Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
EliPage

Why people believe?

352 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Mr Walker
3 minutes ago, back to earth said:

 

sums it all up for me    I dont even have to see what was said ... its all VERY familar , no matter how nice or rude one is too 

THE   WALKER   !          

 

Image result for wheelbarrow fail gif

LOL actually looks classic, "back to earth"  for that guy, to me.

Hey, did i just manage to make  enough meaning from an image to crack a joke about it?  :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
2 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Walker,

 Language didn't exist before the ability to speak the ability to communicate did H. Erectus made it to Java near a million years ago and the didn't talk their way there but were intelligent enough to have understood their intent and achieve it. You can blather on about the language of the mind like most of the things you do and not be able to show that this claim is true either.

jmccr8

That doesnt make sense How are you defining language?    I define human language as the abilty to speak either in the mind or out loud.  Other animals dont actually have language as correctly defined although the y have means of communication  genetically imprinted into them.  Flora and fauna moves across the globe all the time.What has language got to do with tha t?  Those primates had no sense of destination or purpose. They were seeking food and responding to environmental pressures, such as population growth, danger comfort  or resource availability Their movement was gradual, and accidental, just like a rats would be and the y would have little  more awareness of what was happening than a modern primate .  

Homo erectus used tools and made implements, and so was more advanced than modern non human primates  If they did crete tools then the y had language There is no clear evidence either way if they did speak except for archaeological evidences like tool making,  but homo erectus had the physiological requirements necessary for language.

Arguably you cant make and use tools without at least  an inner language of the mind because of the associated conceptualisations and abstract thinking required to make a tool, fit for a purpose. 

http://www.lllf.uam.es/~clase/acceso_local/LgCapabili.pdf

 

The Turkana Boy - Homo ergaster

Date: 1.5 -1.9 million years ago
Lived: Africa, possibly migrated out into regions of the Middle East and Asia
Language ability: limited speech and language ability. Probably had advanced communication skills and the capability to produce some simple words and communicate to a greater degree than is seen in our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees.

Evidence for this species language ability comes from their fossilised skeletons and from detailed analysis of their tool technology.

https://australianmuseum.net.au/how-do-we-know-if-they-could-speak

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

 

Dont miss from 1 : 45 on   

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
46 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

That doesnt make sense How are you defining language?    I define human language as the abilty to speak either in the mind or out loud.  Other animals dont actually have language as correctly defined although the y have means of communication  genetically imprinted into them.  Flora and fauna moves across the globe all the time.What has language got to do with tha t?  Those primates had no sense of destination or purpose. They were seeking food and responding to environmental pressures, such as population growth, danger comfort  or resource availability Their movement was gradual, and accidental, just like a rats would be and the y would have little  more awareness of what was happening than a modern primate .  

Homo erectus used tools and made implements, and so was more advanced than modern non human primates  If they did crete tools then the y had language There is no clear evidence either way if they did speak except for archaeological evidences like tool making,  but homo erectus had the physiological requirements necessary for language.

Arguably you cant make and use tools without at least  an inner language of the mind because of the associated conceptualisations and abstract thinking required to make a tool, fit for a purpose. 

http://www.lllf.uam.es/~clase/acceso_local/LgCapabili.pdf

 

The Turkana Boy - Homo ergaster

Date: 1.5 -1.9 million years ago
Lived: Africa, possibly migrated out into regions of the Middle East and Asia
Language ability: limited speech and language ability. Probably had advanced communication skills and the capability to produce some simple words and communicate to a greater degree than is seen in our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees.

Evidence for this species language ability comes from their fossilised skeletons and from detailed analysis of their tool technology.

https://australianmuseum.net.au/how-do-we-know-if-they-could-speak

You likely should have read the rest of the link, but then it wouldn't have supported your position. 

jmccr8

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

same old ... same old  ....   :) 

half missing segway tractor  

 

Image result for segway gif

Edited by back to earth
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton
3 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Perhaps, but it is the human way. When we consider human life in all it permutations, in the end the cause is irrelevant, if the result is positive. After all, we are not dealing with a rational species, but a rationalizing one. 

