And that's your take on it. You cannot comprehend such beliefs. You find such beliefs nonsensical. Which religious beliefs do you find sensical?
None whatever.
Because it comforts them.
I
understand that the belief/make-belief is comforting. My make-believe that my soft toys were sentient comforted me as a young child, but I wouldn't wish to maintain such an irrational belief or make-belief in my adult life, especially as someone striving for rationality and scepticism in their lives. I'm struggling with
how they can
maintain this comforting belief given the healthy dose of rationality they no doubt carry as sceptics.
Persinger's experiments show that we can produce god-like experiences.
Great - you have your external stimulus. Unfortunately in the process you've removed any possibility of the result being belief in god.
Just answer the question: Is all love evidential?
What if I don't? Are you going to bring out the comfy chair? No, of course not all of it is. I believe I've already said that. The bits that aren't evidential are
imagination. Imagined belief. If that's all there is to it, that's fine.
How do you know that they are joking? Who are you to speak on all these people's behalf?
Because I know the well-documented origin of the fad for putting "Jedi Knight" on census forms. And it ain't a genuine belief in midichlorians. Anyone who's signed up since who actually believes this is delusional.
As for those who do believe it - what does it matter if it is a "fictional religion dreamed up by a known individual? A religion is only factual, if the origins have been lost in the mist of time?
No, it doesn't matter at all. As far as I'm concerned, it's all fictional.
You need to show where it meant "I believe X exists" in the first place.
No, I really, really don't. Pick up your dictionary. "Believe", in the context of
Believe in" means "
to be persuaded of the truth or existence of". Perhaps you're right, and all theist sceptics "believe in" god but don't believe that one exists. I'm far from persuaded that's the case, but assuming you're right, that is irrational behaviour, the very definition of "
cognitive dissonance", and at least arguably, not sceptical.
Have you read some of the saints' descriptions of their meetings with god? That often sounds a lot like a sexual orgasm, doesn't it?
The saints who claim the existence of god and those feelings as evidence of god you mean? That's not helping your argument.
I asked if that's what you think.
If I say that only some of it is, it's pretty bloody clear that I don't believe all of it is.
How can you tell for certain the difference what other people believe or pretend to believe?
I can't. No more than I can tell for certain that ghosts don't exist.
You keep returning to this assumption, but you still need to show that the assumption is true.
I'm going by what you say. If what you say is true, you have already set the assumption for me.
I am going with what you say, precisely the way I have to go with what believers say. If I am wrong about what your position is, then tell me. Precisely the way you should start listening to how religious people describe how they believe.
That was sarcasm. I'm resistant in the sense that I'm sceptical that what you say actually applies to sceptics who hold beliefs like this, and in that if you're right, it doesn't make the position sceptical, and certainly not rational. I understand what you're saying, but we obviously disagree as to the implications of your hypothesis for the nature of the belief.
It is much more than mere disagreement on your part. You refuse flat-out that people can believe because it makes them feel good, to the point where you tell them that they don't really believe.
Not quite accurate. I'm well aware of how people can compartmentalise and fail to apply rationality to certain aspects of their lives. It's the fact that we're talking about sceptics here that makes it hard to accept. It means they aren't applying the same criticism to this part of their lives as the rest of it. That's up to them, I can't possibly stop them from behaving in this way, and I have no desire to try. I'm simply trying to establish for myself the sense of the religious position they hold.
Let's say this was the year 3007. There are only repeated myths about the Star Wars story left. You hear someone saying "I believe in the religion of the Jedis". Will you then equate his religion with the Abrahamic religions?
To the typical religious believer, the two religions at present could not be further apart. Same goes for Scientology - Christians and atheists alike lay criticism at its door, the former partly because it's "made up religion". As time goes on, this criticism will be less applicable. For the sceptic, I would suggest that the two religions should already be equated with one another, let alone in 1000 years time. It's this lack of critical thought as applied to one's own take on religion that is at the root of this whole thing. The sceptic can recognise that X, Y and Z religions are baseless and rejects them on this basis, yet the theist sceptic chooses regardless to select one version of religion, and goes with that, uncritically, with no evidence.
Yes, they can say what they like to justify their imagined fancy as somehow worthy of belief. You may not like it, but you have to accept it.
Here's me, not liking it, but accepting it. What else can I do?
You cannot tell people that their beliefs are not real beliefs, just because you cannot fathom the way they think.
This rather depends upon the "believe in"/"believe in existence of" argument above. If the two are interchangeable, then the belief cannot be a genuine belief.
I actually think I'm starting to understand the disconnect here - I think it comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding of definitions on my part. I, and I think many others, see scepticism and rationality as going hand-in-hand. Whereas under a strict definition of scepticism alone, belief in god can be
neither sceptical nor unsceptical.
However, it is certainly irrational and therefore a nonsensical and undesirable position for sceptics
who wish to be consistently rational to hold.
Thus, sceptics believing in god really are no less
sceptical than anyone else.
