The Reason vs Superstition Thread

It's all a load of Cannonballs in here! This is the virtual Arsenal pub where you can chat about anything except football. Be warned though, like any pub, the content may not always be suitable for everyone.
User avatar
DB10GOONER
Posts: 41596
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:06 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland.
Contact:

Re: The Reason v Superstition Thread

Postby DB10GOONER » Wed Aug 10, 2016 7:58 am

DB10's reply contained quite a bit about comparative religion, but I expressly want to stay away from discussing religion.

At this stage I want to concentrate on 'belief'. i.e. Why believe in any god or gods?

My intention in mentioning the tens of thousands of different religions and their thousands of sub-sects was to highlight the improbability that any one of them is true. It then follows I think that it is reasonable to conclude that none of them are likely to be true.

To pick up on some of the above posts about children; Q: How do you get a child to believe something? A. Tell them it.

Children innately believe what adults tell them. Years ago I told my daughter's classmates that their teacher was 168 years old. When one solitary kid expressed surprise I explained that she was born before electricity was invented and that convinced him. It was quite a while before they were convinced that she was only 48.

When we are young we believe in Father Christmas, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and God (s). As we get older we discover that there is reliable evidence to suggest that the first three don't exist and no convincing evidence that they do. We therefore stop believing in them.
So why don't we apply the same scepticism and logic to god?
The same scepticism and logic that we utilise in the rest of our lives.

Maybe fear (Hell is pretty scary). Maybe the social elements of religion. Maybe it's just the quantity of unsubstantiated stories involved or the administrative structure of religions.
I don't know, but I'm sure that if believers applied the same standards to their belief in god as they do to the Easter Bunny etc they would come to the conclusion that there is no more evidence to support one than the other.
The simple answer to the red bit is it gives many people "comfort" to believe there is a greater power at work and that their lifeforce isn't just extinguished (most people have difficulty with the concept of mortality).

The blue bit above is another classic inaccuracy that many atheists postulate. Something being called by a different name in a different culture does not "prove" only one (or none) of those things can exist. Excuse the overly-simplistic example but, a car is a car. One car is a Nissan, another a Ford. Does that mean one of them must be named incorrectly and thus none can exist?

Also;

:tumbleweed:


:wink:

User avatar
Brightonnxtround
Posts: 532
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 6:10 pm

Re: The Reason v Superstition Thread

Postby Brightonnxtround » Thu Aug 11, 2016 3:22 pm

I don't understand are you saying you believe or not DB :hmmthink:

User avatar
GranadaJoe
Posts: 2216
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:21 pm

Re: The Reason v Superstition Thread

Postby GranadaJoe » Thu Aug 11, 2016 4:06 pm

DB10's reply contained quite a bit about comparative religion, but I expressly want to stay away from discussing religion.

At this stage I want to concentrate on 'belief'. i.e. Why believe in any god or gods?

My intention in mentioning the tens of thousands of different religions and their thousands of sub-sects was to highlight the improbability that any one of them is true. It then follows I think that it is reasonable to conclude that none of them are likely to be true.

To pick up on some of the above posts about children; Q: How do you get a child to believe something? A. Tell them it.

Children innately believe what adults tell them. Years ago I told my daughter's classmates that their teacher was 168 years old. When one solitary kid expressed surprise I explained that she was born before electricity was invented and that convinced him. It was quite a while before they were convinced that she was only 48.

When we are young we believe in Father Christmas, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and God (s). As we get older we discover that there is reliable evidence to suggest that the first three don't exist and no convincing evidence that they do. We therefore stop believing in them.
So why don't we apply the same scepticism and logic to god?
The same scepticism and logic that we utilise in the rest of our lives.

Maybe fear (Hell is pretty scary). Maybe the social elements of religion. Maybe it's just the quantity of unsubstantiated stories involved or the administrative structure of religions.
I don't know, but I'm sure that if believers applied the same standards to their belief in god as they do to the Easter Bunny etc they would come to the conclusion that there is no more evidence to support one than the other.
The simple answer to the red bit is it gives many people "comfort" to believe there is a greater power at work and that their lifeforce isn't just extinguished (most people have difficulty with the concept of mortality).

The blue bit above is another classic inaccuracy that many atheists postulate. Something being called by a different name in a different culture does not "prove" only one (or none) of those things can exist. Excuse the overly-simplistic example but, a car is a car. One car is a Nissan, another a Ford. Does that mean one of them must be named incorrectly and thus none can exist?

Also;

:tumbleweed:


:wink:

I've no doubt that 'religion' gives some people comfort, but to what extent do you think that people make deliberate decisions to believe and to what extent are there different processes at work which makes jettisoning Santa easy but which are then not applied to a god?

In my experience talking to people about religion (it's an interesting topic in Spain where belief has plummeted among young people, even though catechism is still fairly universal), many people seem to 'believe' even though they can't really articulate what their beliefs are and know very little about their particular religion.