A few nights ago -- I think I was in a morbid mood -- I got to thinking about all the people I have known who are now dead.  For my age and the fact that I went through a war, there were only maybe twenty, I think I've been lucky.

They were all busy doing their thing -- in one case being a business of unfortunately sharp practice.  One was on the edge of becoming a general in the military, another in line to become Prime Minister.  Not that I'm that important (such people have many acquaintances).  It just was that all of them had plans and ambitions and, well, they weren't to be.

As you say, in the end it is all irrelevant.  The best we can do is make the sum of our life positive.

I should be more polite about the point of your message, that we are not dealing so much with a rational as opposed to a rationalizing species.  I agree.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton
3 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Yes, before you have the issue. But, as you said we are beings who often rationalize irrational behaviors. For me, taking family medical history serious is a good place to start.

One of the Buddhas said that there are three sources of unhappiness -- desires, compulsions, and delusions.  Maybe we should add rationalizations to that list.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
18 minutes ago, Frank Merton said:

One of the Buddhas said that there are three sources of unhappiness -- desires, compulsions, and delusions.  Maybe we should add rationalizations to that list.

Desires, compulsions and delusions are rationalizations, where we rationalize the abrogation of free will.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Belief or disbelief in God are both rationalizations since neither require absolute knowledge for confirmation.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
2 hours ago, back to earth said:

 

Dont miss from 1 : 45 on   

Oh, thanks a lot. Now I can't get that song out of my head!   "They call him Flipper, Flipper faster than lightning, no you se-e-e, is smarter than he-e-e-"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton
18 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Belief or disbelief in God are both rationalizations since neither require absolute knowledge for confirmation.

I don't like the word "believe" as I think any "belief" is a cop-out and absolute knowledge of anything is out of reach.  We have opinions that we hold with greater or lesser confidence.  As far as God is concerned, I have the opinion, held with a very high degree of confidence, that there is no such thing, based mainly on lack of evidence, the course of history, and the existence of so much suffering.  (This would be the God as most commonly imagined).

A note here -- while I try to be careful, I suspect now and then I use the word believe to merely express a strong opinion, as this use is so common, but I try not to.

Let me distinguish beliefs and opinions this way -- a belief is something held to be true or false based mainly on indoctrination and defended by rationalization.  An opinion is generally acquired via education and while rationalization still plays a part in its sustenance, not as strongly and not emotionally.  For many if not most beliefs, they originate in childhood teaching, which is why religions put such emphasis on "bringing up" a child in the religion involved.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

Hammer

Quote

After all, we are not dealing with a rational species, but a rationalizing one.

It is not in evidence that you can be the first without sometimes doing the second (on pain of magically always being correct by non-demonstrative reasoning... nope, not possible).

My sense is that another poster isn't operating on the frontier of what is rationally possible, so fine analysis of his output is wasted effort. Just me.


Frank

Quote

I don't think beautiful and simple are separate things when it comes to logic and science.

So, in your view, there is no scientist who finds anything complicated beautiful, nor any simple thing ugly? Possible, I suppose, but it seems far-fetched to me.

Quote

Every example of something, like a logical proof,

Scientists often use logical proofs, but the production of non-demonstrative arguments is what distinguishes their profession from that of, say, mathematicians and logicians. Regardless, logical proof is what a heuristic isn't.

It follows, therefore, that "beauty" in a logical proof may be different than beauty in a non-demonstrative argument. I'd be willing to bet on it.

Quote

my attitude would be to be immediately suspicious of any idea that I found beautiful or appealing or simple

A heuristic! Oddly enough, it is typical, not exceptional, that the "opposite" of a heuristic is itself a heuristic. (Which may be why "dialectic," thesis + antithesis entails a synthesis, is so popular when reasoning about heuristics:

T: Similar cases should be decided similarly

A: Each case should be decided on its own merits

-------------

S: Similar cases should be decided similarly, and different cases decided differently according to their differences.

