(April 30, 2014 at 7:42 am)Kitanetos Wrote: 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?
(April 30, 2014 at 11:33 am)JuliaL Wrote: 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?