User avatar
Brightonnxtround
Posts: 532
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 6:10 pm

Re: The Reason v Superstition Thread

Postby Brightonnxtround » Thu Aug 11, 2016 7:31 pm

mortality can't wait for the rest to be honest :D

User avatar
GranadaJoe
Posts: 2216
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:21 pm

Re: The Reason v Superstition Thread

Postby GranadaJoe » Fri Aug 12, 2016 8:49 am

DB10's reply contained quite a bit about comparative religion, but I expressly want to stay away from discussing religion.

At this stage I want to concentrate on 'belief'. i.e. Why believe in any god or gods?

My intention in mentioning the tens of thousands of different religions and their thousands of sub-sects was to highlight the improbability that any one of them is true. It then follows I think that it is reasonable to conclude that none of them are likely to be true.


The simple answer to the red bit is it gives many people "comfort" to believe there is a greater power at work and that their lifeforce isn't just extinguished (most people have difficulty with the concept of mortality).

The blue bit above is another classic inaccuracy that many atheists postulate. Something being called by a different name in a different culture does not "prove" only one (or none) of those things can exist. Excuse the overly-simplistic example but, a car is a car. One car is a Nissan, another a Ford. Does that mean one of them must be named incorrectly and thus none can exist?

Also;

:tumbleweed:


:wink:
How is the bit in blue 'inaccurate'? There are tens of thousands of religions and I never said it proved anything, just what it might be reasonable to conclude from it.

Could you shed some more light on the car analogy? I certainly don't disagree that a car is a car. Nor would I disagree that a religion is a religion.
Car and religion are words we use to describe things which share some characteristics, so by definition a car is a car.
What's your proposition? It sounds a bit like your saying things are things, which, while true, doesn't seem to explain anything.

User avatar
DB10GOONER
Posts: 41596
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:06 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland.
Contact:

Re: The Reason v Superstition Thread

Postby DB10GOONER » Fri Aug 12, 2016 9:33 am

DB10's reply contained quite a bit about comparative religion, but I expressly want to stay away from discussing religion.

At this stage I want to concentrate on 'belief'. i.e. Why believe in any god or gods?

My intention in mentioning the tens of thousands of different religions and their thousands of sub-sects was to highlight the improbability that any one of them is true. It then follows I think that it is reasonable to conclude that none of them are likely to be true.

The simple answer to the red bit is it gives many people "comfort" to believe there is a greater power at work and that their lifeforce isn't just extinguished (most people have difficulty with the concept of mortality).

The blue bit above is another classic inaccuracy that many atheists postulate. Something being called by a different name in a different culture does not "prove" only one (or none) of those things can exist. Excuse the overly-simplistic example but, a car is a car. One car is a Nissan, another a Ford. Does that mean one of them must be named incorrectly and thus none can exist?

Also;

:tumbleweed:


:wink:
How is the bit in blue 'inaccurate'? There are tens of thousands of religions and I never said it proved anything, just what it might be reasonable to conclude from it.

Could you shed some more light on the car analogy? I certainly don't disagree that a car is a car. Nor would I disagree that a religion is a religion.
Car and religion are words we use to describe things which share some characteristics, so by definition a car is a car.
What's your proposition? It sounds a bit like your saying things are things, which, while true, doesn't seem to explain anything.
I have to be honest I just cannot be fucked anymore. If you can't see the correlation between the car example and the religious sub-sect example then really that's your issue. This has just gotten so boring now. It's just going in circles. If you want any further input just read back through any of my previous posts on it.

Also, please learn to quote properly! :wink:

User avatar
enjibenji
Posts: 1175
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 1:56 pm

Re: The Reason v Superstition Thread

Postby enjibenji » Fri Aug 12, 2016 2:46 pm

I am very much a non believer and a huge skeptic of what is written when it comes to religion and the bible. I have my reasons for that and we could probably open a thread on that alone, but its important (well my view at least) that either side (believer/atheist) don't shove each others views down the others throats.

Religious views regardless of what side of the fence your on should be respected no matter what

User avatar
GranadaJoe
Posts: 2216
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:21 pm

Re: The Reason v Superstition Thread

Postby GranadaJoe » Fri Aug 12, 2016 5:53 pm

DB10's reply contained quite a bit about comparative religion, but I expressly want to stay away from discussing religion.

At this stage I want to concentrate on 'belief'. i.e. Why believe in any god or gods?

My intention in mentioning the tens of thousands of different religions and their thousands of sub-sects was to highlight the improbability that any one of them is true. It then follows I think that it is reasonable to conclude that none of them are likely to be true.

The simple answer to the red bit is it gives many people "comfort" to believe there is a greater power at work and that their lifeforce isn't just extinguished (most people have difficulty with the concept of mortality).