)

 


LG

Quote

Sure, but it seems somewhat limited to discuss heuristics without mention of how reliable those heuristics actually are objectively;

Actually, for some heuristics there's quite a lot of formal analysis; others, by their nature, aren't formal in the first place, so only looser analysis is possible.

Also, reliability isn't the only dimension of merit. "Degrade gracefully" is often important (when it is wrong, it usually isn't "very" wrong, or gives some indication that the situation is more prone to failure, ...). Expense of application is another big factor (easy to compute is especially popular, as is fast). There are others.

Quote

whose experience?

When there is formal analysis, then that's the experience. Otherwise, it is the lived experience of the person who decides to use the heuristic, direct or vicarious. Speaking of heuristics, "responsibility and authority should be given together to the same person" is especially well-regarded.

Quote

'relying too much on only your own experience increases the odds that one will make errors of fact',

Depends on the person, and usually on what the person is remarkably good at. One nice thing about the Einstein example is that it is generally thought that his heuristics betrayed him in his final years as he held onto determinism against mounting evidence for the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics.

BUT, Einstein had to make his commitments before he knew how they would turn out (unlike his biographers). So, what was he to do? Roll the dice?

[In the thread, we've been talking about "the power of story" as a factor in human behavior, whether or not the story is believed. One of the great story motifs is "the magician whose magic runs out." Of course, it is a tragic motif. Heuristics and magic have that in common: they both "run out" eventually.]

Quote

 logic and empiricism are themselves heuristics

Logic isn't, but most of what we think of empiricism is.

Quote

 I'm not quite sure why 'useful and 'truth' would be discussed together as what the 'rational' person will search for,

Those are the chief popular search goals relevant to the thread. If you prefer, you could call them "kinds of knowledge," declarative (knowledge that ...) and procedural (knowledge how to ...). Not exactly the same, but close.

Quote

To some extent there's a lot of overlap between truth and usefulness,

Oddly enough, with some attention to definition, there is a precise and narrow overlap. It's "a lot" in the sense that it is frequently salient, but it's a "knife's edge" in the sense of how little it takes to "fall over" into just true or just useful.

Quote

but it seems like a rational person could restrict themselves to just the truth

So a rational mathematician (who must eventually deal in "just the truth") shouldn't try to concentrate on problems where she estimates she has the best shots of producing something interesting (why mathematicians win medals)?

Quote

And the issue with 'usefulness' is that it can be a largely subjective evaluation which means there's nothing restricting (nor should there always be) the heuristic to itself being rational.

Yes, as to subjectivity (how could it be otherwise? choosing the "goal" of the search is subjective). I don't know of any standard of "rationality," though, that can be applied to heuristics except admissibility (that they don't always fail, that there isn't a provably better available heuristic, ...).

I was driving yesterday with the radio on, and there was an ad from the state's branch of Homeland Security (who came up with the name? it sounds like the Germans won WWII). The gist was "trust your instincts." Well... that's good advice for only some people, and usually for only some of their instincts. Nevertheless, if you are one of those people, and this is one of those instincts, then trusting it is rational.

Quote

zodiac

If your objective is to influence current behavior, then adopting the stance of a prophet is a proven winner. If your objective is to discern reliable information, then maybe something else would work better.

Quote

It just seems odd to base rational decisions on the irrational,

I think because that sentence is self-referential. It may help to untangle the mess to remember that in many situations, the only thing that will ever matter is whether you pushed the right button (bought the right stock, married the right partner, ...). Why you chose the way you did may make an interesting blog post, but all that really matters is what you actually chose and did.

