The Forum > Article Comments > On being human > Comments
On being human : Comments
By Peter Sellick, published 25/5/2009If you want to 'make a difference' join a church, be baptised and raise your children in that community.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Page 21
- 22
-
- All
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 13 June 2009 1:12:09 AM
| |
Trav,
One might say: a. "The wide spread belief in a Personal God 'posits the proposition' (suggests); that God actually exists." or b. "The wide spread belief (in Ireland) of Personal Fairies posits the proposition (suggests); that Fairies actually exists." The above suggesting a wide number of people "posit" that God exists and Fairies exist respectively. Meaning the word "belief" is directed at 'belief in the proposition' that God/Fairies exist. That is, the posit that is believed, is widespread. - One can believe (agree) that many people hold a proposition God/Fairies exist, as a hypothetical construct. If the survey designer's intend was that latter the question might be better put: - "The proposition that God exists,exists, because there is a widespread belief in God." Trav, How would you answer the following question? "The wide spread belief in Personal Fairies suggests that Fairies actually exists." - Strongly Agree - Agree - Neither agree or Disagree - Disagree - Agree Your reply will provide insight on your interpretation of the wording of the question. Oly Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 14 June 2009 1:36:18 PM
| |
" There's also a case to be made for cognitive dissonance in explaining atheist beliefs."- Trav
Cognitive dissonance exists where an expectation has not been realized. There needs to be an expectation in the first place: e.g., - You buy a Mercedes on the expectation that it wont breakdown as often as the Holden you traded-in. The Merc in fact does break-down often. The failure to meet expectation means there a gap between what you thought and what actually happned. You experience cognitive dissonance. You, at first, believe in a Loving God, then you contemplate the cruelty of the insect world. The reality doesn't match the expectation. Regarding the Loving God case, it would not follow one would necessarily drop belief in God, one might need to re-define God(s). For example, the Greek God, Pan, could be evil. One could blame cruelty to insects on Pan, Satan or an abstract, such as, Sin. These responses being defence mechanisms to sustain the original belief system. Trav, Why is the insect world so cruel? Whose plan does the insect world follow? O. Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 14 June 2009 2:04:55 PM
| |
[So do tell. What was the point in referring us to him in the first place, if he isn't going to support your theory? Most odd.]
We agree on the major, disagree on the minor. I explained this already. [Wrong again. You are simply re-stating an incorrect assumption, that because somebody believes something exists, it must "suggest" its actual existence]. Its very reasonable. People are saying something. What does it suggest? You've given me no good reasons to believe that it suggests that God does NOT exist, or that it suggests NOTHING. You havent even defended your "assumption". Mine is far more reasonable. ["The wide spread belief in Personal Fairies suggests that Fairies actually exists."] If belief in fairies was widespread amongst the entire adult population of the world (which its not), then yes indeed, it would "suggest" that fairies exist. But it would not prove or show that they exist. It would merely provide the suggestion Posted by Trav, Monday, 15 June 2009 10:24:32 AM
| |
Regarding Cognitive Dissonance, there's an interesting article on it by Mike Adams: http://townhall.com/Columnists/MikeAdams/2007/10/29/understanding_atheism
Posted by Trav, Monday, 15 June 2009 12:45:35 PM
| |
I'm still confused as to where you're coming from Trav. As I suspect you are too.
>>We [that is, Trav and Vox Day] agree on the major, disagree on the minor. I explained this already<< I would have thought that a straight disavowal of your position would be a major, rather than minor issue between you. But hey, maybe you're really good friends. >>People are saying something. What does it suggest? You've given me no good reasons to believe that it suggests that God does NOT exist, or that it suggests NOTHING. You havent even defended your "assumption". Mine is far more reasonable. << The thing is, I have not made any assumptions. You have. It is therefore up to you to defend them, not me. And I cannot give credence to a view that simply talking about something suggests its existence. A position, incidentally, that you immediately abandon when it comes to discussing fairies. >>If belief in fairies was widespread amongst the entire adult population of the world (which its not), then yes indeed, it would "suggest" that fairies exist.<< That does not coexist comfortably with your earlier statements. One moment it is the number, then it is the majority, now it is a specific subset of the population. If that is the case, what about the Hindus? Vox Day accepts that this must suggest the existence of Brahma, just as the Muslims' thoughts suggest Allah. And from a philosophical point of view, would not the fact that you and I are happily discussing fairies indicate something to you? Your link to Mike Adams and his thoughts on Cognitive Dissonance were interesting. His entire reference to the topic was on its impact on Christians. "the declaration 'I am a Christian' can sometimes clash with the awareness that 'Christians are supposed to tithe' or 'Christians are supposed to love their enemies.'” I can understand that. It isn't easy being green. Cognitive Dissonance would also play a major part in the average Christian's attitude towards Islam, I would suggest. Posted by Pericles, Monday, 15 June 2009 1:42:39 PM
|
You actually disagree with Vox Day.
>>...he has, like you, taken the statement to be applied specifically to specific Gods. But as I said, I don't read it like that.<<
So do tell. What was the point in referring us to him in the first place, if he isn't going to support your theory? Most odd.
>>However, if you, like Vox are to read it as specifically referring to a particular God, you'd have to get into how "widespread" you mean it.<<
That's a nonsense argument, the last refuge of a totally lost cause, and you know it.
This is not an "either particular/or general" discussion.
Both are wrong.
>>Either way, the point remains that, pending further enquiry, without any other factors present, based on the statement alone, the rational response is still agree or strongly agree.<<
Wrong again. You are simply re-stating an incorrect assumption, that because somebody believes something exists, it must "suggest" its actual existence.
>>Christians are more rational and open minded than atheists on the question of God's existence<<
Well, duh.
Four year-old girls are by the same measurement more rational and open-minded than adults on the question of the existence of fairies.