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 -
bigjim36

Why do people believe the bible?

1,738 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Mr Walker
8 hours ago, Sherapy said:

 

Seriously, your sample size is a few folks in Whyalla. 

And you didn’t even get to canvas the wealthy part of town.

So your opinion is meaningless, in relationship to what those with money do or don’t do.

You don’t know is actually the better conclusion.

 

 

Ah the sweet and kind tones of my beloved Sherapy 

Thousands of people. 8 years of doorknocking.  People on the dole, to people earning several times what a teacher earned.  

As opposed to ? What?   Just  what experience do YOU have in factually gathering data about the relative generosity of rich and poor?  

Oh yes, you could google world wide figures which would support  my pov but gee if i did that it would be a crime  :) 

 

If you thought being a millionaire with plenty of cash to spare made a person more generous, think again.

New research has found it’s actually people from “lower status” backgrounds who are more likely to share their wealth, while the rich are significantly more stingy. 

Researchers from the Queen Mary University of London came to the conclusion after setting up a social experiment where participants played games for real money. Each person in the study, published in the Journal Basic and Applied Social Psychology, was assigned to either a lower or higher status, which was determined how much money they were given at the start of the game.

During the games, participants were asked to decide how much money they wanted to keep for themselves and how much they wanted to donate to a group kitty that would later be split between all participants. Researchers quickly discovered those from poorer backgrounds would contribute more to the kitty.

Each participant either used money they had earned, while some money was given to them by chance as part of the experiment. Researchers discovered those from richer background were less likely to give away the money they’d earned themselves, while poorer people didn’t mind whether they gave away money they earned or that they’d been given.

https://startsat60.com/discover/lifestyle/relationships/poor-people-more-likely-to-give-more-to-charity-than-rich-people

 

It’s ironic, really. You’d think that millionaires and billionaires would be some of the most generous people on the planet. After all, they could literally withdraw all their money from the bank and use it to insulate the walls of their palatial mansions. They could heat their houses by lighting bales of bills on fire.

But the crazy thing is that compared to the rest of the population, the super wealthy give away a smaller proportion of their income. In Britain, the uber rich can secure a spot in the top 100 givers spot by donating a miniscule 1.08% of their income.

Transporting these numbers into the U.S., it would mean that average American could have those bragging rights by giving about $400 to charity. That’s hilarious in a heart-breaking sort of way.

The Atlantic puts it this way:

One of the most surprising, and perhaps confounding, facts of charity in America is that the people who can least afford to give are the ones who donate the greatest percentage of their income. In 2011, the wealthiest Americans—those with earnings in the top 20 percent—contributed on average 1.3 percent of their income to charity. By comparison, Americans at the base of the income pyramid—those in the bottom 20 percent—donated 3.2 percent of their income. The relative generosity of lower-income Americans is accentuated by the fact that, unlike middle-class and wealthy donors, most of them cannot take advantage of the charitable tax deduction, because they do not itemize deductions on their income-tax returns.

https://businessconnectworld.com/2017/07/17/why-dont-rich-give-more/

This old woman is not an anomaly. It turns out that people who have less give more. In one paper, social psychologists compared low and high social class individuals, defining social class with the person’s own estimate of their socioeconomic rank based on education, income, and occupation status relative to others in their community. In their studies, low social class participants were more generous and believed they should give more of their annual income to charity (4.95 percent vs. 2.95 percent). They were also more likely to trust strangers and showed more helping behaviortowards someone in distress. Contrarily, other research has found that higher social class individuals are more unethical. They are more likely to take things from others, lie, and cheat.

Why do those who have less give more? Part of the reason lies in the fact that they are more compassionate and more sensitive to the need of others. Psychologists refer to their way of thinking as a “contextualist tendency” marked by an external focus on what is going on in their environment and with other people. On the other hand, those who have more tend to be self-centered with “solipsistic tendencies” that are concentrated on their own internal states, goals, motivations, and emotions.

They also vary in their time orientations. Those who have less are focused on the present whereas those who have more are future-oriented to a greater extent. Like the old woman, the poor may choose to behave on their generous impulses in the here and now, instead of thinking much about the future repercussions of their giving inclinations.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/the-science-behind-behavior/201711/why-people-who-have-less-give-more

 

There; happy now?  Seems world wide studies not only confirm what i experienced but explain the psychological reasons for it. 

 

 

 

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
Just now, Sherapy said:

Such as?

 

 

 

As it pertains to your understanding? 

Only you'll know what the other than anecdotal evidence is.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

It seems Acme products don't have the tricks to help "team coyote" nail Walker's "road runner". The gotcha moments are too few, and far between.

Edited by Habitat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2

There is a lot of evidence found of the Bible,  just asked me :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
30 minutes ago, Habitat said:

You may be a good communicator, possibly, but it definitely isn't in English. The team doesn't care, you just need to be "anti-woo" !

Then you know not English as well as thou should, what is there to woo that there should be anti woo ? woo hoo or boo hoo ?
 