Is it rational to think that acting the way you rationally estimate is best will always turn out to be best? I think not. If so, is it rational always to act the way you rationally estimate is best? (e.g., NEVER to "hedge your bet" by taking a "less than optimal" choice that might result in a softer landing in case the best estimate is a bit off? And if you did so, then why is that line of thinking irrational?)

Quote

Prayer

I never have found a better analysis than Heinlein's. Assuming that it's "prayer and ..." and NOT "prayer instead of ..." (like those idiot parents who pray over their childrens' high fevers instead of getting medical attention): can't hurt, might help.

All the more so in your hypothetical, where it's a group activity, assuming it's handled with respect for the beliefs of members. Meh, if they buy horoscopes, then prayer will probably go over just fine.

Quote

but there are lots of rational reasons to avoid it when reducing your search space for things like medicine (or almost all of science, all of history, math),

Um, you do realize that there is a scholarly literature about this, right? Not "scholarly" like Jesus Lived (Really, I've Talked With Him About It), but scholarly like What do scientists actually do?, What works?, ... that kind of thing.

Historians would be in an especially interesting place; they are estimating what humans did in the past. They are themselves human (at least until the machines take over). If one human being thinks some course of action is a "neat idea" (Lt. Col. Oliver North's phrase), might that not increase the probability that some other human being did, too?

(That didn't work out so well for Ollie's military career, but he landed on his feet.)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

ROFLMAO Still at it "Therapy"?  You are putting yourself in my place and responding to my life as YOU might respond to it I cant believe you are as dumb as oyu pretend on this  Statistics compare like with like and come up with overall results  You might smoke for 100 years and never get cancer but one in three people who smoke die as a result of smoking related illnesses

My health issues are genetic and indeed i have not smoked or drank alcohol or eaten much meat for 40 years.  If i HAD done those things  i would liley have already been dead by now, like some of my friends.

 If you go to church regularly it is possible that you will not get dementia so ealry   or cirrhosis of the liver at all,  because associated lifestyle factors also come into play. Dementia is delayed by an active involved lifestyle such as that enjoyed by church goers and  statistically church goers drink less alcohol than non church goers, and believe in a healthy mind in a healthy body.

 And it is not just going to church. A spiritual belief or dimension in a human's life confers exactly the SAME benefits, including less cardio vascular diseases and less depression. because such peole have significantly less stress and anxiety in their life and better coping mechanisms to deal with what the y do experience (that famous old crutch of religion )  As part of a group the y are less likely to be lonely or lack purpose, both prime causes of depression. 

Genetics and environment/behaviors contribute to one's health issues. The leading cause of dementia is old age, you may not be at risk for alcoholic dementia, but there are 127 types at Dementia. Depression is serious health issue one who is responsible would not suggest church as a course of treatment, (and this is what are really saying and as Stubbs says it is terrible advice) depression is a chemical imbalance in the brain, treated by medication and therapy. Depression untreated can be a cause of dementia later on. 

 

 The social aspect of going to church can act as a support system, volunteering can help give substance to a person's  life, but in and of itself it doesn't stave off illness, we are all going to get something either you get lucky and go out with a heart attack or you hang around for years with a chronic heart issues. It is common, in the world of caregiver's, to believe in god, but it is more of a coping mechanism than anything else, it maybe the only route available to the caregiver to get a much needed sense of control, or a way to make it another day, the beiief offers comfort to the caregiver, god becomes a surrogate personal protector and confidante, taking care of someone day in day out year after year takes it's toll on the caregiver who is at risk for burnout and their own health issues, many caregivers drink ( also a way to get comfort) a caregiver gives comfort all day and needs it themselves and those that are taking care of their mates have lost this source of support and comfort. 

 Going to church, if the caregiver "can" get to church it doesn't change the reality of situation, they still have to go back and try to get Charlie in the shower because he has dementia and has lost all interest in bathing, they have to be home because Helen is such a behavioral problem reliefs can't cope with her more then a few hours at a time. No amount of God is going to give a caregiver their life back. 

