I am sure a chat with two people, without any recorded data will be fine though...

I don't think we don't need a poll to tell us that a large number of people believe in christianity because they very much like the pitch and want what it offers. We have centuries of christian art and contemporary apologetics to precisely that effect, in addition to the massive weight of christians lived experiences in all of our lives. If reliable polls show that christians were wish-thinking bobbleheads, churches would not empty any faster.

I find it hilarious the lengths Christians will  go to pretend their religion isn't what there critics say it is in public but when huddled together in their churches they affirm every accusation

(May 12, 2025 at 1:45 pm)The Architect Of Fate Wrote: I find it hilarious the lengths Christians will  go to pretend their religion isn't what there critics say it is in public but when huddled together in their churches they affirm every accusation

Yes, and some of us atheists sat through Christian church services when we were children and teens, every Sunday for years in my case.

But, but, but...two people say it's true.

-as for gods characteristics, it's fairly simple. All christians (I mean genuine christians, not nominal ones, here) must believe that god is personal and intervening and atoning. Everything else...and the specifics of how those three are achieved, too, is up for grabs. That's why there tens of thousands of sub cults, which is itself lower by orders of magnitude to private belief and value sets.

A "just the creator" christian, with a narrow focus and non-specific qualifications for those terms, satisfies those conditions. A batshit crazy jot and tittler also satisfies those conditions, in exactly the same way. The fundamental premises of both types of christians are identifical, which is what identifies them as christian in the first place, and in fact identifies all christians regardless of the profound differences in how those three beliefs play out and how they interact with other beliefs. The difference between protestants and catholics is less about god than the efficacy of ritual magic and mystery traditions.

Thus, any question of why christians believe..a general query, is some exploration of those three things. There are certainly other reasons to believe in christianity, and other things some christians believe in, but whatever causes all of them to accept those three is the basis of all christian belief. Judging by it's common manifestation over demography and time they're very successful beliefs. Christianity could have been different, but it normalized around this. Any attempt to minimize them...because..maybe...someone thinks that they don't look good in an argument, is, imo, doomed to be unrepresentative of christianity in individuals or as a whole.