What's new

Why are so many people capable of believing anything?

Oh man, culture has a much bigger influence than you think. I grew up in the Middle East, and I moved to the U.S. as a teenager. Some people stick to their own compatriots abroad, and never become truly multi-cultural. That is not the case with me. I consider myself Western since those are the cultural norms I find most productive and progressive. I do however understand a second culture profoundly and intimately.

Listen, people are people. Everywhere, people do the same things and aspire for similar things. The most genetically distinct groups of humans are closer to one another than chimps of different tribes in the same valley. But unlike other animals, genetics (nature) plays a much smaller role in human behavior than it does for other species. We have culture (nurture), and it wires and rewires our brains as it pleases. It controls not only our actions, but our thoughts and dreams. Culture gives no new capacities, but it dictates how existing capacities are used. We can all get jealous, but culture tells us what's worth getting jealous over. We all get hungry, but culture dictates what foods we crave. Culture is everything.

And culture is the reason mainstream religion is different than cult religions. It is not that one story is more plausible than the other. But one is more culturally accepted. Most people believe because their parents believed. Those who choose a different path, typically choose another culturally pervasive direction. Very few American Muslims become Hindu, and very few Utah Mormons become Muslims. That is why I'm interested in cult belief. People who are justifying their faith in this thread had faith to begin with. It was transmitted through culture, and the justifications came after the fact. But with cults, it is just faith. That is the concept I don't understand. I don't understand faith.

I'm glad spycam1 brought up the "spiritual confirmation". It is a physical reason I can begin to understand. I don't think it's truly spiritual or anything like that. After all, it is difficult to accept that when I know so many ex-Mormons and peoples of other religions who had that same confirmation as believers, and who clearly see it as a normal emotional response now that they're unbelievers. But is something. It is still somewhat hard to understand. The stuff about hope and fear of death is all true. But I am still confused as how that general spiritual confirmation becomes ties to a very specific set of rules and doctrines.

My closest friend is an ex-Mormon. I know his family very well, and we often get into discussions about religion. His father's main reason for believing is spycam1's spiritual confirmation. He believes it so strongly that he says no evidence can sway him. He claims that even if he was to go back in time, and see Joseph Smith making up the Book of Mormon in front of his very eyes, he would still believe. He thinks his confirmation transcends any worldly affairs and arguments. He thinks other people's (non Mormons) spiritual confirmation are only a phantom image of his own. Anyone who wants to know god or Christ or whatever will receive some sort of confirmation, he claims. But his is the true one.

I simply find that line of thinking incredible. How can anyone be so sure of anything?

I would say that the way you feel when reading a good book or hear beautiful music is different from feeling spiritual confirmation. Like I said earlier, you can learn to discern between subjective emotions and outside spiritual force. Saying that you don't think it is an actual spiritual entity without feeling it is like saying you don't believe water is actually wet without feeling it for yourself.
 
People who are justifying their faith in this thread had faith to begin with.

I was agnostic, then received spiritual confirmation and went with it.

I understand what you're saying, and while I'm certainly not immune to the influence of the culture around me, I do not feel that I quite fit into the cultural mold you are referring to--my parents are not even of the same religion.
 
I would say that the way you feel when reading a good book or hear beautiful music is different from feeling spiritual confirmation. Like I said earlier, you can learn to discern between subjective emotions and outside spiritual force. Saying that you don't think it is an actual spiritual entity without feeling it is like saying you don't believe water is actually wet without feeling it for yourself.

Is water actually wet? Wetness is when water gets on something that did not previously have water on it. Also wetness is an arbitrary attribute that we made up in order to explain a consensus experience. Your example would be like you telling me water is NOT wet, but insisting that my own perception of witness is due to my lack of spirituality. How can you think your feelings are unique? Do you realize how strongly some people believe? Like I said, people sacrifice their own children because they "know in their heart" it is what their god wanted. People of all faiths, most as different from yours as it gets, can go as far as humanly possible in certainty of their faith. I've known so many Mormons who used to "feel the spirit" so intensely that they'd collapse in tears. They no longer believe. Like I mentioned before, Dan Barker was one of those evangelist Christians who would speak in tongues and whatnot. He would go on spirit trances where the world would completely fade away in ecstasy. But it is just a learned behavior. As an atheist, he can still trigger those feelings on demand.