Believing in god doesn't lighten the responsibility of the person who is giving the care, and it doesn't lighten the load on the person who is terminal or chronic they still have to live a life fighting an illness that has taken their independence. Being sick is not easy, and truthfully, at a deeper level that is what your posts convey that the idea of being sick for you is terrifying so you believe strongly in denying the reality of it.  IMO There is nothing wrong with this since it has lead you to quit smoking and eat better, but once you start having health issues ( especially heart) you have to police yourself, it is what it is. The best two things you can do to make your older years count is not to smoke( which you don't) and make sure to excercise.

 

MW, some caregivers use god as a way to deny the reality of their situation and this delays them getting help for themselves and those they care for. Honestly caregiver support groups are better than going to church because the help they give is practical and applicable. What a caregiver needs is help, not pie in the  sky "god has a purpose for you" this is just a way to rationalize being a caregiver in the first place. I am not saying that religion is useless, but at its best it really only points to a sense of control and unfailing comfort ( god of your head you can depend on 24/7) in an awful situation and the best case scenario is some churches offer a support system, they might send someone to read to you at the hospital, make a pie, or pray over you and for some this helps them feel comforted. But, the day in day out grind of care that is needed for someone who is chronic or terminal, well let's just say it is not all rainbows and butterflies. 

Stubbs is correct, your advice is not rooted in reality, and can be seen as harmful to others for the reasons I outlined. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
13 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

I would expect that there has always been a way for intelligent species (homo) to express concepts in some form, for some reason Walker thinks that there was a complete descriptive language of the mind that has always existed and it is the language that gives intelligence to man.:rolleyes:

And I guess, that eliminates the missing man, or who knows, the missing link. ;)  

13 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Yes that is true, but animals understand to a degree because we give them the interaction, I wouldn't be surprised that in part it is a part of several experiences,the intonation of words, the smell of the speaker when they speak, as well as the way the speaker's body moves. They are trained to respond to the words by reward and as understanding and sympathetic as their little faces appear they do not understand the woes of the speaker.:)

Yes, I do have to remember that. I think I remember my husband making an example of this, by saying to our dog, or his past dog, saying in a positive voice, if he wanted to go do something horrible. And the dog reacted excitingly, because it was all in the tone. In which, I think even tones, make for different expressions of communication. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
13 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

I don't think beautiful and simple are separate things when it comes to logic and science.  Every example of something, like a logical proof, that I know of that has been called beautiful has been simple, and often this is given as the reason it is beautiful.

I am not asserting that beauty and simplicity are the same -- obviously in art they are not (usually).  

My reference to Einstein cannot be taken as my agreeing with him -- I referred to his view as an illusion.  

No -- in fact my attitude would be to be immediately suspicious of any idea that I found beautiful or appealing or simple -- one must first of all be skeptical of oneself and one's reactions and desires.  Einstein was special -- most of us don't have access to such insights.

I don't know about anyone else, but I think this clears it up for me when it comes to what Frank is best expressing. :yes: 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
12 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Yes, before you have the issue. But, as you said we are beings who often rationalize irrational behaviors. For me, taking family medical history serious is a good place to start.

Totally agree! :tu: And I wanted to reply to your post to MW's. Yes, I think inherited situations is also important in regarding what one should do or don't do. My blood pressure levels, I believe is inherited. My dad had it. So, I don't think a complete 'concentration' is going to be a cure all. One needs to deal with it, if they inherited it. So, if drugs can help, then that's the case. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
12 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

No wonder we cant communicate I would NEVER suggest you not take blood pressure tablets. I mean  I take them

 My point was that, if you  can control your blood pressure through meditation or mental discipline you  wont need to take them because your   blood pressure will be low.

I have to maintain very low blood pressure cholesterol etc due to a family history of heart disease so i use both.

 See i cant understand where you get tha t idea from.

 I have ALWAYS advised  people tp get comprehensive medical checks and to follow their doctors advice.

