Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because Satan appears in the same text . . .It's not as though he was invented recently to solve the problem of cognitive dissonance. That might have been part of the original formation of Satan as a concept but it doesn't apply to modern fundamentalists because they believe in the literal existance of both God and Satan based on a single text.
But even then, we do not know.
Originally posted by Mandos
I don't have any evidence that he is, and you have no arguments to state he isn't... that's what we've been concluding for two pages now...
actually, if you read my first reply to will, there is plenty of reason to think he isn't.
For instance, poverty can be explained very eloquently by way of economic theory and historological analysis. These causes can be tested and policy can be designed to eliminate it.
From all lines of evidence available, poverty is caused by human interaction in the economy. There are no members of a specific religious faith that are more or less afflicted by poverty in a way explainable by religious faith.
if it really were satan, the odds are we could NOT so easily say these things. No, its not a 100% perfect negation (which is impossible in any rational evidence gathering exercise anyways) but what it does show is that the Satan hypothesis for the cause of poverty fais to explain things even marginally as accurately as anything else, and thus should be rejected.
Since you have no real evidence to say otherwise, your rationalizations are most likely cognitive dissonance, as Satan not being the cause (or the idea of a non-benevolent God) are incongruent with your current world view.
Given known neurological mechanisms, the rational, thinking, parts of your brain are NEVER activated when you see conflicting evidence to your beliefs, and the system equivalent to a drug fix activates when you affirm what you believe, its actually pretty rational to believe that the better of an argument I make to show you you are actually wrong here (which you factually are) the more cognitive dissonance you experience and the more you will seek to affirm what you already know.
and that last part has been observed in experimental settings too 🙂
god hasn't
ever
Originally posted by willofthewisp
Thank you, Mandos. That is my point. There are people in the world that think it is utterly stupid to believe in a higher being, yet their beliefs cannot be completely verified, either.But science isn't cruel. Not all us Christians fear science.
Please don't think that I think you're stupid for believing, because i don't .
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because Satan appears in the same text . . .It's not as though he was invented recently to solve the problem of cognitive dissonance. That might have been part of the original formation of Satan as a concept but it doesn't apply to modern fundamentalists because they believe in the literal existance of both God and Satan based on a single text.
cognitive dissonance being in this case:
1) I believe in a benevolent God who care about his followers
2) Christians have no special place in the world and suffer as much as even those who don't believe
where 1) and 2) are both true in the mind of the believer, but cannot both be true at the same time. Yes, satan is an old meme (and without question not the first "evil doer" meme to fill this roll) but that experience is going to be there for all followers at all times. Why there is evil needs to be justified to each person in any generation
(and please note, I'm not talking about christians using satan to manipulate their followers. To put it far more complexly than necessary, groups of people with an "evil doer" meme would be more productive because of less cognitive dissonance and thus would have spread by the natural "meaning seeking" parts of our brains)
Originally posted by inimalist
actually, if you read my first reply to will, there is plenty of reason to think he isn't.For instance, poverty can be explained very eloquently by way of economic theory and histological analysis. These causes can be tested and policy can be designed to eliminate it.
From all lines of evidence available, poverty is caused by human interaction in the economy. There are no members of a specific religious faith that are more or less afflicted by poverty in a way explainable by religious faith.
if it really were satan, the odds are we could NOT so easily say these things. No, its not a 100% perfect negation (which is impossible in any rational evidence gathering exercise anyways) but what it does show is that the Satan hypothesis for the cause of poverty fais to explain things even marginally as accurately as anything else, and thus should be rejected.
Since you have no real evidence to say otherwise, your rationalizations are most likely cognitive dissonance, as Satan not being the cause (or the idea of a non-benevolent God) are incongruent with your current world view.
Given known neurological mechanisms, the rational, thinking, parts of your brain are NEVER activated when you see conflicting evidence to your beliefs, and the system equivalent to a drug fix activates when you affirm what you believe, its actually pretty rational to believe that the better of an argument I make to show you you are actually wrong here (which you factually are) the more cognitive dissonance you experience and the more you will seek to affirm what you already know.
and that last part has been observed in experimental settings too 🙂
god hasn't
ever
I've learned this in psychology, but I want you to understand. Anything you might possibly say, every reasoning that can come out, is automatically negated for the oine who has faith in God and beleives in the Bible. It's not because you can't prove it that it's not there. As infuriating as it can be, it's the truth, and neither me nor you can do anything about it.
And it's not so much as cognitive dissonance than pure faith. I'm not a true beleiver. There is still much I don't understand, but I don't exclude this possibility like you. It's scientifically wrong to do so.