In fact, simple magnetic manipulation of the brain can give you such powerful spiritual experiences, that some people see Jesus or Buddha or whatever they believe in manifested in flesh in front of their eyes. And they see it as clear as a day, until the researcher takes it away. I cannot understand how something as flimsy as a transient feeling can give people such certainty. It almost seems like a completely different mode of operation than mine.

Let me link you this article:

https://www.religiondispatches.org/...after_the_non-apocalypse:_where_are_they_now/

The guy interviews those 21st of May apocalyptic cultists before and after the failed prophecy. Do you see the words and tone they use? Very similar to yours. Even the words are nearly identical. What makes your 100% certain spiritual confirmation legitimate while their 100% certain confirmation wrong?
 
Are you familiar with the 80/20 rule where basically 80 of people or whatever are OK and the minority 20% are the problem or oddity. Well, I am a firm believer that it is backwards and that 80% of society is hopelessly stupid, insane, lazy, or in general completely messed up and in turn ruin life for the other 20% of us.
 
Are you familiar with the 80/20 rule where basically 80 of people or whatever are OK and the minority 20% are the problem or oddity. Well, I am a firm believer that it is backwards and that 80% of society is hopelessly stupid, insane, lazy, or in general completely messed up and in turn ruin life for the other 20% of us.

Honestly I think everyone is ruining life for everyone else. People cannot be content to let others just be.

You have to accept them, you have to limit what they can do or believe or say... People cannot just leave people alone.
 
And culture is the reason mainstream religion is different than cult religions. It is not that one story is more plausible than the other. But one is more culturally accepted. Most people believe because their parents believed. Those who choose a different path, typically choose another culturally pervasive direction. Very few American Muslims become Hindu, and very few Utah Mormons become Muslims. That is why I'm interested in cult belief. People who are justifying their faith in this thread had faith to begin with. It was transmitted through culture, and the justifications came after the fact. But with cults, it is just faith. That is the concept I don't understand. I don't understand faith.

I don't think it is just faith, or faith at all.
I think it is a personality type and/or longing (bad childhood) that leads them to seek a father figure. They are invested in idolizing the charismatic leader so they go along with what he spews.
 
Who says that our creator is not an alien himself?

Yeah, he probably just created us and decided we suck so much *** so he isolated us from all the other cool intelligent lifeforms because we are an embarrassment to him.
 
Is water actually wet? Wetness is when water gets on something that did not previously have water on it. Also wetness is an arbitrary attribute that we made up in order to explain a consensus experience. Your example would be like you telling me water is NOT wet, but insisting that my own perception of witness is due to my lack of spirituality. How can you think your feelings are unique? Do you realize how strongly some people believe? Like I said, people sacrifice their own children because they "know in their heart" it is what their god wanted. People of all faiths, most as different from yours as it gets, can go as far as humanly possible in certainty of their faith. I've known so many Mormons who used to "feel the spirit" so intensely that they'd collapse in tears. They no longer believe. Like I mentioned before, Dan Barker was one of those evangelist Christians who would speak in tongues and whatnot. He would go on spirit trances where the world would completely fade away in ecstasy. But it is just a learned behavior. As an atheist, he can still trigger those feelings on demand.

In fact, simple magnetic manipulation of the brain can give you such powerful spiritual experiences, that some people see Jesus or Buddha or whatever they believe in manifested in flesh in front of their eyes. And they see it as clear as a day, until the researcher takes it away. I cannot understand how something as flimsy as a transient feeling can give people such certainty. It almost seems like a completely different mode of operation than mine.

Let me link you this article:

https://www.religiondispatches.org/...after_the_non-apocalypse:_where_are_they_now/

The guy interviews those 21st of May apocalyptic cultists before and after the failed prophecy. Do you see the words and tone they use? Very similar to yours. Even the words are nearly identical. What makes your 100% certain spiritual confirmation legitimate while their 100% certain confirmation wrong?

Did anybody ever get around to asking these Bible masters why they ignored Matthew 24. Such as:

36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

That would be interesting to read why they followed their self created biblical mathematical formulas and not what they supposedly believed were God's words.