I never saw you do any of this, in the past. 

12 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

heelchair bound is not deliberately  acting to make yourself a public burden

You missed my point. One could easily say a wheelchair bound individual is a burden on society. My point is, don't be so sure you are correct that telling someone else to not be one, when you have no idea what their situation is. So, in the end, you shouldn't 'tell' others what to do, because you could be very wrong. 

12 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

ou miss my point about personal responsibilities and oyu totally miss my point about lifestyle Once a person KNOWS certain risk factors it is up to the to chose which to act upon But if they don't know , then they have no choice   I assume you dont mind me publicly stating that smoking cigaretes kills one in 3 of all those peole who smoke, because that is a known statistical fact.    So i have a responsibility to tell peole what might harm them. They have a responsibility to choose what to to with that information.

 It is that will ful ignorance thing   again? Are you saying i shouldn't tell you or anyone else that smoking and drinking are dangerous to human health?  is it meddling to tell as many peole as i can what the risk factors for health and long life truly are?  Given that peer reviewed studies from all over the world show that people who go to church every week live longer and happier lives than COMPARABLE people who do not, don't i have an obligation to tell people that? .  SO don't I have an obligation to make that  public?  (or should I selfishly keep this knowledge to myself so that only I benefit from it?  As it happens I DO NOT go to church at all,  but a t least i know i could live longer and healthier if i chose to. 

The link says a lot more than that. The mind actually GENERATES or constructs real and powerful pain indistinguishable from physical  pain and with NO physical cause   increasingly it is thought that  such pain is not a physical  effect a t all but a mental one, and so using mental techniques and understandings one can reduce and almost eliminate ANY perception of pain  No its not about ignoring your senses. It is saying  that pain is often not actually a physical thing transferred from a wound broken leg  or a burn etc to the brain,  but a mental response/construct  of the mind, to bodily trauma. Thus, two people with identical wounds can experience totally different degrees of pain. 

http://www.spine-health.com/blog/how-stop-your-pain-your-mind

http://theconversation.com/pain-really-is-in-the-mind-but-not-in-the-way-you-think-1151

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3176485/Is-pain-mind-Physical-pain-psychological-root-required-different-kind-treatment.html

 

I did not miss the point. You did. And why is it, when someone disagrees with you, you tell them they are willfully ignorant? Could it be that it's the reverse? 

No matter what I say or do or notice from your links, you say it's more than that and I'm not reading it right. I do think I am. ( Plus, It seems to me, you get even more wordy. Why is that? )

Seriously, Mr. Walker, you have to give to be able to receive. Give in, and realize what you are doing that gets all the negativity. Until then, I cannot see any reasonable bits that I can digest as serious information. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
11 hours ago, back to earth said:

See. ..... he is doing to you now ,  

He just goes around doing this people and then claims all this fake innonsense  ( inadvertent spelling mistake , but I leave that one as is :) )   about it, and when he is called out for it  ...

he bawls like a baby ! 

P f f f f t ! 

and .... its not you Stubbs , dont let him get to you , we can see whats going on  here .

Yay Stubbs !     :wub:

Awww, shucks, thanks BTE. :D  :wub: 

Naw, he aint getting to me. I find it interesting how things go back and forth, in explanations. I wonder, wouldn't it make a great teacher, if you are accepting of learning as well as teaching? 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
11 hours ago, back to earth said:

Image result for cartoon what we think dogs hear . what dogs hear

See my reply to jcmm. :D 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
11 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I am not bawling at stubbs. We are having a civilised conversation.  She is polite if assertive (which s a positive trait)   and addresses the issue. This is unlike yourself who is both rude and fails to argue your case. 

Polite, if assertive............. wow! Guess, I got to thank you for that little compliment. 

But, just for this. ;) 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
11 hours ago, back to earth said:

sums it all up for me    I dont even have to see what was said ... its all VERY familar , no matter how nice or rude one is too 

THE   WALKER   !          

