The Role of the Unrepentant Skeptic

Originally posted by FMF
I'd lean more towards it being because I wasn't born into a Hindu family or culture.

So how do you explain someone who is born into a certain religious culture changing their beliefs once they have had time to reflect on them and compare them with another religion? Don't they decide that their newly adopted religion makes more sense than the religion they grew up with?

Originally posted by FMF
More to the point, do you have the "free will" to choose to be a Hindu even if you don't believe the stuff that Hindus believe?

Yes I have free will in the matter to decide whether Hinduism makes sense to me or not, I can either decide that it does or that it doesn't, I can't have it both ways.

Originally posted by dj2becker
So tell me exactly why you are incapable of choosing to be a Hindu.

Because It's just as incredible as Islam and Christianity. Just sets of assertions and claims instead of evidence. It's just the way it is with superstition.

Originally posted by FMF
Because It's just as incredible as Islam and Christianity. Just sets of assertions and claims instead of evidence. It's just the way it is with superstition.

But don't you decide what qualifies as evidence and what doesn't? Have you not decided to classify them all as superstition?

Originally posted by dj2becker
So how do you explain someone who is born into a certain religious culture changing their beliefs once they have had time to reflect on them and compare them with another religion? Don't they decide that their newly adopted religion makes more sense than the religion they grew up with?

They can make a decision to place themselves in a certain locale, to associate with certain people, and they can make hundreds of decisions about what to read, what to discuss, and what to expose themselves to, but they cannot decide to believe something. If it happens, it will be a realization or perhaps a kind of awakening. But not a "decision".

Originally posted by dj2becker
But don't you decide what qualifies as evidence and what doesn't? Have you not decided to classify them all as superstition?

Well "superstition" concerns belief in supernatural causality. If you dispute that, say so.

Originally posted by dj2becker
But don't you decide what qualifies as evidence and what doesn't?

If something strikes me as evidence of supernatural causality, I will let you know.

Originally posted by FMF
They can make a decision to place themselves in a certain locale, to associate with certain people, and they can make hundreds of decisions about what to read, what to discuss, and what to expose themselves to, but they cannot decide to believe something. If it happens, it will be a realization or perhaps a kind of awakening. But not a "decision".

So they cannot decide to accept or reject things that are said to them by weighing up evidence, using critical thinking and logic to make a decision?

Originally posted by FMF
Well "superstition" concerns belief in supernatural causality. If you dispute that, say so.

The only thing I dispute is your supposed inability to weigh up evidence, use logic and make decisions about the supernatural.

Originally posted by dj2becker
So they cannot decide to accept or reject things that are said to them by weighing up evidence, using critical thinking and logic to make a decision?

With supernatural things, I think it's not a case of "deciding" (as one might with non-supernatural, non-superstitious questions), instead I think it's a kind of realization - an almost intuitive or emotional thing - that someone feels, or hopes, or imagines. I find people who propagate superstitious notions have a very distorted idea of what constitutes "weighing up evidence", "using critical thinking" and "logic", and, in fact, are mostly just parading the certainties associated with their intuitive or emotional ideas and status.

Originally posted by sonhouse
To that question of faith: Since the bible god is either non-existent or just absent, it doesn't matter what you believe, since there is no heaven and there is no hell. The only heaven or hell people make are right here on Earth and when you die you are dead and only other people will remember you. But religious people are so programmed they are afraid to a ...[text shortened]... ght each other to death. It is all man made bullshyte just like your man made flatass bullshyte.

To that question of faith: Since the bible god is either non-existent or just absent, it doesn't matter what you believe, since there is no heaven and there is no hell.
Looks like you solved the caper, then.
Everyone pack up and go home.

The only heaven or hell people make are right here on Earth and when you die you are dead and only other people will remember you.
You sound like you’re trying to start a movement of some kind.
Unless there’s something in it for me, I’m not joining your new cult, thanks.

But religious people are so programmed they are afraid to actually live for fear of pisssing off their god.
That isn’t intended to be news, is it?
I think it’s fairly well known that religion is a construct of man with the intent of assuaging his sense of failure and the attendant guilt which usually accompanies his efforts.

Just another way religions keep the human race from reaching true maturity instead we have thousands of years of religious warfare which is going on as we speak.
We will always find something to be at war over: everyone wants to rule the world.
Ingenious people throughout history have used any number of motivations in order to get others to fight battles for them.
Apparently, a good portion of people really need precious little to motivate them toward war, as we’ve seen people go to battle over even the slightest of provocations and for the silliest of reasons.
But it is without question that religion happens to be a consistent Top 10 catalyst for war, which prompts the question: why?
Why is religion such a big deal to man?
Why has it always been so?
Why does man consider what is believed about spiritual matters to be so crucial, he is willing to either die or kill in defense of his position?

A real god would never set up such religions that fight each other to death.
We’ve already answered that little quagmire: God didn’t invent religion, man did.

It is all man made bullshyte just like your man made flatass bullshyte.
See?
You remembered.
That’s a good globalist...

Originally posted by FMF
With supernatural things, I think it's not a case of "deciding" (as one might with non-supernatural, non-superstitious questions), instead I think it's a kind of realization - an almost intuitive or emotional thing - that someone feels, or hopes, or imagines. I find people who propagate superstitious notions have a very distorted idea of what constitutes "weighi ...[text shortened]... tly just parading the certainties associated with their intuitive or emotional ideas and status.

I disagree. Is someones rejection of the supernatural also emotive as opposed to a logical cognitive decision? Can't see why it would be.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I disagree. Is someones rejection of the supernatural also emotive as opposed to a logical cognitive decision? Can't see why it would be.

What I meant was that I perceive superstition as being more of a kind of intuitive or emotional state than anything else. All the believers' blather about "weighing up evidence, using critical thinking and logic" is a kind of edifice ~ staking out an undoubtedly earnest claim that their faith is a sort of "knowledge" that believers can figure out scientifically ~ and I find it unpersuasive, to say the least. Now, if you think NOT being superstitious is an "emotional" state, then that's fine by me.

Originally posted by FMF
What I meant was that I perceive superstition as being more of a kind of intuitive or emotional state than anything else. All the believers' blather about "weighing up evidence, using critical thinking and logic" is a kind of edifice ~ staking out an undoubtedly earnest claim that their faith is a sort of "knowledge" that believers can figure out [i]scientifical ...[text shortened]... east. Now, if you think NOT being superstitious is an "emotional" state, then that's fine by me.

Ok let's say a believer presents you 'evidence' of their beliefs. You are saying that you cannot weigh up the evidence, use logic and make a cognitive decision about whether you accept or reject what they are saying? Is that correct?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Ok let's say a believer presents you 'evidence' of their beliefs. You are saying that you cannot weigh up the evidence, use logic and make a cognitive decision about whether you accept or reject what they are saying? Is that correct?

Seems like while an individual can "use logic and make a cognitive decision" to reject the supernatural, the individual can only "use logic and make a cognitive decision" in generating rationalizations after accepting the supernatural. Even if it were a step-wise process, they would still be rationalizations.