It seems like a story of believing in themselves and their brain power above God to me.
 
Is water actually wet? Wetness is when water gets on something that did not previously have water on it. Also wetness is an arbitrary attribute that we made up in order to explain a consensus experience. Your example would be like you telling me water is NOT wet, but insisting that my own perception of witness is due to my lack of spirituality. How can you think your feelings are unique? Do you realize how strongly some people believe? Like I said, people sacrifice their own children because they "know in their heart" it is what their god wanted. People of all faiths, most as different from yours as it gets, can go as far as humanly possible in certainty of their faith. I've known so many Mormons who used to "feel the spirit" so intensely that they'd collapse in tears. They no longer believe. Like I mentioned before, Dan Barker was one of those evangelist Christians who would speak in tongues and whatnot. He would go on spirit trances where the world would completely fade away in ecstasy. But it is just a learned behavior. As an atheist, he can still trigger those feelings on demand.

In fact, simple magnetic manipulation of the brain can give you such powerful spiritual experiences, that some people see Jesus or Buddha or whatever they believe in manifested in flesh in front of their eyes. And they see it as clear as a day, until the researcher takes it away. I cannot understand how something as flimsy as a transient feeling can give people such certainty. It almost seems like a completely different mode of operation than mine.

Let me link you this article:

https://www.religiondispatches.org/...after_the_non-apocalypse:_where_are_they_now/

The guy interviews those 21st of May apocalyptic cultists before and after the failed prophecy. Do you see the words and tone they use? Very similar to yours. Even the words are nearly identical. What makes your 100% certain spiritual confirmation legitimate while their 100% certain confirmation wrong?

I feel you are delving into Descartes' position that one cannot trust their own senses when making assumptions about the outside world--something I do not really agree with. Yes, "wet" is simply a word to describe a mental experience, but what about the experience is "fake" to the individual? What does that even mean?

Your argument seems to be this (but let me know if I misunderstood)

Premise 1: I have felt an outside spiritual force confirm truth to me.
Premise 2: Others have said they, too, felt an outside spiritual force confirm something to them.
Premise 3: Those individuals turned out to be wrong.
Conclusion: I cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that the truth confirmed to me is, in fact, true.

I would say this is a valid argument, but not a sound one because I would be assuming that what I feel is the exact same thing those others felt. For this to be a sound argument, I would have to be able to know that what I felt is the same thing they felt. Sadly, I cannot do that. Regardless of how they describe it, for all I know, they could have felt something completely different. All I can reasonably assume is that what I felt was an outside spiritual force.

From your perspective, yes, I would say it is probably a fairly sound argument. In other words, what I have expressed concerning personal revelation is similar to what those others expressed (though, I didn't actually have time to watch your video, so I'll take your word for it at the moment), so there's really no reason you should believe my outside confirmation is any more real than theirs. But I'm not trying to say you should take my word for it, I'm merely explaining some of my own reasoning for believing in God (basically what you wanted to know in your initial thread question). It is a form of personal evidence.

I have to go now, and I'm not sure when I'll be able to respond again, but this has been fun. I hope you got something out of it.

Tata
 
This is what I used to say

"I believe there is a god, I just don't know if it is a personal theistic god, a spinoza/Einstein deistic god, or just a metaphor for the universe and it's mystery. Whatever it is I should be thankful"

However, due to recent scientific discovery's I am leaning more and more to a theistic god. Read Anthony Flew's "there is a god" when the worlds leading atheist turned into a believer in God due to science.
1) The universe is not eternal and was created 14 billion years ago.
2) The universe is highly tuned, 1 part in 10^120
3) It was thought for decades that all homo erectus involved at the same time to homo sapians on different contents. However, recently it has been shown that all homo sapians have a common father as recent as 60,000 years ago.

Many kids have a 16 year old atheist phase where they hate the world. Some of us just outgrow it eventually. Unfortunately the 20% you guys are talking about who are still atheist haven't outgrown this phase and reached the maturity level of us believers.
 
Can you qualify "better"? The way I understand your statements is "to each his own" = form your own value system and go with it. That's no religion at all but self elevating constructs of the individual minds. Where are the lines drawn? What makes someone "better"? How can any activity cross a line when the line is set by each individual?