 

Image result for wheelbarrow fail gif

:D *shrugs* :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
11 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

ROFLMAO Still at it "Therapy"?  You are putting yourself in my place and responding to my life as YOU might respond to it I cant believe you are as dumb as oyu pretend on this

That is, I find, extremely insulting. I don't think you should treat anyone on here like that. She is not attacking you, but giving you calm and caring posts. :angry: 

11 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

f you go to church regularly it is possible that you will not get dementia so ealry   or cirrhosis of the liver at all,  because associated lifestyle factors also come into play. Dementia is delayed by an active involved lifestyle such as that enjoyed by church goers and  statistically church goers drink less alcohol than non church goers, and believe in a healthy mind in a healthy body.

Really?! I have come to know plenty of church goers, who are also alcoholics. I am not a church goer, and I do not abuse alcohol. I was just recently in an area known for it's strong bible influences. You would think there would be less situations where a women is alone and pregnant, right? Yet, I noticed a lot of billboards on the highways here and there, about what to do if pregnant and alone. I don't see them in where I live, where it's not highly bible, and church going influence. Apparently, being pregnant and alone is not such a big problem. Yet, I feel, it must be where I was, cause why all these billboards on it, all over the place? Wouldn't that be taught in a church to not do that? 

So, I wouldn't compare church going to eliminating something, because of habit. Sometimes, a habit forms when it's being told it's off limits. When it's not being taught that, and to be responsibility for it, in a non-church environment, somehow, it's not a problem. Go figure. :no:  :rolleyes: 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
10 hours ago, back to earth said:

same old ... same old  ....   :) 

half missing segway tractor  

 

Image result for segway gif

This kind of reminds me of an old 'Top Gear' episode and the three wheeled car. :lol: 

1452787848-reliant.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
9 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

I don't like the word "believe" as I think any "belief" is a cop-out and absolute knowledge of anything is out of reach.  We have opinions that we hold with greater or lesser confidence.  As far as God is concerned, I have the opinion, held with a very high degree of confidence, that there is no such thing, based mainly on lack of evidence, the course of history, and the existence of so much suffering.  (This would be the God as most commonly imagined).

A note here -- while I try to be careful, I suspect now and then I use the word believe to merely express a strong opinion, as this use is so common, but I try not to.

Let me distinguish beliefs and opinions this way -- a belief is something held to be true or false based mainly on indoctrination and defended by rationalization.  An opinion is generally acquired via education and while rationalization still plays a part in its sustenance, not as strongly and not emotionally.  For many if not most beliefs, they originate in childhood teaching, which is why religions put such emphasis on "bringing up" a child in the religion involved.

Yes and after all your convoluted verbal gymnastics as you squirm away from uncomfortable terminology, you simply come full circle back to the point. Simple belief in deity requires no empirical knowledge and neither does disbelief. You obsess too much about "indoctrination" refusing or failing to understand that all education and acculturation is indoctrination and you, yourself, have been "indoctrinated".

Edited by Hammerclaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
21 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Yes and after all your convoluted verbal gymnastics as you squirm away from uncomfortable terminology, you simply come full circle back to the point. Simple belief in deity requires no empirical knowledge and neither does disbelief. You obsess too much about "indoctrination" refusing or failing to understand that all education and acculturation is indoctrination and you, yourself, have been "indoctrinated".

I don't think Frank is poimting the indoctrination finger and excluding himself. We all are conditioned to our culture, our influences, and our own ideas on things. For me, I think he did an exceptional job of creating a distinction between beliefs and reality. Just like you did an excellent job of pointing out that humans are great at rationalizing including, their gods or lack there of. I didn't see a squirming Frank as he isn't shy about sharing just what he "really "thinks, this includes his take on things too. And, Frank did tip his hat to your post  on making this point. 

Hammer, for the record your contributions and perspective on religion and all things god is fair and sees both sides, this doesn't escape many of us. I learn a lot from you! 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.