Quote

 

~

The Folly of Being Comforted. The Folly of Being Comforted by William Butler Yeats is about a lover's opinion who tries to convince his friend that she is still more beautiful than ever. ... Yeats portrays this story with imagery and diction. The lover discusses the change in physical appearance with two specific images.Apr 14, 2015

 

~

 

~

 Oh woe ...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
1 minute ago, third_eye said:

Then you know not English as well as thou should, what is there to woo that there should be anti woo ? woo hoo or boo hoo ?

If you think there is nothing to it, then why argue it ? There is nothing to flat earth theories, and I certainly would not argue it for one second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
27 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I'll grant you are not as rabid as some, in the anti-woo crusade, but I'm afraid hostilities break out well short of anecdotes being expected to be credited as "proof", they are frequently met with accusations of lying, even if acknowledged as "just" anecdotal, by whoever tells the story.. . Which gives  a wonderful little insight into the mental landscape of the "team" .

In actuality, if you are using invention, or fiction, or ancedotal and claim it is the truth and don’t have the facts to support it, refuse to offer facts after being asked repeatedly, and get butt hurt and defensive over corrections and refuse to self correct, it most likely will be concluded as a lie and affect your credibility. One can say hey, I think I  saw a ghost, but I have no evidence for it and acknowledge I could be perceiving in error, or I don’t have evidence of anything wooish so I am writing it off as a subjective interpretation and sharing a story at best, leaving it to you to beleive or not. I have no preference. 

I was a witness in a court case and the attorney who represented me made it crystal clear that I had to have evidence (for my claims) otherwise, it was lying and would affect my credibility. 

 So, UM isn’t a court of law, but S vrs. S section is denoted to claims that have evidence we are appropriate to ask for facts, you don’t have to give them, no one can force you to, but we are interested in the claims that have evidence. There are many areas on UM that are for woo. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
3 hours ago, eight bits said:

The poster's question was " Why does it [the Roman Cathoilc church]  record overt anti antisemitism from its earliest records?" Mark is set sometime during Pilate's praetorship in Judea. There were no Christians then, much less Roman Catholics, even if Mark had depcited overt anti-semitism (I can't think of anything like that off-hand), and even if there were any evidence that Mark would qualify as a "record."

(I'll just skip over the obvious point that by earliest, I was referring to confidently estimated date range of composition, not the estimated date of the earliest surviving physical copy. Over the years, I've found most web discussants will tentatively accept Peter Kirby's estimated composition dates published at http://earlychristianwritings.com/

That is, for Paul's seven extant letters thought to be his own work: 50-60 CE; for Mark 65-80.)

I dnt consider pauls leters church records Th eits referred to the church's records The erliest records f councils etc show a growing anti semitism 

ps i agree with most of your reasoning  BUT no it wasn't a new religion, it was the evolution of the Jewish religion.

  In changing this to forcibly create a new religion which they could control,  the early  church  HAD to rewrite and  change the words of the bible 

3 hours ago, Habitat said:

 

e the words of the bible 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
5 minutes ago, Habitat said:

If you think there is nothing to it, then why argue it ? There is nothing to flat earth theories, and I certainly would not argue it for one second.

A good argument is supported by reasons and if the reasons are factual, then we have a good sound reason to believe things. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
Just now, Habitat said:

If you think there is nothing to it, then why argue it ? There is nothing to flat earth theories, and I certainly would not argue it for one second.

Your attachment to your limp bone of contention here is distracting yourself from your wayward barks, was it your woo that I responded to, or your flubba dubba dubba doo , unless of course you now attempt to shift the doo to woo .... flubba dubba woo is it now ?

You based the veracity of your validity to judgements solely and entirely on the withered basis that you disagreed, hardly persuasive considering the hollowness among your other beliefs, to say the least

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
4 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

the attorney who represented me made it crystal clear that I had to have evidence (for my claims) otherwise, it was lying and would affect my credibility. 

Lying ? don't be silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due

 

There are many other forms of evidence that speak to the truth, other than just what's anecdotal or objective.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
Just now, third_eye said:

Your attachment to your limp bone of contention here is distracting yourself from your wayward barks, was it your woo that I responded to, or your flubba dubba dubba doo , unless of course you now attempt to shift the doo to woo .... flubba dubba woo is it now ?

You based the veracity of your validity to judgements solely and entirely on the withered basis that you disagreed, hardly persuasive considering the hollowness among your other beliefs, to say the least

~

Now you really are talking rubbish. You are all out of chips. Except for migraine-inducing word jumbles.

Share this post


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

Habit, his posts are satirical, they are meant to be incoherent and absurd, yet, if you look closer  you will  see he is using this style of parody as a way to offer feedback. 

 

 

The problem is that, in being incoherent and absurd he communicates nothing but incoherence and absurdity.

  On the other hand i am a pedant literalist who believes language should be as clear and effective as possible, and not used to play games with, so I don't "get ' a lot of the games being played.

Besides, he said it was due to  English being a second language, and i believe him  That is all the reason/explanation he requires.   