The point I'm getting at is you are going to place your judgement on "to each his own" at some point and determine something is not "better", and in doing so you contradict your own rationale.

If whatever said person believes makes them a more decent human being to their fellow human beings, and said beliefs don't encourage them to commit harm upon their fellow human beings, then yes. To each their own. I have not yet reached the point where this spiritual outlook on life has contradicted my own rationale.
 
I grew up LDS, I never really believed it, it always seemed kind of far fetched to me but I went along with it because it was easier than going against the grain at the time. My parents weren't really forcing it down my throat, they just kind of assumed I was into it and treated me like I was into it and I never gave them much of a reason to believe other wise. As I got older I made it more and more clear that it really wasn't for me, that I was cool with it and I wasn't against it but I didn't believe in it. My parents whole heartedly 100% completely believe in the LDS religion. I respect them for it, it makes them happy and they love it. They respect my choices and they don't push it on me, we have a great relationship above and beyond our religious indifference's.
 
this thread smokes poles
it sucks sawlty balls
it could suck the sheets up through freakazoids bowserhole and out the blowhole
the smell would chase flies off ****
the style will make grade 8 dike french and english instructors chuckle
it blows chunks further than PueSmoker\
IT makes kittie cry.
 
I don't think it is just faith, or faith at all.
I think it is a personality type and/or longing (bad childhood) that leads them to seek a father figure. They are invested in idolizing the charismatic leader so they go along with what he spews.
And to think, I just gave you my first pos rep in another thread. Sad, really. I do love how you lump every single person into your "Mormonz are teh DEVILS and are brainwashed Trunk Or Treaters!!@ loL!!1" mold.
There are such things as deadbeat dads.
Deadbeat dad isn't exactly what I was thinking, but along the same lines. That is, I will happily watch my kids from a safe distance as they do stupid things. I watch and I laugh. When they fall and get hurt, I laugh. When they boo-hoo about something, I boo-hoo right back to them in baby talk just to let them know how annoying it is. Then we both laugh. My point is, as a father, I'm always watching, but I rarely let them know I'm watching.

Good thing he isn't then huh.
This is just as bad as Slopper's post. For all we know, he is a deadbeat dad. There is a fine line between what you "believe" and what you "know". People who "know" things that, at this point, are impossible to "know" are irritating as hell.

this thread smokes poles
Hard to argue with this.

OP: I got some junk mail this week from some investor guy in a cheap suit telling me that Kansas was about to have an oil boom, and that I should buy this certain stock. 3,000% gains! I know, you know, the whole world knows, that it's a scam. That didn't stop me from reading the whole damn booklet and having serious thoughts of looking the company up and maybe investing some monies. It's a damn good thing I'm too lazy to actually do anymore work than is absolutely necessary, or I might have jumped all over it. The point of that little story? I don't know. People are stupid and will believe things because that's just they way they are. I'm one of the stupids, I guess. I'm an easy target for salesmen, because I always take the first offer of the first piece of crap they show me. I don't know why, but it has always been that way. I'm sure there is a psychological explanation for it, and I'm sure there are pills to fix it if you really wanted to.

Also, Bush took out the Twin Towers.
 
Those who want a "relationship" with him seem to have one Trout.
 
Like I said earlier, you can learn to discern between subjective emotions and outside spiritual force.

HOw do you know the standards you have set for determining the difference are valid?

Saying that you don't think it is an actual spiritual entity without feeling it is like saying you don't believe water is actually wet without feeling it for yourself.

There are something like five different ways that analogy is inappropriate.
 
1) The universe is not eternal and was created 14 billion years ago.
2) The universe is highly tuned, 1 part in 10^120
3) It was thought for decades that all homo erectus involved at the same time to homo sapians on different contents. However, recently it has been shown that all homo sapians have a common father as recent as 60,000 years ago.

1) "Not eternal" is unproven, unless you limit the universe to our spacetime continuum. Even then, "not eternal" =/= "created".
2) The puddle describing how the hole was perfectly made to suit the puddle, so the hole must be designed.
3) Y-chromosome Adam lived some 200,000 years ago, Mitochondrial Eve some 800,000 years ago. Both were part of a large population of human ancestors.
 
Back
Top