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.

(April 30, 2014 at 7:42 am)Kitanetos Wrote: Certainly, cogintive dissonance plays a role.

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.

We are all subject to cognitive dissonance, how, specifically, do you see this being an issue for someone who is a theist as opposed to someone who is not a theist?

MM

The focus was not on cognitive dissonance so much as peer validation. The cognitive dissonance comment was more an aside of an already apparent truth.

(April 30, 2014 at 8:46 am)Kitanetos Wrote: The focus was not on cognitive dissonance so much as peer validation. The cognitive dissonance comment was more an aside of an already apparent truth.

I understand your view on peer validation and I can see how that might be part of the overall picture but I can't quite see what concepts or thoughts you see as conflicting for theists in particular.

MM

(April 30, 2014 at 9:23 am)ManMachine Wrote: 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.

Disclaimer:
I have never been a theist in real life or played one on television. I can only comment on my perspective on their behavior.

The model I use for explaining the observed behaviors of theists combines elements of evolution by means of natural selection and game theory.
I believe that religions, as self organizing and self perpetuating systems of observed regularity evolve to suit the environments they inhabit. The ones which lose that adaptive capability or have their environments change sufficiently go extinct. Nobody sacrifices to Athena these days. Religions are aggregates of their members. I have not seen convincing evidence that religions are self aware, though they have evolved self protective behaviors which serve to perpetuate and propagate them. This could be described as intentional. Religions are aggregates of their members. If the members change behaviors, so do their religions.

In game theory, one sets up payoff matrices based on input parameters. Offers of salvation or damnation are inputs and expected eternal bliss or torture are the presumed payoffs for the theist. In this context the truth of a proposition is simply another input. If the payoff is seen to be optimal by the player it will be selected whether true or false. This is not necessarily conscious or rational behavior. In the case of religious behavior I separate theists into sheep and shepherds. The sheep play a herd game in which banding together provides mutual protection and a greater influence than an individual could wield by itself. The shepherd strategy is one which uses greater independence and intellectual ability to use the power afforded by the flock to its individual advantage. These behaviors are each seen to be optimal by its practitioner. That condition is a Nash equilibrium/evolutionary stable scenario in which each player is playing a locally optimized strategy which still may be maladaptive compared to some other global strategy. But as the player cannot see past the local strategy, they persist in what may externally appear to be stupid, stubborn and self destructive behavior. To them it is their best play. The sheep and shepherd interaction forms the religion.
In American TV evangelical protestantism the sheep and shepherd model might be better described as the sheep and wolves model.

(April 30, 2014 at 7:42 am)Kitanetos Wrote: That is why when they come here, they are confused that we cannot understand or accept their brand of logic

Confirmation bias you see the other way around here. People instinctualy herd together and share ideologies.

(April 30, 2014 at 11:12 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Confirmation bias you see the other way around here. People instinctualy herd together and share ideologies.

The difference being the atheistic herd mentality is based on reality whereas the theistic side is based on faithfullness (the thesaurus actually has this as a synonym for unreality, hehe).

(April 30, 2014 at 11:16 am)Kitanetos Wrote:

(April 30, 2014 at 11:12 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Confirmation bias you see the other way around here. People instinctualy herd together and share ideologies.

The difference being the atheistic herd mentality is based on reality whereas the theistic side is based on faithfullness (the thesaurus actually has this as a synonym for unreality, hehe).

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

(April 30, 2014 at 11:24 am)fr0d0 Wrote: 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.