Originally posted by inimalist
cognitive dissonance being in this case:1) I believe in a benevolent God who care about his followers
2) Christians have no special place in the world and suffer as much as even those who don't believe
where 1) and 2) are both true in the mind of the believer, but cannot both be true at the same time. Yes, satan is an old meme (and without question not the first "evil doer" meme to fill this roll) but that experience is going to be there for all followers at all times. Why there is evil needs to be justified to each person in any generation
(and please note, I'm not talking about christians using satan to manipulate their followers. To put it far more complexly than necessary, groups of people with an "evil doer" meme would be more productive because of less cognitive dissonance and thus would have spread by the natural "meaning seeking" parts of our brains)
But doesn't the presence of Satan beforehand mean that he adresses cognitive dissonance in the system (rather than the believer) and leave the believer with a, technically, legitimate way to explain why bad things happen?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But doesn't the presence of Satan beforehand mean that he adresses cognitive dissonance in the system (rather than the believer) and leave the believer with a, technically, legitimate way to explain why bad things happen?
ok, you mean the sort of chicken and egg thing
yes, but the person would still need to seek that answer, if only momentarily, when they see evil happen.
Originally posted by inimalist
lolno, its the exact same argument as post-modernism
whats weird is how religious people don't see how it is entirely damning to their beliefs.
one day they'll get it im sure...
You can't really blame them. For example, back in the time of our grandparents, they were all living in small communauties, preaching their only religion. Then other cultures came, with others. That created a sentiment of distress and misunderstanding. What we have now is only a consequence of this past time.
Originally posted by Mandos
Mmmmm, I think you aren't reading the posts carefully when jumping to such conclusions, not that those little attacks towards me affect my will to discuss. You however seem fixated on translating all «i saty and do in a bad way, a commoin action made mostly by politician and people who do not know much on a subject but still wants to continue babbling about it. If you wish to continue with me, I wouls ask that you expand your views and be less stubborn. It is good to defend your point, but it's not sane for the discussion to close your mind to all others.And for everyone else, never have I took any condescending tones on you, and if you've ever felt that, then I am deeply sorry.
Erm, I didn't say you were condescending. Taking the moral high road only works if your opponent was actually the instigator of animosity. I called you out on what I thought were flawed points, but fail to see any personal insinuation.
And open my mind to what? I'm addressing the opposition's points. The only more open I could be was if I agreed with them, which I don't. It's also a great political tactic not to address your opponent's points, but to attack their character...that's about all I could think of when I read this post, and chuckled at your misplaced political analogy.
Also, curious what this means: "You however seem fixated on translating all «i saty" I'm not even sure how to produce the symbol on a keyboard that precedes the 'i'
The last post that was about determinism/free will between the two of us was from me. I'm waiting for an intelligent reply that doesn't go into a tangent or attack me rather than my opinion.
Cheers.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Also, curious what this means: "You however seem fixated on translating all «i saty" I'm not even sure how to produce the symbol on a keyboard that precedes the 'i'
Guessing: "You, however, seem fixated on translating all I say and do in a bad way."
The "left-pointing double angle quotation mark" is created on Windows with Alt+0171
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Guessing: "You, however, seem fixated on translating all I say and do in a bad way."The "left-pointing double angle quotation mark" is created on Windows with Alt+0171
Good to know. The whole sentence had me confused. Guess I fixated on the typo and couldn't discern a meaning from it.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
2 words. negetive evidence.russel's teacup, the invisible purple unicorn, the flying spaghetti monster
none can be disproven, and yet, is that any reaosn to think that they are real. its a logical fallacy me thinks.
Is anyone actually proposing they are real?
Is anyone claiming to have seen/heard/felt/met with any of the things you have mentioned?
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Is anyone actually proposing they are real?Is anyone claiming to have seen/heard/felt/met with any of the things you have mentioned?
No, but the list of deities and forces that people have claimed to feel is equally as impressive, and just as nonsensical.
Funny that you use the word "feel" btw. I doubt anyone ahs "met" Jesus except in a metaphorical sense (they 'felt' him). So you're basing your belief off of an intuitive assumption. Our intuitions and senses are some of the most notoriously unreliable faculties known to us, but people are willing to bet all on a faith that has no rational backing. Others have faith and feelings, equally as strong, in other deities. Or no deities. What does that say about their feelings? Or yours?
Originally posted by DigiMark007
No, but the list of deities and forces that people have claimed to feel is equally as impressive, and just as nonsensical.Funny that you use the word "feel" btw. I doubt anyone ahs "met" Jesus except in a metaphorical sense (they 'felt' him). So you're basing your belief off of an intuitive assumption. Our intuitions and senses are some of the most notoriously unreliable faculties known to us, but people are willing to bet all on a faith that has no rational backing. Others have faith and feelings, equally as strong, in other deities. Or no deities. What does that say about their feelings? Or yours?
Can they prove that?