The blue bit above is another classic inaccuracy that many atheists postulate. Something being called by a different name in a different culture does not "prove" only one (or none) of those things can exist. Excuse the overly-simplistic example but, a car is a car. One car is a Nissan, another a Ford. Does that mean one of them must be named incorrectly and thus none can exist?

Also;

:tumbleweed:


:wink:
How is the bit in blue 'inaccurate'? There are tens of thousands of religions and I never said it proved anything, just what it might be reasonable to conclude from it.

Could you shed some more light on the car analogy? I certainly don't disagree that a car is a car. Nor would I disagree that a religion is a religion.
Car and religion are words we use to describe things which share some characteristics, so by definition a car is a car.
What's your proposition? It sounds a bit like your saying things are things, which, while true, doesn't seem to explain anything.
I have to be honest I just cannot be fucked anymore. If you can't see the correlation between the car example and the religious sub-sect example then really that's your issue. This has just gotten so boring now. It's just going in circles. If you want any further input just read back through any of my previous posts on it.

Also, please learn to quote properly! :wink:

If I learn to quote properly could you maybe answer the odd question?

I'm starting to think 'I can't be fucked', 'we're going in circles' etc are your shorthand for can't/won't answer the question at hand.

User avatar
GranadaJoe
Posts: 2216
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:21 pm

Re: The Reason v Superstition Thread

Postby GranadaJoe » Fri Aug 12, 2016 6:01 pm

I am very much a non believer and a huge skeptic of what is written when it comes to religion and the bible. I have my reasons for that and we could probably open a thread on that alone, but its important (well my view at least) that either side (believer/atheist) don't shove each others views down the others throats.

Religious views regardless of what side of the fence your on should be respected no matter what

I agree, I've said above that people are entitled to believe anything they want, but I think we should all be allowed to challenge each others beliefs and ideas. It's important to be respectful, but at the same time honest.

Nobody has to read or participate in this thread. It's just that I think it's important.

To try and keep things civil and not cause offence I've deliberately tried to keep the discussion on the topic of 'belief' not 'religion'.

Why do we believe what we believe, especially when there appears to be no reliable evidence to support those beliefs.? Why do people believe different things etc?

When we've exhausted the philosophical side of the argument I'll get round to religions. :D

User avatar
g88ner
Posts: 13626
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 8:17 pm

Re: The Reason v Superstition Thread

Postby g88ner » Fri Aug 12, 2016 7:44 pm

DB10's reply contained quite a bit about comparative religion, but I expressly want to stay away from discussing religion.

At this stage I want to concentrate on 'belief'. i.e. Why believe in any god or gods?

My intention in mentioning the tens of thousands of different religions and their thousands of sub-sects was to highlight the improbability that any one of them is true. It then follows I think that it is reasonable to conclude that none of them are likely to be true.


The simple answer to the red bit is it gives many people "comfort" to believe there is a greater power at work and that their lifeforce isn't just extinguished (most people have difficulty with the concept of mortality).

The blue bit above is another classic inaccuracy that many atheists postulate. Something being called by a different name in a different culture does not "prove" only one (or none) of those things can exist. Excuse the overly-simplistic example but, a car is a car. One car is a Nissan, another a Ford. Does that mean one of them must be named incorrectly and thus none can exist?

Also;

:tumbleweed:


:wink:
How is the bit in blue 'inaccurate'? There are tens of thousands of religions and I never said it proved anything, just what it might be reasonable to conclude from it.

Could you shed some more light on the car analogy? I certainly don't disagree that a car is a car. Nor would I disagree that a religion is a religion.
Car and religion are words we use to describe things which share some characteristics, so by definition a car is a car.
What's your proposition? It sounds a bit like your saying things are things, which, while true, doesn't seem to explain anything.
To be fair to DB10, I'm not suprised he's lost interest after that response, Granada! :shock: :? :lol: I felt myself losing the will to live reading your response too :suicide: :lol:

It's bleedin' obvious what DB10 meant and I'm sure you know it :wink:

I'm all for discussion and debate but this thread comes across more as an excuse to make fun of and patronise people of faith and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that really :? maybe it's just me who thinks that, but I think anyone would be nuts to debate their faith on this thread with you as you bat everything away without even attempting to understand their point of view. You're to relgious debate what USMartin is to discussions relating to the Arsenal board... and that ain't a good place to be Granada! :shock: :lol:

Anyway, you're clearly the serpent trying to tempt us with your juicy fruit :shock: but just because you're going to hell doesn't make it right to drag the rest of us with you! :cussing: :D

User avatar
GranadaJoe
Posts: 2216
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:21 pm

Re: The Reason v Superstition Thread

Postby GranadaJoe » Sat Aug 13, 2016 8:57 am

DB10's reply contained quite a bit about comparative religion, but I expressly want to stay away from discussing religion.

