do religious people really believe?

[Neo-Scholastic]

well normally id say insiginificant claims require little evidence and huge soul saving outlandish unbelievable claims require lots and lots of evidence

Evidence is evidence regardless of your judgement about the plausibility of the result. If the rules of evidence are not consistently applied then the process of evaluating that evidence becomes biased.

In short, the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof is just another way to justify ignoring evidence you have already choosen not to accept.

---

I think those who claim to believe do so largely because they're afraid not to.

Project much? Maybe you don't want to believe because you're afraid of how that might have to change your life to accommodate religious convictions.

Then again, maybe not. Golden rule: don't ridicule people for motivations you attribute to them if you don't want others to ridicule you based on motivations they have assigned to you.

---

... i sometimes use condoms.

Too much information!

[fr0d0]

Thanks for the support apoplexia

I think I fully accept atheists to be moral. I've said before, in my own experience people are generally the opposite of what you'd expect. Atheists can be very principled, and theists, especially Christians, the most unprincipled. Although in extreme cases, the really outstandingly selfless people I know are Christians. And the outstanding atheists I know can't always maintain their demeanour. That's just the people I have known though. Me myself I would say I'm as prone to following my natural urges as peepee here.

Buddhists seem to manage admirably at presenting the calm at peace exterior. That mask has always failed whenever challenged by something as abhorrent as Christianity is presented to them, for example. In my experience.

The real worth of ideology seems like a rare prize. And you see it flourish where it shouldn't. It happens against the odds, and in the most unlikely people and places.

[cratehorus]

i just find it difficult to believe these people believe in heaven or hell they dont act like they do in the slightest.

the scary thing is they do..... this is how stupid people behave......illogically......your essentially asking a retarded person to act logically .....good luck with that

[Nobody]

I think one of the worst examples of stupidity and faith are the martyrs to it.

Then again cleaning out the gene pool certainly helps make the deep end and the shallow more easily distinguishable, so it works.

[paulpablo]

well normally id say insiginificant claims require little evidence and huge soul saving outlandish unbelievable claims require lots and lots of evidence

Evidence is evidence regardless of your judgement about the plausibility of the result. If the rules of evidence are not consistently applied then the process of evaluating that evidence becomes biased.

i dont understand why youre making this statement, of course evidence is evidence no one would argue with that, and of course if evidence isnt judged correctly then its bias, but whats your point? im saying if someone said i bought a goldfish today, i dont require a background check, photographic evidence and witness testimony in order to believe in this because the consiquences of it arent drastic, but if someone says they know which religion god wants us to follow and that there is a god and he had a son and he came to earth and was born of a virgin and so on and so on then id want evidence for that because its something i would care about if it were true. So are you trying to say i should ask for evidence for every little tiny thing in my life? or that i should ask for very little evidence for dramatic claims in my life just so that i wont be bias?

---

i just find it difficult to believe these people believe in heaven or hell they dont act like they do in the slightest.

the scary thing is they do..... this is how stupid people behave......illogically......your essentially asking a retarded person to act logically .....good luck with that

i dont think ive met one christian or muslim who acts like they believe in heaven or hell, maybe i just havent met the right ones i know they do exist, people who deny medical care to their children for example for religious beliefs, but i personally havent met one religious person who acted as if they believed in a heaven and hell.
also im not asking people to behave logically, im just saying not only am i skeptical of religion im skeptical that the people who say they believe in religion actually believe in it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

i dont understand why youre making this statement, of course evidence is evidence no one would argue with that, and of course if evidence isnt judged correctly then its bias, but whats your point?

The point is we hear it all the time on these forums: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I'm saying that is simply not a good way to conduct an honest inquiry.

Allow me to use an example without taking any position on whether I believe in the paranormal or not. The "extraordinary evidence" requirement placed on paranormal research represents a clear bias against those types of claims. Now, I have heard but have not looked into it, that the results of some psi studies have as much statistical significance as studies showing the efficacy of aspirin to reduce heart disease. If that is true and if a person accepts the results of the aspirin study but dismisses the results of the psi study then they aren't being honest about following the evidence wherever it leads.

[paulpablo]

i dont understand why youre making this statement, of course evidence is evidence no one would argue with that, and of course if evidence isnt judged correctly then its bias, but whats your point?

The point is we hear it all the time on these forums: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I'm saying that is simply not a good way to conduct an honest inquiry.

Allow me to use an example without taking any position on whether I believe in the paranormal or not. The "extraordinary evidence" requirement placed on paranormal research represents a clear bias against those types of claims. Now, I have heard but have not looked into it, that the results of some psi studies have as much statistical significance as studies showing the efficacy of aspirin to reduce heart disease. If that is true and if a person accepts the results of the aspirin study but dismisses the results of the psi study then they aren't being honest about following the evidence wherever it leads.

the point is moot because both of those claims are quite important so both would require lots of evidence to be believed, psi is important, getting rid of heart desiese is important also, but aspirin isnt that difficult to get hold of and as far as im aware isnt very toxic so it doesnt surprise me that people just take aspirin anyway even though they dont know if it reduces heart disease or not.
its a bit of a different situation from someone saying they know which god is the right one to worship and how to worship him and that he was born of a virgin and so on, those claims require lots of evidence because of the drastic impact the results have on day to day life

[Angrboda]

i dont understand why youre making this statement, of course evidence is evidence no one would argue with that, and of course if evidence isnt judged correctly then its bias, but whats your point?

The point is we hear it all the time on these forums: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I'm saying that is simply not a good way to conduct an honest inquiry.

Allow me to use an example without taking any position on whether I believe in the paranormal or not. The "extraordinary evidence" requirement placed on paranormal research represents a clear bias against those types of claims. Now, I have heard but have not looked into it, that the results of some psi studies have as much statistical significance as studies showing the efficacy of aspirin to reduce heart disease. If that is true and if a person accepts the results of the aspirin study but dismisses the results of the psi study then they aren't being honest about following the evidence wherever it leads.

I recently had occasion to discurse at length on such issues (). Any comment you might have on my exposition would be most welcome.

[paulpablo]

the extraordinary claims extra ordinary evidence thing isnt really something that can be proven or disproven, its just if we all went around asking for lots and lots of evidence for every little thing in our lives then it would waste a hell of a lot of time finding out unimportant things are definitely true or false, it isnt really a way of life or an specific way you should definitely do things
or on the other hand you could just believe in anything no matter how wild the claims are based on no evidence at all, which would also be a huge waste of a life because you would have to try and conform to all religions all at the same time and appease all the gods you now believe in which would be impossible.
i dont think its really a subject for debate its just what people do so they dont waste their lives either finding out evidence for unimportant trivial things, or believing in wild unbelievable things and wasting their lives bowing and worshiping every god they hear about, religious people actually follow this rule too but they just exclude the rule to not apply to their own religion

[Neo-Scholastic]

Any comment you might have on my exposition would be most welcome.

None required. That post is well thought out and equally well presented. Thank you.