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
Just now, Habitat said:

Now you really are talking rubbish. You are all out of chips. Except for migraine-inducing word jumbles.

Ahhhh in other words and in short. you drowned in your own suffocating lack of logic ....

~

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
5 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

A good argument is supported by reasons and if the reasons are factual, then we have a good sound reason to believe things. 

 

The argumentative defense of any proposition is inversely proportional to the truth contained. 

 

 

Share this post


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

YOu are reading it all with eyes behind vitriolic tears, we are all having a good jostle of chuckles and guffaws .... that is where your borderline was falling short from the borders ... by your own admission, you did not fully read the completeness of the thread, hence the source of your lack of coherence and as such the foundation of our bafflement when you argue and continues to argue to the contrary ... again ...

~

With thanks to @Sherapy

~

Sherpy makes a careless error in logic and statistics 
No i did not get to canvas the wealthiest part of town where the top 10% of wealth resided 

BUT,  in canvasing the remaining ninety percent, a clear statistical fact emerged The poorer people gave more than the wealthier  To establish this it is not NECESSARY to canvas the most wealthy 

eg Tha t 10% in todays terms would have incomes in the  half a million range and net worths of many millions.

  BUT the people I door knocked had incomes in today's terms ranging form 35000 a year  (for a couple ) to 250000-500000 a year This gave more than adequate range of income to  demonstrate that the poorer you were the more you gave to charity 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
8 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Ahhhh in other words and in short. you drowned in your own suffocating lack of logic ....

~

Sorry to hear you are on the all-lemon diet. Don't suck so hard on those lemons !

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
1 minute ago, Mr Walker said:

Sherpy makes a careless error in logic and statistics 
No i did not get to canvas the wealthiest part of town where the top 10% of wealth resided 

BUT,  in canvasing the remaining ninety percent, a clear statistical fact emerged The poorer people gave more than the wealthier  To establish this it is not NECESSARY to canvas the most wealthy 

eg Tha t 10% in todays terms would have incomes in the  half a million range and net worths of many millions.

  BUT the people I door knocked had incomes in today's terms ranging form 35000 a year  (for a couple ) to 250000-500000 a year This gave more than adequate range of income to  demonstrate that the poorer you were the more you gave to charity 

Irrelevant, inconclusive, not persuasive and utterly inconsequential hence ... proves nothing

~

Just now, Habitat said:

Sorry to hear you are on the all-lemon diet. Don't suck so hard on those lemons !

If that were true I would be making lemonade, but since it is not, I suspect you have been licking your gonads with a little too much fondness for self serving fondling

~

Edited by third_eye
addendum and double post bypass
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
3 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Irrelevant, inconclusive, not persuasive and utterly inconsequential hence ... proves nothing

~

lol And yet it is proven correct by studies all around the world.  You are trying to choose what to accept, based on prejudicial belief. :) 

And again, what personal evidences, or experiences with the charity of rich and poor people, do you have, which dispute this ? 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
2 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Irrelevant, inconclusive, not persuasive and utterly inconsequential hence ... proves nothing

~

If that were true I would be making lemonade, but since it is not, I suspect you have been licking your gonads with a little to much fondness

~

You keep getting second prize ! Bad luck !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
Just now, Mr Walker said:

lol And yet it is proven correct by studies all around the world.  You are trying to choose what to accept, based on prejudicial belief. :) 

And again, what personal evidences do you have which dispute this ? 

I'd let him off the hook on the basis of poor comprehension skills, certainly not having the best day or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
Just now, Mr Walker said:

lol And yet it is proven correct by studies all around the world.  You are trying to choose what to accept, based on prejudicial belief. :) 

And again, what personal evidences do you have which dispute this ? 

YOur predisposition for tall tales is more than sufficient

~

Just now, Habitat said:

You keep getting second prize ! Bad luck !

Now you are resorting to prize giving, good luck

:lol:

~

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Personally, going door to door in a community known to be poor to elicit donations tugs on my heart strings, it isn’t something I could do or espouse. 

What is perplexing is how see this as a wonderful thing. 

Just sayin. 

And that is the difference between you and I.

  Did i say this was a  "poor " community?  Most earned twice the wage i earned  But there were also a few poorer people like we teachers :) i said i never got to canvas the really wealthy end of town but wages in whyalla were very high in the 70s. 

Why should the poor not be given the opportunity to give, but only the wealthy.

Giving is a grace, and people get a lot from giving.

I suspect you are a reluctant giver if this is truly your attitude.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
2 minutes ago, third_eye said:

YOur predisposition for tall tales is more than sufficient

~

Now you are resorting to prize giving, good luck

:lol:

~

No it is not.

My "tall tales" are all true, as it happens,  but anyway,  it is illogical to base a judgement of one narrative, on your beliefs about another. 

If i should lie about flying naked to the moon, it doesn't  mean i am also lieing  about owning a dog, nor even that i am anymore LIKELY to lie about that ownership.  .  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.