At this stage I want to concentrate on 'belief'. i.e. Why believe in any god or gods?

My intention in mentioning the tens of thousands of different religions and their thousands of sub-sects was to highlight the improbability that any one of them is true. It then follows I think that it is reasonable to conclude that none of them are likely to be true.


The simple answer to the red bit is it gives many people "comfort" to believe there is a greater power at work and that their lifeforce isn't just extinguished (most people have difficulty with the concept of mortality).

The blue bit above is another classic inaccuracy that many atheists postulate. Something being called by a different name in a different culture does not "prove" only one (or none) of those things can exist. Excuse the overly-simplistic example but, a car is a car. One car is a Nissan, another a Ford. Does that mean one of them must be named incorrectly and thus none can exist?

Also;

:tumbleweed:


:wink:
How is the bit in blue 'inaccurate'? There are tens of thousands of religions and I never said it proved anything, just what it might be reasonable to conclude from it.

Could you shed some more light on the car analogy? I certainly don't disagree that a car is a car. Nor would I disagree that a religion is a religion.
Car and religion are words we use to describe things which share some characteristics, so by definition a car is a car.
What's your proposition? It sounds a bit like your saying things are things, which, while true, doesn't seem to explain anything.
To be fair to DB10, I'm not suprised he's lost interest after that response, Granada! :shock: :? :lol: I felt myself losing the will to live reading your response too :suicide: :lol:

It's bleedin' obvious what DB10 meant and I'm sure you know it :wink:

I'm all for discussion and debate but this thread comes across more as an excuse to make fun of and patronise people of faith and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that really :? maybe it's just me who thinks that, but I think anyone would be nuts to debate their faith on this thread with you as you bat everything away without even attempting to understand their point of view. You're to relgious debate what USMartin is to discussions relating to the Arsenal board... and that ain't a good place to be Granada! :shock: :lol:

Anyway, you're clearly the serpent trying to tempt us with your juicy fruit :shock: but just because you're going to hell doesn't make it right to drag the rest of us with you! :cussing: :D

If DB10 was arguing that 'all religions are basically the same' then he had already made that point in previous posts, but without saying why or on what basis he believed that. That's why I wanted to be clear what he meant, rather than just assume. I'd already explained why I thought that that view was wrong.

I really have been trying to keep the points to questions of 'belief' rather than 'religion' because I know it can be a sensitive topic for some people.

I'll try harder in the next post.

I know (I hope) the US Martin comparison was in jest.
I didn't have a problem with him expressing his views. It was his hijacking of every thread to express them that was out of order.
I've deliberately started a thread to discuss this, so nobody has see any of it if they don't want to.
If someone thinks cricket's boring, don't read the cricket thread. If someone is sensitive about religion or just think this thread is boring, then don't read it.
Last edited by GranadaJoe on Sat Aug 13, 2016 9:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
GranadaJoe
Posts: 2216
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:21 pm

Re: The Reason v Superstition Thread

Postby GranadaJoe » Sat Aug 13, 2016 9:14 am

Just about all religions have a concept of 'heaven' and 'hell', but is it possible they exist?

Some religions define it more than others but in all of them it is a place of bliss for all those chosen to be allowed in.

There is clearly no evidence, but could this even be possible?

If everybody was allowed in then it is logically possible. We could all share eternal bliss together.

Clearly I'm not going there, but imagine you did lots of good deeds or repented of your sins and got to ascend to heaven. You will be there for eternity. But will you be truly happy for ever?

Count all your family, friends and loved ones (and for those with altruistic feelings, people in general).

If just one of them doesn't get into heaven they will be roasting away down below, suffering eternal torment. How will you feel about that? Could be be happy when you know that for every moment of bliss you enjoy, you're sister, mother or daughter are in agony?

Logically, heaven could exist, but I don't think there is anyway that it could be the lovely, fluffy 'blissful' place it is described as.

User avatar
the playing mantis
Posts: 2404
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:36 pm
Location: EX

Re: The Reason v Superstition Thread

Postby the playing mantis » Thu Aug 18, 2016 11:05 am

I blame the board

A11M11
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 12:07 am

Re: The Reason v Superstition Thread

Postby A11M11 » Thu Aug 18, 2016 10:24 pm

Milligan , I think, said that Hell exists and we are living in it.

User avatar
Nos89
Posts: 2470
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:44 am

Re: The Reason v Superstition Thread

Postby Nos89 » Sat Aug 20, 2016 1:29 am

A bit disappointed with this thread. I thought it was about superstition. I saw 6 magpies on Tuesday, immediately bought a Euro lottery ticket and I didn't win. Hoping someone could explain the reason why that particular superstition didn't work?

Is it because I don't believe enough or believe too much?
Or should I not believe at all?


Return to “The Cannonballs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot] and 3 guests