When believing false things is comforting

[Belacqua]

This is a silly. I have my frustrations with some of the things Belaqua says, but consider rereading what he's saying because it's clear to me he's not saying what you accuse him of saying. Similar shit is happening in the soul thread as well. We all make reading errors but come on guys, when something has been answered or clarified, read them properly when you can and don't try to find faults just for the sake of it, and/or pretend he wasn't clear.

I appreciate this! You didn't have to speak up...

And please know that when I say frustrating things, I am willing to hash them out and give reasons. Not that my reasons should be important to anyone, but I don't type stuff just to annoy......

[Deesse23]

I pointed out the relevant part, just in case you are confused (about what you said). Now, please back your original claim, particlualy regarding atheists.

Unfortunately I haven't documented every relevant conversation I've had over the past decades. 

Unfortunately thats your problem. Its also not a conversation of "the past decades" but rather of the past days. Do you remember what you wrote yesterday? Do you even try?

A glance at statements made by Anomalocaris should show that statistical accuracy or empirical evidence is of less concern to him than expressing disapproval of a certain large group of people. His case is often extreme but far from rare. 

Unfortunately Amomalocaris is irrelevant for backing up the claim you made. Nice try though.

Why do you suppose I'm the only one on this forum who calls him out when he makes wildly exaggerated and unprovable claims? 

Why ask questions instead of backing up your claims from yesterday, claims you pretend not to remeber? Distraction?


Now, back to you backing up your own claims from yesterday. *hands over mic*

---

This is a silly. I have my frustrations with some of the things Belaqua says, but consider rereading what he's saying because it's clear to me he's not saying what you accuse him of saying. Similar shit is happening in the soul thread as well. We all make reading errors but come on guys, when something has been answered or clarified, read them properly when you can and don't try to find faults just for the sake of it, and/or pretend he wasn't clear.

I agree that he never suggested that there is an atheist ideology. But he clearly said, in relation to atheists:

Commitment to an ideological position nearly always takes precedence

So he needs to back up his claim that "nearly always" an ideological position takes precedence, even when atheists are arguing.

All the other bullshit about other phiilosophers or forum members is only one of his usual attempts to bullshit his way through this forum. I also dotn believe he is a christian (or any kinda theist/deist) but he is so fucking full of himself....

[Belacqua]

I also dotn believe he is a christian (or any kinda theist/deist)

I appreciate that you would publicly disagree with the position asserted by Abaddon Ire and others. You are correct that I am not a Christian or one of those other things.

[Simon Moon]

I think that beliefs based on feels is the anti-thesis to skeptics worldwide and can lead to lots of good and bad things. I think being a skeptic about everything isn't really truly how we act day-to-day and beliefs based on feels are probably far more widely the case in practice than many here would like to admit.

This is true for the most part. We operate in our daily lives using induction and inference, and it works wonderfully well. Today is pretty much like yesterday, people act more or less the same from day to day, physics and the laws of the universe are the same, etc.

So, because this way of operating in the world works...until it doesn't, we can tend to get overconfident in it. One of the instances it doesn't work, is with regards to existential and supernatural claims.

But this isn't the kind of skepticism the vast majority of skeptics and atheists use, or consider viable. We don't go about requiring evidence and valid and sound logic to evaluate everyday occurrences in our daily lives.

If someone tells me they walked their dog this morning, I do not ask them to provide me with demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument before I will believe them. Using inductions and inference, I am willing to believe them at face value. I know dogs exist, people have them as pets, people walk their dogs, etc, etc. I do not have to apply skepticism or critical thinking to this situation.

This is a category of claim that would require demonstrable evidence in order to be believable.

The problem arises, when people, with so much confidence in their abilities to use induction and inference for those everyday occurrences, try to use the same methods with regards to extraordinary claims. Like the claim your god exists.

[tackattack]

@Simon Moon which is perhaps part of the reason theist confidence in Faith have such a problem with expressing experiential evidence of said God, because it's the relationship built upon everyday occurrences in our daily lives we that seem so common they become banal? What you might call a degree of kind to justify categorical levels towards a full standard deviation of difference, I consider categorically different.

[Simon Moon]

I think that beliefs based on feels is the anti-thesis to skeptics worldwide and can lead to lots of good and bad things. I think being a skeptic about everything isn't really truly how we act day-to-day and beliefs based on feels are probably far more widely the case in practice than many here would like to admit.

This is true for the most part. We operate in our daily lives using induction and inference, and it works wonderfully well. Today is pretty much like yesterday, people act more or less the same from day to day, physics and the laws of the universe are the same, etc.

So, because this way of operating in the world works...until it doesn't, we can tend to get overconfident in it. One of the instances it doesn't work, is with regards to existential and supernatural claims.

But this isn't the kind of skepticism the vast majority of skeptics and atheists use, or consider viable. We don't go about requiring evidence and valid and sound logic to evaluate everyday occurrences in our daily lives.

If someone tells me they walked their dog this morning, I do not ask them to provide me with demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument before I will believe them. Using inductions and inference, I am willing to believe them at face value. I know dogs exist, people have them as pets, people walk their dogs, etc, etc. I do not have to apply skepticism or critical thinking to this situation.

This is a category of claim that would require demonstrable evidence in order to be believable.

The problem arises, when people, with so much confidence in their abilities to use induction and inference for those everyday occurrences, try to use the same methods with regards to extraordinary claims. Like the claim your god exists.

Somehow, I must have deleted the part of my post that lead up to the bolded sentence.

The category of claims I was referring to, that require demonstrable evidence, would be if someone claimed they walked their dog on the moon. I am sure, you would agree, that there is no need to be skeptical of someone saying the walked their dog, but the claim of walking their dog on the moon, if you were to believe it, would require evidence.